Genspect response to Northern Ireland Conversion Practices Bill call for evidence
Genspect has submitted a response to the Northern Ireland Assembly’s call for evidence on the proposed Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill.
The response was submitted by Genspect Executive Director Stella O’Malley on behalf of the organisation.
The Bill would create new criminal offences relating to attempts to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including through counselling, talking therapy and coercive behaviour.
Genspect supports protecting people from abusive, violent, threatening or coercive practices. However, we do not support the Bill in its current form. Our submission argues that its central concepts are too broad and uncertain for criminal law, particularly where psychotherapy, parental relationships, pastoral care and gender distress are concerned.
Our position
Genspect’s submission argues that the Bill does not draw a sufficiently clear distinction between genuinely abusive conversion practices and legitimate therapeutic exploration, parental guidance, pastoral support or the expression of beliefs.
We are particularly concerned about the inclusion of gender identity. Gender identity may be uncertain, developing or legitimately explored in therapy. Clinicians must be able to examine possible connections between gender distress and trauma, sexuality, autism, body image, relationships and other psychological difficulties without fearing that such exploration could later be characterised as an attempt to “change or suppress” an identity.
The submission also raises concerns about an asymmetry within the Bill. Support which affirms a transgender identity is expressly protected, while support for someone who wishes to question, reconsider or relinquish that identity may remain legally uncertain.
Key issues raised in our response
1. Uncertainty around legitimate psychotherapy
The Bill defines conversion therapy broadly enough to include counselling, talking therapy, coaching and instruction.
Genspect argues that conventional psychotherapy is exploratory and should not prescribe a predetermined outcome. A person may change how they understand themselves during therapy, including deciding that they no longer identify as transgender. That outcome should not retrospectively transform legitimate psychotherapy into “conversion therapy”.
2. The meaning of “change” and “suppress”
The submission argues that terms such as “change” and particularly “suppress” are insufficiently clear for offences carrying the possibility of imprisonment.
Therapists, parents and others should be able to understand in advance whether their conduct is lawful rather than relying upon a reasonableness defence after a complaint, investigation or prosecution has already taken place.
3. A very low threshold for psychological harm
Under the Bill, psychological harm includes “fear, alarm or distress”.
Genspect argues that this threshold is far too broad and subjective. Psychotherapy frequently involves painful or emotionally difficult discussions, while disagreements within families can also cause distress without amounting to abuse or psychological harm.
4. Parental guidance and family relationships
The proposed definition of coercive behaviour could have significant implications for parents.
Our response notes that parents routinely set boundaries, challenge decisions and make choices that their children may find distressing. In the context of gender distress, this might include refusing to facilitate social transition, restricting access to online material or encouraging a child to wait before making significant decisions.
The criminal law must distinguish clearly between genuinely coercive or abusive conduct and ordinary parental guidance, disagreement and boundary-setting.
5. Protection for detransitioners
The submission argues that the Bill does not adequately protect people who themselves wish to reconsider or relinquish a transgender identity.
Genspect has worked through its support services with more than 600 detransitioners and more than 5,000 parents. Our experience demonstrates that gender identity is not necessarily fixed and that some people actively seek therapeutic help to reconsider an identity or become comfortable living as their sex.
They should have the same freedom to seek therapeutic support as someone seeking affirmation of a transgender identity.
6. Criminal law and professional regulation
Genuinely abusive, violent, threatening or coercive conduct should be addressed through criminal law.
However, where the concern is unsafe or unethical therapeutic practice, Genspect argues that the appropriate response is professional regulation, ethical standards and complaints procedures rather than broadly drafted criminal offences governing therapeutic conversations.
7. Removal of the right to claim trial by jury
The submission also opposes the Bill’s proposal to remove the right to claim trial by jury for offences under Clauses 1, 2 and 3.
These offences could involve complex and contested questions concerning intention, coercion, psychological harm and conversations taking place in therapeutic, family or religious settings. Genspect argues that procedural safeguards should be strengthened rather than reduced.
Genspect’s recommendation
Genspect does not believe that the problems identified in the Bill can be resolved through minor amendments.
Our primary recommendation is that the Bill should be withdrawn.
The submission concludes that therapists must remain free to explore sexuality, gender identity, trauma, autism, body image, family relationships and feelings about the sexed body without fearing that particular questions or therapeutic directions could expose them to investigation or prosecution.
Download the documents
Genspect submission
Read Genspect’s full response to the Northern Ireland Assembly call for evidence.
Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill
Read the proposed legislation and accompanying material.
Summary
Genspect supports protecting people from abusive, violent, threatening and genuinely coercive practices.
However, criminal law governing psychotherapy, family relationships and the expression of beliefs requires exceptional clarity. We do not believe the Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill provides that clarity.
In particular, the Bill risks creating uncertainty for therapists working with gender-distressed people, parents attempting to support their children and people who wish to reconsider or relinquish a transgender identity.
Open-ended, non-coercive therapeutic exploration must remain lawful, regardless of the eventual direction or outcome of that exploration.