“It’s still legal”? A look at activist language on ‘conversion therapy’

Earlier this month, LGBT magazine Scene published yet another article on ‘conversion therapy’. Below, Let Us Pray’s James Kennedy examines the recurring claims made by campaigners pushing for a new and unnecessary law.

“It's Still Legal: The Fight to Ban Conversion Practices in the UK”

Let’s start with this headline – hopelessly vague, and perhaps the most common refrain from Stonewall and other LGBTQ+ activist groups: ‘Conversion practices are still legal’.

But is it true? Not at all.

You might argue it depends on what you mean by ‘conversion therapy’.

If we take it to mean what most people naturally assume – things like electric shock experiments, forcing people to take concoctions of drugs, or worse, in the name of changing them from gay to straight – then those things are clearly already illegal.

They would violate a raft of existing laws designed to protect people from harm. They would also breach international law – such as the European Convention on Human Rights – and it goes without saying, would cost any medical professional their license. These practices are not just unethical; they’re criminal.

Activists often give dramatic examples, including the horrific term ‘corrective rape’. No known case has been cited in the UK, but if it did take place it would be dealt with appropriately by the law.

If we broaden the definition, activists sometimes point to cases where individuals were held down or locked away – these are also illegal. Scene mentions “forced marriages” and “violent acts,” which are already prosecutable offences.

So what exactly is “still legal”?

This is where things shift. Activists stretch the definition to include:

• - Prayer with a church leader about staying faithful to the Bible;
• - Pastoral care encouraging someone to resist certain sexual thoughts or behaviours;
• - Sermons on repentance;
• - Parents guiding their children in line with their beliefs.

In this definition, even non-Christian parents opposing harmful gender ideology might find themselves accused of “suppression”: any effort to discourage certain behaviours or attitudes.

Right now, thankfully, none of this is illegal – and to any fair-minded person, none of it constitutes “conversion therapy.”

But could it be labelled that way in the future? That’s the concern.

‘Conversion therapy’ or ‘conversion practices’? Why the shift matters

This subtle change in language has confused many, including politicians. About four years ago, activist groups deliberately stopped using the term ‘conversion therapy’ and replaced it with ‘conversion practices’.

Back in 2017/18, Stonewall and others pushed for a ban on ‘conversion therapy’ – a term largely borrowed from the US, referring to discredited experiments in university psychology departments that stopped decades ago.

But the term was gradually redefined to include far more. Instead of referring to abusive ‘therapies’, it started including ordinary conversations, pastoral care, and expressions of belief.

The UK Government’s own 2017 research found that 2% of LGBT people said they’d experienced ‘conversion therapy’. That number shocked even LGBT commentators because almost no one had heard of it taking place in recent years.

But as pointed out by research experts subsequently, the research missed a few key details. It didn’t:

• - Define ‘conversion therapy’;
• - Ask when it happened (meaning decades-old events were counted);
• - Ask where it happened (so included practices from overseas);
• - Check whether the acts were already illegal.

It certainly didn’t provide an evidence base for legislation. But as activists pushed to include transgender identities in the conversation, the language shifted again. And then ‘conversion’ came to include not just attempts to change someone, but even attempts to suppress feelings or behaviours.

This wasn’t about therapy anymore – not in any recognisable form.

Hence, the term ‘conversion practices’ emerged. It reflects a broader aim: not just to outlaw discredited experimental treatments, but to criminalise a wide range of religious and parental guidance.

That’s why it’s frustrating that Scene magazine claims ‘conversion practices’ are “often misleadingly called ‘conversion therapy’”. Because who here is seeking to mislead? Isn't it the very activist groups supported by the article that introduced and perpetuated this confusion?

They’re telling the government there’s a need to legislate against ‘conversion therapy’, but then changing the legal language to capture all sorts of other ‘practices’ too.

“Already outlawed in more than 20 countries…”

As I’ve already argued, if we define ‘conversion therapy’ as most people do, then it’s already illegal in the UK. Likewise, the vast majority of countries already prohibit abusive practices under existing laws.

Even to talk specifically about these 20 or so countries doesn’t mean much without context. International comparisons can be very misleading. Some laws, such as those of some US states, are limited to medical malpractice. Others, like the infamous case of the State of Victoria in Australia, have a far broader law, even telling people how they can and cannot pray.

And how laws work differ. Some countries pass symbolic laws to make a political statement. Others (like the UK) take a more rigid view of their laws.

What Scene doesn’t mention is how many countries have tried and failed to legislate in this area. The Christian Institute has published a helpful summary on this point.

“The Conservative government first pledged to ban conversion therapy in 2018 under Theresa May.”

This might seem like nit-picking, but it matters: Theresa May pledged to “end”, not “ban,” conversion therapy – under pressure live on TV from LGBT activist and ITV presenter Paul Brand.

Why the distinction? Because if harmful practices are already illegal, there’s no need for new laws. If there is still a problem, enforcement is the issue.

Indeed, in 2018, the Government acknowledged this nuance by consistently referring to “ending” not “banning” conversion therapy.

“Progress stalled amid consultations and internal disagreements”

That’s quite an understatement.

In 2020, a public consultation revealed how flawed the proposed legislation was. The Government saw the pitfalls and tried to back away. It hoped to tip-toe away, but in 2022, activists were leaked a Government memo from No. 10 and there was sudden chaos.

Paul Brand had the leading campaigners on ITV news and filmed their reaction. A small number of Stonewall-aligned MPs vented their fury at the Prime Minister. There was chaos: flip-flopping and months of confusion.

A clumsy compromise was proposed, a 'full ban' but excluding transgenderism. It would never fly with the activists.

Since then, Labour came into power and have once again said transgenderism would be included in a new draft law, to be published soon.

"Religious Freedoms"

There's much more in the Scene magazine article. It includes coverage of Stonewall and Jayne Ozanne's Ban Conversion Therapy Coalition, which we've written about extensively. It also cites gay rights activist Peter Tatchell, who calls for a new law.

But the article does acknowledge one critical concern: “Some faith groups argue that a ban could infringe on religious freedoms or prevent pastoral care.”

Once again, it's a massive understatement. The article only mentions it in passing and quickly moves on.

It is underplaying what is arguably the central issue. Freedom of belief isn't just a footnote, but a complete roadblock for any new law. Because, however noble the intentions, any law that seeks to regulate what people may say or practice in matters of personal belief – anything that goes beyond the law's current sensible limits of genuine abuse – has a fundamental problem.

No amount of rhetoric can change that.

Sign up to the Let Us Pray campaign for updates - join the campaign.

See also: Draft ‘conversion therapy’ Bill stalls in No10