Keir Starmer’s new Office for Equality and Opportunity – launched earlier this month – purports to ensure that ‘equality is at the heart of every mission’. The terrifying reality might be something rather different. One key immediate priority is a ‘full, trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices’. The government has said, ‘Conversion practices are abuse. They have no place in society and must be stopped.’
A ban on conversion practices could have a chilling effect on ordinary people across society
But here’s something: they have already been stopped. Abusive practices are illegal, and there is scant evidence of them happening anywhere in the UK. Stories of quacks delivering electric shocks in a futile attempt to change someone’s sexual orientation belong in history, or in other parts of the world. Even if this kind of abuse is happening in the UK, it should be reported to the police who can already deal with those responsible under existing law.
So why is this an ‘immediate priority’ for Starmer? Especially when any new legislation could have sinister consequences. This weekend, 140 people including David Bell – a former staff governor at the Tavistock – have written to the prime minister pointing out that the government’s plans risk criminalising parents, and others, who don’t toe the line on gender identity ideology.
Self-ID might no longer be a priority for the government – images of male rapists moving to women’s prisons put paid to that idea – but a ban on conversion practices could have a chilling effect on ordinary people across society. The worry, of course, is the scope of the legislation: what normal everyday conversations might count as an attempt to change someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity?
If Labour has its way, parents of children who have been groomed by online influencers into thinking they are trans, non-binary, or maybe even another species, might risk a dawn visit from the local constabulary if they do not affirm the most ridiculous fantasies.
‘Mum, I identify as a cat. Will you put a litter tray in my room?’
‘Don’t be silly, dear, and will you stop scratching the other children at school – your headteacher has complained again.’
Incidentally, the child scratching other children after identifying as a cat is a not a fictitious construction. A friend’s son has to put up with this very behaviour from a classmate in his secondary school.
It’s bad enough when pointing out hard truths might lead to a telling off from those who should know better. But Starmer’s legislation could take things to a new level if a disgruntled child decides to call social services. Perhaps a future test case might determine that a parent who sets sensible boundaries for their children is not in breach of the law, when their child wants to identify as a guinea pig. But until the law decides where to draw the line between an honest conversation and an attempt at conversion, there will be a chilling effect not only on parents, but teachers, church ministers, counsellors and indeed anyone who puts reality before fantasy.
Even is the law is clear on children identifying as a different species, what about people claiming to be the other sex, or saying they have no sex at all? We will have to wait and see.
As a transsexual, I have specific concerns about Labour’s plans – though perhaps not in the way that Bridget Phillipson, Anneliese Dodds and the rest of the women and equalities ministerial team might think. Before I transitioned, my counsellor challenged me on my beliefs about myself. She refused to talk about transition until we had discussed the alternatives. At the time I hated that diversion as I it was not what I wanted to hear. But it was what I needed.
Had she just affirmed everything I said about myself I would have learned practically nothing from the sessions. But would she have dared to do anything else if there had been the possibility that her clients could file a complaint, perhaps many years into the future?
Make no mistake, if there was a real and pressing need for a new law to prevent gender conversion therapy, Labour’s position might make sense. But quite frankly there isn’t. If Starmer, Phillipson and Dodds want to signal their virtue, they need to do it in a way that doesn’t risk criminalising people for speaking the truth and hinders others from receiving the help that they need.
Watch more from Debbie Hayton on SpectatorTV:
Comments