Protect children from radical gender ideology
In 2018, Theresa May pledged to end so-called conversion therapy. In 2020, Boris Johnson promised to ban it after a government study into its prevalence. In 2022, he decided against a legal ban, then rapidly backtracked but said the legislation would not include “trans” conversion therapy.
In January this year, Rishi Sunak’s Government committed to bringing forward a “trans inclusive” ban. Over the summer, these plans were delayed, but last week it emerged that a Conversion Practices Bill was being considered for the King’s Speech.
Confused? Me too. But given the complexity of the issues and the strength of feeling on both sides, it is perhaps unsurprising that successive administrations have blown with the wind.
The sorts of things that people think of as “gay conversion therapy” include electric shock treatment and physical abuse, appalling practices that were shamefully and indefensibly used against homosexuals in the past. But these abuses are, thankfully, already illegal through existing legislation that covers sexual abuse, coercion, and grievous bodily harm.
In conversation, ministers have been unable to provide a worked example of a single additional conversion practice that they wish to outlaw, but campaigners continue to press the Government to introduce a new ban on “trans” conversion therapy.
Judging by the results of similar efforts elsewhere, this could result in a series of dreadful unintended consequences.
In Canada, for example, legislation was recently introduced creating an offence of causing a person to undergo “a practice, treatment or service designed to... change a person’s gender identity to cisgender”.
Canadian parents who want to seek help for children experiencing distress about their gender could now risk prosecution and jail sentences. In Victoria, Australia, it is now a criminal offence for a parent to refuse a child’s request for puberty blockers or “gender-affirming” care.
Over the past few years, much has been revealed about the harms done to vulnerable children by such treatments, including the permanent loss of fertility and sexual function.
From the ongoing scandal of the Tavistock clinic to the discovery that schools – still without government guidance on how to handle issues of gender identity – have been socially transitioning children, it is increasingly clear that children need to be protected from radical gender ideology.
Against this background, it would be sheer foolishness to bring in a law that could prevent parents and doctors from protecting children from making irreversible choices.
Proponents of the Bill claim that it can be drafted to avoid these consequences. But even if this is possible, legislation can be amended as it makes its way through Parliament, and these amendments are not within the Government’s control.
Campaigners have called for “conversion therapy protection orders”, which would give courts the authority to remove a child from their parents if deemed at risk of so-called “conversion practices”.
We have already seen cases of British parents who refuse to “transition” their children being referred to social services. If such orders were to be included in the Bill, it could prevent parents from even talking to their children about gender and sexuality.
It is frankly unthinkable that a Conservative government could import a “Stonewall charter” into criminal legislation purely to appease activists. The law is the foundation of our fundamental freedoms. It must never be used for political virtue signalling.
There are those who argue that we should bring in a ban now ahead of a potential Labour government so that we can legislate on our own terms. But the duty of a conservative is to hold the line; not to breach it less badly than our opponents.
A Conversion Practices Bill would have a chilling effect on free speech and on our voters – which is a doubly unwise course of action before a general election.
Miriam Cates is the Conservative MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge