“You’ve gotta be cruel to be kind in the right measure

Cruel to be kind, it’s a very good sign

Cruel to be kind means that I love you, baby

You’ve gotta be cruel to be kind”.

Nick Lowe, from the album Labour of Lust – 1979.

On 25th June, the UK Government published the long-awaited Conversion Practices Draft Bill.  The stated aim is to create new offences “in relation to the carrying out of abusive conversion practices on individuals”, on the grounds of sexuality or ‘gender’ identification.  This ignores the reality that abusive practices – physical, sexual, psychological, emotional and financial – are already illegal in this country.

It is evident to me that those behind the draft Conversion Practices Bill are entirely unconcerned about its long-term impact on confused and vulnerable children and young people.  The main aim, quite obviously, is to silence young people’s stories, shut down any exploration of the possible underlying causes of their distress, and ensure that the ‘trans’ train continues moving forward, without delay or diversion, and with as many passengers onboard as possible.

Here, I will concentrate solely on the aspects of this Bill which relate to ‘gender identity’ and the danger these pose. 

First, I will outline three main areas of concern relating to the Bill. I will then set out – in the form of several composite case studies – the kinds of situation which arise in real life, in which a responsible adult might be expected to take a lead, ‘containing’ and explaining, but which might in future leave that adult open to criminal proceedings.

What the Bill does not say

There are three important truths, entirely overlooked in the draft Bill, but which are vital to take into consideration.

1.     The Bill legislates around a belief system, which is not shared by most ordinary people, and which has no basis in fact or objective, observable truth.  It takes for granted that human beings have a separate ‘gender identity’, and that its importance outweighs biological sex.  To cause an individual “to believe that they have or do not have, a transgender identity or a particular transgender identity” allows no provision for the majority who don’t believe in the concept at all, and whose ‘gender critical’ beliefs are already protected in law.  To illustrate the absurdity of this, imagine attempting to legislate that believers in the Holy Trinity must always be ‘affirmed’. That provision would rest upon universal, unquestioning acceptance of Christian doctrine, or would otherwise be meaningless.  History tells us that policing private belief, and the freedom to speak freely about it, does not end well.

2.    This Bill does not differentiate between children and adults.  This should come as no surprise, based as it is upon the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy (MoU), a document most recently updated in July 2024, and signed by thirty or so organisations and public bodies involved in health care and therapy.  The MoU takes no account of age or immaturity, which led the UK Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP) to withdraw its support two years ago, over concerns around child safeguarding.  No consideration is given to child development, or how the emergence of ‘identity’ is an ongoing process, influenced by many different factors which can change over time. The idea that adults – many with vested interests – should unquestioningly ‘affirm’ a child’s belief about who they are at any given point is highly irresponsible.  When this ‘affirmation’ can lead directly to irreversible modification of a healthy body, through drugs, hormones and surgery, it is inexcusable – and wicked.  Adults have a responsibility to safeguard and protect children – from themselves, if necessary – which this Bill entirely overlooks.

3.    The Bill is evidently based on the assertion that no ‘gender identity’ is ‘inherently preferable to any other’ – a position adopted by many organisations, under the influence of activists.  According to the MoU, “conversion therapy” includes “a therapeutic approach, or any model or individual viewpoint that demonstrates an assumption” that one particular ‘gender identity’ might be preferable to another.  This completely ignores the terrible physical, mental and emotional damage suffered by those trying to live as someone they can never be, and the fundamental difference between biological sex and a cosmetic approximation of that sex.  It is self-evidently better to make peace with physical reality, and to live with body, mind and spirit fully integrated, than to live a life of pretence, based on a delusion or ‘over-valued belief’, which requires life-long medical intervention.

Real effects, in real time

There is no such mythical being as a ‘trans child’.  There are, however, many distressed young people who have been convinced by others – activists, social media and peer group pressure – that their pain can be alleviated by adopting a different ‘gender identity’, or accepting that they were ‘born in the wrong body’.

This Bill is likely to foreclose legitimate and necessary enquiry into a young person’s backstory.  Many may think that the draft legislation protects health care professionals, “unless the person acts in a way that falls far below the standards reasonably expected of a person in their position”. This protection is extraordinarily flimsy, as acceptance of the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy is required of professionals registered with membership bodies for the psychological professions, and adherence to it is regarded as ethical practice.  What constitute “reasonable standards” are certainly going to be up for discussion.  Professional malpractice can easily be redefined.

Parents, teachers, youth workers and religious leaders will have no defence, should they wish to challenge any aspect of a young person’s ‘gender identity’.  In other words, those who know a young person best, and who may have legitimate questions and concerns, could be accused of ‘conversion practice’ if they are perceived to be applying “psychological or emotional pressure”, which of course is entirely subjective. Refusing to pay for ‘gender-affirming treatment’ could amount to “financial pressure”.

An offence is committed if someone’s behaviour causes “serious harm to the individual’s mental health”, or “serious alarm or distress to the individual which has a substantial adverse effect on their usual day-to-day activities”.  Again, unlike physical harm, this is entirely subjective, and anyone who has worked with trans-identifying young people will confirm how  convinced they can be of their ‘gender identity’ (until suddenly they are not), and how easily offence is taken at any suggestion that things might be a little more complex.  Often, their ‘mental health’ is already very fragile.  ‘Transphobic’ is very easily thrown around.  This could soon lead to prosecution.

Here are some illustrations, in which the dangers of shutting down discussion become obvious.

1.     A counsellor is supporting Chiara, who identifies as a lesbian.  Chiara isn’t sure whether or not she has been raped.  In response to the counsellor’s questions, the girl explains that she is in a relationship with a ‘trans girl’, and she was expecting a “lesbian encounter”. What she then describes is, in fact, heterosexual intercourse with a young man. Chiara had consented to sexual activity but not to “that”.  The counsellor asked if they had used any form of contraception. “No”, answered the girl… “a trans girl is a girl and two girls can’t make a baby”, although she conceded that her partner has a “girl dick”.  The suggestion that her partner was biologically male immediately elicited an angry denial and accusations that the counsellor was both homophobic and transphobic – denying that Chiara was a lesbian, and also denying that her ‘trans’ partner was a girl.  Chiara demonstrated “serious alarm and distress”. Was that counsellor doing due diligence, or falling short of  “standards reasonably expected”, and likely to end up in court under the provisions of this draft Bill?

2.     Tom has always liked animals.  As a young teenager, he sometimes found himself wishing that he was an animal.  It would be so much easier – there wouldn’t  be all those social signals to read.  He’s worried that he’s autistic – he’s done a couple of tests on social media.  He doesn’t go out much and spends most of his time gaming online, and has created an animal avatar.  Recently he’s been playing against other ‘animals’.  One of them has a full animal costume, apparently – a super-realistic ‘fur suit’.  He also has a ‘fursonality’. Tom now believes he was ‘born in the wrong body’ and into the wrong species entirely.  He is in fact, ‘fox gender’ – because he is playful and likes the outdoors. He wants to be called Silvano – because it derives from the Latin for woods. Under the provisions of the draft Bill, ‘transgender identity’ includes circumstances in which “the individual identifies as neither male nor female or not solely male or female”.  Would someone disabusing Tom of the idea that he is an animal, and treating him as one mixed-up boy, possibly being groomed and urgently in need of safe-guarding, fall foul of the law in future?

3.     Esther repeatedly asks her mother how she can get a prescription for testosterone.  She is ‘trans’ – and she ‘just knows’ she would be happier as a boy.  How does she know this?  Because she doesn’t like being ogled by men – she particularly doesn’t like the way her dad enjoys seeing her eyed-up-and-down by his friends.  If she had a beard, that would serve him right. She’s also very self-conscious about her large breasts and would perhaps like ‘top surgery’.  Her figure reminds her of her own mother, who she feels is downtrodden and disrespected by her father. She doesn’t want to be that person – she’s repeatedly asked her mother why she stays.  Testosterone would also give Esther a deep voice, and people might actually listen to her. It would also mean that she could be feminine – maybe even “like a gay boy” – without attracting heterosexual boys’ attention.  Her mother talks to a friend about this.  The friend is convinced that Esther is not ‘trans’ and suggests finding a therapist to explore these issues the girl.  Would this count as “encouraging or assisting” someone in ‘conversion practice’?

4.     Shaun is a teenager, living with his mother and his sister.  He is a “boys’ boy” and plays a lot of football.  His mother and sister are concerned about him, though, as he has become quite withdrawn and secretive at home, and spends a lot of time in his bedroom.  Shaun is, in fact, watching a lot of pornography, which he finds titillating and terrifying in equal measure.  To cope, he will suddenly shut down his laptop and go and lie on his mother’s bed.  It feels calm there – it smells nice.  He can hear his mother and sister chatting and laughing downstairs.  He feels shame – and longing.  He doesn’t know how a man should be. He doesn’t want to do the things that he’s seen online to women – he likes women – but it seems that that’s what it means to be a man.  After all, his mates introduced him to it. He thinks it would be so much easier to be a girl.  After a shower, he scrapes his hair back and tentatively tries on some of his sister’s make-up.  Someone completely different looks back at him.  He smiles.  That person looks cool.  The following day, he doesn’t watch porn, but looks for videos about transitioning.  There are so many.  Next week, in school, he tells his tutor – also his football coach – that he is, in fact a girl, and wants to ’socially transition’ and be known as Shauna.  Shaun’s tutor desperately wants answers – but if he challenges this, and refers to him as being ‘one of the lads’, could he be found guilty of applying “psychological or emotional pressure”?

The cases above are composite and anonymised – but all aspects of the accounts are real, and have come up in the counselling room.

Rather than listening to a young person’s story, acknowledging their suffering, and finding a healthy route back to wholeness, careless ‘affirmation’ would offer only a superficial solution, fraught with danger, and leading to an outcome which is anything but ‘authentic’.

This clearly demonstrates quite how unworkable this draft Bill is.  It makes a mockery of safeguarding and child protection and risks criminalising almost anyone who refuses to accept highly contested gender ideology and actually support young people through turbulent teenage years.

That, of course, is the intention.  What else would explain the reluctance to open up these radical and pernicious ideas to scrutiny?