It is difficult to imagine a more troubling piece of legislation than the draft Conversion Practices Bill, which would make it a criminal offence to try to change someone’s sexual orientation or transgender identity.
At first glance, the proposal may appear entirely reasonable.
After all, the phrase ‘conversion therapy’ evokes horrific practices such as subjecting gay men to electric shocks in an attempt to ‘cure’ them, or the so-called ‘corrective rape’ of lesbians.
But those acts have long been illegal in Britain. The conduct targeted by the proposed Bill is far more broadly and vaguely described, creating obvious scope for the law to be used by activists against people who have done nothing criminal.
The wording refers to ‘controlling or coercive words or behaviour’, ‘economic pressure’, ‘psychological or emotional pressure’ and, ominously, unspecified ‘other things’.
The problem is that several of these descriptions could apply to ordinary parenting.
A parent who stops a teenager spending time with certain friends or takes away their phone is, in the literal sense, exercising control and coercion. If such conduct amounts to abuse, almost every responsible parent could potentially be caught.
The Government should not dictate how law-abiding parents bring up their children. Families should not have to fear that an argument at home could eventually become a police matter.
When people hear the term ‘conversion therapy’, they think of horrific practices such as electric shocks or ‘corrective rape’. But those acts have long been illegal in Britain, says Andrew Doyle
Doyle argues that the proposed law could be used by activists against people who have done nothing criminal
This is the nanny state at its most intrusive, and the consequences could be severe: the proposed offence carries a maximum prison sentence of five years.
Giving evidence to the parliamentary committee examining the legislation last week, respected barrister Dennis Kavanagh noted that the Bill borrows its terminology from legislation dealing with coercive control in adult relationships.
As Kavanagh explained: ‘Reference to controlling and coercive words and behaviour belongs nowhere near thinking about family life. We control our children on occasion, and we have to coerce them.’
Anyone familiar with family life understands this. Most people remember the intense arguments of their teenage years, when even well-meaning disagreements with parents could quickly turn into tantrums.
Yet the Bill would not shield parents from prosecution simply because they meant no harm. The key questions would be whether they were attempting to change a child’s sexual orientation or ‘gender identity’, and whether their actions crossed an undefined threshold of ‘abuse’.
Consider a teenage girl who says she is ‘non-binary’—neither male nor female. A parent might honestly tell her that they believe human beings are biologically male or female, and might decline to use ‘they’ and ‘them’ pronouns. The disagreement could cause genuine distress. The child might subsequently truant from school or self-harm, but neither consequence would automatically prove that the parent had behaved abusively.
If Labour’s Bill becomes law, however, disputes of this kind could find their way into the courts. That is what makes the draft legislation so concerning.
The Government says the measure is intended to outlaw abusive practices. But Akua Reindorf KC and Baroness Falkner, a former chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, warn in a new report that it could have much broader consequences.
YOU MAY ALSO READ: Vast untouched island half the size of Hong Kong up for sale – and it’s at the ‘end of the world’ – NewsFinale
They point to the tendency among some trans activists to regard ‘misgendering’—using pronouns linked to a person’s biological sex rather than their more fluid ‘gender identity’—as abusive.
The pair also cite a 2026 report from the hardline LGBT charity Galop, which the Government referenced in its own ‘impact assessment’. The report lists the ‘intentional refusal to use a chosen name or pronouns’ as an example of a ‘conversion practice’.
The draft Bill’s definition of ‘transgender identity’ is so expansive that it could cover hundreds of alternative gender labels, including, as the Mail reported this week, ‘catgender’.
That prospect is not quite as far-fetched as it may sound. In June 2023, an audio recording from Rye College in East Sussex went viral after a teacher was heard reprimanding two Year 8 girls for questioning the idea that another pupil could identify as a cat.
Similar stories later emerged from other schools. One pupil was said to identify as a dinosaur, another as a horse, while a third reportedly wore a cape to lessons and demanded to be called a moon.
These cases may be unusual, but they demonstrate how contested the concept of ‘gender identity’ can be. Labour’s draft Conversion Practices Bill offers no clear resolution to those ambiguities.
More concerning still, it could expose parents to criminal prosecution for refusing to ‘affirm’ identities their children have adopted.
These issues deserve serious scrutiny. Why is the Government so determined to dictate how parents raise their children? What legitimate role does the state have inside the family home?
Those behind the draft Bill appear to have overlooked the many reasons parents may question a child’s understanding of their own identity.
Some religious families may object to homosexuality or gender transition on grounds of faith. Others may know that childhood gender nonconformity can be associated with homosexuality in adulthood. They may therefore worry that children who believe they are transgender could be medicalised and subjected to irreversible treatment when they are, in fact, gay.
Parents whose children identify as transgender and seek puberty blockers may also have read studies highlighting possible risks to bone development and fertility.
In short, parents motivated by genuine concern for their children’s welfare could find themselves accused of abuse and forced into court under Labour’s proposed law.
Genuine cases of abusive conversion practices appear to be extremely rare. The Government-backed Conversion Practices Helpline received only 29 reports over three years—fewer than ten annually. Many of those cases may already have involved conduct covered by existing criminal law.
Given Labour’s determination to advance the Bill, it is striking that the draft bans little that is not already unlawful while potentially criminalising behaviour that is currently legal.
Framed by Labour’s former Minister for Equalities, Olivia Bailey MP, and presented to Parliament in June, the legislation amounts to the promotion of a highly contested view of gender at the expense of freedom of expression and freedom of conscience.
It is no surprise that the proposal has attracted opposition from prominent figures including Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, Reform founder Nigel Farage, former Olympic swimmer Baroness Sharron Davies and Harry Potter author JK Rowling.
A law that allows the state to intrude so deeply into family life has no place on the statute book. Provided they obey the law, parents should be free to raise their children according to their own beliefs and judgment. When the Government attempts to enter our homes, it must be resisted.
READ MORE: Revealed: How Labour conversion therapy ban could land company bosses in court