Owen Exie Hurcum

The UK needs to ban conversion therapy. Of course it does. However, the UK’s recently published draft bill for the purpose of imposing such a ban fails in its stated aspiration. One of the main failings of the ban, that queer activists have already pointed out, is the fact it contains exceptions and exemptions which permit abuse to continue so long as they are claimed as ‘healthcare’. This fundamental flaw is why many LGBTQ+ individuals and our allies have promptly, and correctly, stated that this draft bill is in fact not a ban.

On the surface it is no wonder such a fundamental flaw exists in the draft bill. The bill has to accommodate the fact that the UK Government itself operates a form of ‘conversion therapy’ at a national scale through its state mandated programme of forced detransition for trans youth. This exemption therefore has to exist. If it didn’t, the NHS would be liable to be found guilty of ‘conversion practice abuse’ under the terms found in the rest of the draft bill owing to their refusal to prescribe puberty blockers for trans youth despite this being international best practice in transgender adolescent health.  

However, the flaws of the bill go deeper than this. I strongly believe the wording of the bill, as well as accommodating the UKs systematic conversion abuse of trans youth, has been carefully crafted to make any form of trans affirmations liable to a prosecution as an ‘abusive conversion practice’. Or at the very least to create a culture of fear of being prosecuted when it comes to gender affirmations.

As the UK is an overtly transphobic nation, under a ‘Red Flag’ alert for genocidal intent against trans people issued by the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention, it’s little wonder I do not beleive that this Labour Government would pass any legislation which would make their trans eliminationsim harder to accomplish. In fact, I believe any legislation drafted by the Labour Party to do with trans people is designed to further their extirpative aims. Including this so-called ban.  

In Section 1 of the draft bill it includes this clause in its definition of ‘conversion practice’; “causing the individual (i) to have or not to have, (ii) to believe that they have or do not have, a transgender identity or a particular transgender identity’. In black and white the UK government is announcing that it considers causing someone to be transgender, or causing someone to believe themselves to be transgender, to be a form of conversion practice. Considering what the UK Government has previously stated in relation to what they think causes people to be trans, this definition of conversion practice is deeply deeply worrying.

If we look back to the Cass Review, for example, it is evident throughout that the UK Government has accepted an idea that transness is a type of ‘social contagion’ (despite a clear lack of any genuine evidence for this). Turning to page 122 of the Final Report we read “Peer influence during this stage of life is very powerful. As well as the influence of social media, the Review has heard accounts of female students forming intense friendships with other gender-questioning or transgender students at school, and then identifying as trans themselves”. As this report was accepted by the Labour government, and because it has already dictated national policy, it should be clear that the government agrees with this sentiment.

The transgender trend sentiment of the UK Government can be further evidenced in their Guidance for Gender Question Children they published for consultation in 2023. On page 10, the guidance advises that schools should ascertain if “the child [has] been influenced by peers or social media?” before accepting their request for a social transition. Once again demonstrating a clear belief in social contagion theory and the idea that people can somehow cause other people to become trans.

So what we have now is a piece of legislation that considers ‘causing people to be/believe they are trans’ a type of conversion practice, and government with a consistent jurisprudential belief that trans people existing on social media or in friend groups, which we can fairly extrapolate into ‘the general existence and acceptance of trans people in society’, is what causes people to become trans. Can you see the danger yet!?

When acts of acceptance are redefined as causal to transgender identity rather than an empathetic (and correct) reaction, in a country looking to define trans causations as conversion therapy, we arrive at a deeply uncomfortable situation. Imagine, for example, a trans kid who is closeted at home comes out to their teacher, the teacher accepts their trans identity, the parents find out, the teacher is accused of causing the child to be/believe they are transgender, and as a non-healthcare professional the teacher is prosecuted for conversion practice abuse. Or another example, an adult fully consents to transition on the NHS and then later detransitions. They decide that the NHS caused them to believe they are transgender and partook in conversion practice abuse (of course it is only the tiniest minority of detransitioners who turn to this grift, but whenever one does it becomes a viral anti-trans news story). The ‘healthcare exemption’ only goes so far, as outlined in Section 3 of the draft bill. If the anti-trans grifter persuades the relevant authorities that their NHS care fell “far below the standards reasonably expected” and that the NHS caused “serious harm to the individual’s physical or mental health” with the gender affirming care they received, then, as per the draft bill, the NHS is legally liable. Considering public opinion on NHS provision of gender affirming care is at an all time low, and how the media reacts when the NHS is accused of rushing ahead with transgender care, do we really think that nobody is going to try and accuse the NHS of conversion abuse should this draft bill be passed as is? 

Of course these are but two hypothetical potentials, and you might even think they are a little ridiculous. Though I would caution against dismissing them on the grounds of “oh that will never happen” considering every anti-trans advancement in the UK for the last 10 years was also ‘never going to happen’ despite the persistent warnings from trans people that they will. Furthermore, I think the hypothetical is the point. It’s not necessarily about ensuring that every act of gender affirmation can be prosecuted, but about creating a culture of fear that any act just might be. Therefore creating a de facto ban on gender affirmations as people become worried their shows of support will be twisted into acts of conversion abuse by the ant-trans lobby and national news media.

The UK needs to ban conversion therapy. Of course it does. However the draft bill is not only unfit for purpose, but as it stands it has the potential to be weaponised against trans people. And, on TERF Island, that potential will always be realised. So what do we do now? We do what we have always had to do. We keep existing, we keep being trans, and we fight like hell. As of now the bill is still in draft form, there is a chance we can change the wording to be a genuine ban. Pressure your MP to make this happen. Write to them to explain the glaring flaws of the ban, demand better and demand they act to do so.