There are fears that a Private Members’ Bill to ban conversion practices, or so-called ‘conversion therapy’ in Northern Ireland could have implications for the ability of therapists to fully assist those with gender dysphoria.
Additionally, critics of the Bill say it could impact freedom of expression, the ability of women to speak on transgender issues, and religious freedom.
A solicitor who spoke to Gript says the law would impact therapists who understood the need to explore the factors which might lead to a person saying they wished to change sex – rather than affirming the desire without examining possible underlying issues.
A public consultation calling for evidence on the proposals is open until Thursday, 1 October 2026.
In June, Alliance Party MLA Eóin Tennyson introduced the Bill in the Northern Ireland Assembly to ban conversion practices and coercive behavior, with the legislation set for its second reading on September 15th.
The Bill, backed by LGBTQIA+ sector NGOs the Rainbow Project and HereNI, is excessively broad, Women’s Rights Network NI, a cross-community volunteer group that campaigns to protect the sex-based rights, safety and single-sex spaces of women and girls in Northern Ireland have said. The Bill would create offences of providing conversion therapy, engaging in coercive conversion behaviour, and taking someone out of Northern Ireland for those purposes. Conviction could mean a fine, up to two years in prison, or both.
WRN NI said that the proposed law could have implications for therapists, teachers, coaches and religious leaders. What is most concerning, campaigners say, is that the bill cements into law, the concept of gender ideology, which is widely contested in society, and it has the potential to criminalise those that do not affirm non binary, gender fluid and a wide range of undefined ‘gender identities’.
Ruth Paterson, member of WRN and solicitor, raised concerns that the law could go significantly beyond what the public understands by the term “conversion therapy.”
“The public may have in mind that this bill is to deal with the efforts to ‘Pray the Gay away’ efforts of some decades back,” said Ms Paterson. “What we are now seeing is a bill that seeks total affirmation of gender identity – but it too will harm gay youth.
“Compelling data released by the UK’s Tavistock Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) in 2015 showed that roughly 60% of male and 70% of female youth attending the clinic were homosexual or bisexual – significantly higher than the baseline rates of 2.1% in the general population.
“We are now at risk of causing irreparable harm by encouraging questioning young adults to ‘trans the gay away’. In transitioning to a female identity, men who were gay then identify as straight women.
As originally practised, “conversion therapy” attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation by means such as aversion therapy. However, the practice is now outlawed by all reputable psychotherapy bodies, while the UK Government says there is no comprehensive administrative data capturing the practice in the first place.
Ms Paterson, who examined the legislation, told Gript she was concerned that it was being overlooked despite its potentially wide-ranging consequences.
“The politicians, from what I can see and from my interactions with them, for the most part, aren’t paying close attention to the fact that they are introducing the concept of gender self-identification in Northern Ireland, and we know 72% of the population disagree with gender ideology. I do not think the Bill has had the scrutiny it sorely requires. ” she said.
“Even if you’re the most trans-inclusive person, self ID for children and young adults with only affirmation being permissible under this bill – this will have a chilling effect where therapists who want to support these vulnerable teens have to second guess what they say or how they treat them”. Women’s Rights Network, which has been studying the Bill and preparing a submission to the consultation, has warned that the legislation is being insufficiently scrutinised.
The Cass Review found that young people presenting with gender dysphoria needed “access to a wide range of services, including autism diagnostic services, psychosocial support, and evidence based interventions for commonly co-occurring conditions such as depression, anxiety, and eating disorders”.
The report found that children and young people presenting with gender dysphoria often also had a high prevalence of neurodiversity, mental health conditions, and complex psychosocial vulnerabilities – and that that a complex mix of co-occurring conditions required comprehensive, holistic care.
Dr Hilary Cass, who headed up the major review, has stated that ‘medical intervention has taken over’ in treatment provision – and that ‘exploration has been made synonymous with conversion therapy’ when good psychological care was about helping young people get the treatment they needed.
One of the principal concerns is the potential impact on therapists working with people experiencing questions or distress related to gender identity.
The main purpose of the Bill is to create two offences: first, providing ‘conversion therapy,’ and second, engaging in ‘coercive conversion behaviour.’
“Both of these definitions are really vague. As ‘conversion therapy’ is defined so broadly, it explicitly includes any “counselling,” “coaching,” or “instruction.”
“The legislation places too much emphasis on distress caused by a lack of affirmation rather than considering potential long-term harms. What is completely missing from the entire Bill is anything to do with the real harm that happens in these cases.
“Some young adults have ‘transitioned’ and their bodies have been irreparably harmed by surgery and hormones. They lose their sexual and fertile function. That is a lifelong harm that is not addressed because the Bill does not care what harm befalls the individual if you are affirming them.”
The campaigner stressed that she believes people experiencing gender dysphoria should receive appropriate support, but questioned whether legislation should prevent therapists from exploring different explanations for a person’s distress.
A wider objection from the WRN is that the legislation could come into conflict with existing protections for freedom of expression, religious belief and gender-critical beliefs.
“Gender-critical beliefs are protected in law, but this Bill criminalises the expression of them in many settings. So I have the right to say I hold a gender-critical belief, but if I express it or talk openly about how gender identities are contested, or suggest they don’t exist, then I could be open to prosecution for doing so, if an individual alleges they were distressed by my words.”
A parent, teacher, pastor or therapist who says a distressed child is not the opposite sex, or who explores trauma, autism, same-sex attraction or social contagion instead of immediate affirmation, under this Bill this will be recast as intending to “suppress gender identity.”
She also raised concerns about the possibility of private prosecutions under Northern Ireland law, arguing that this could potentially allow individuals to pursue cases arising from disputes about gender identity.
She questioned how police officers and prosecutors would determine when an interaction crossed the threshold into a criminal conversion practice.
“How is the police officer going to understand that to charge it? How are the PPS going to understand what they’re going to run with that case with? There’s absolutely no guidance.”
Another concern is the relationship between the proposed legislation and existing Northern Ireland law. The WRN campaigner argues that the Bill relies on concepts surrounding gender identity which they believe are insufficiently defined in law.
“The Bill accepts a concept of sexual orientation and gender identity that do not exist in law and are not accepted by the general population, nor are they understood by the population.”
The WRN spokeswoman also questioned the interaction between protections for sexual orientation and gender identity, arguing that the two could potentially come into conflict in certain circumstances.
“Lawmakers need to consider whether they are effectively expanding the legal recognition of gender identity through conversion-practise legislation,” she added.
“New criminal legislation should only be introduced where there is clear evidence of a problem requiring intervention. There should be no reason to introduce legislation for which there is no crime, no current evidenced harm, and no consensus,” she said.
“It is well known that similar proposals have faced difficulties elsewhere in the UK and Ireland because of questions surrounding the definition and scope of conversion practices.
“Also, given that a House of Lords inquiry relating to the Windsor Framework is due to visit Belfast on September 16th, the implications of divergence between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK should be examined,” she said.
“The central questions are whether the legislation is sufficiently clear, whether there is evidence of a need for new criminal offences, and whether the proposed law adequately balances protection from genuine abuse with freedom of speech, religious liberty and legitimate therapeutic practice.
The Christian Institute in Northern Ireland has said that the Bill would criminalise the ordinary work of churches.
“[Tennyson] has largely copied a failed proposal from the Scottish Government, which it has since abandoned over legal concerns. Now Tennyson’s official wording is published, it is clear it could criminalise Christians,” the organisation said.
The charity described the plans as “unworkable,” adding that the definitions in the Bill are “astonishingly vague, catching ordinary prayer, pastoral support, and parenting.”
“The legislation covers ‘suppression’, a term often used to unfairly rebrand the act of helping people avoid sin as a form of abuse,” it said.
It comes ahead of an event, organised by the Free Speech Union and Genspect in Belfast on September 25th, exploring the Bill. The event, entitled ‘Banned in Belfast? Free speech, conversion therapy and the new Northern Ireland’ will debate the consequences of a ban and the broader context in which it says “such restrictions on freedom of speech have become commonplace.”
The Bill’s sponsor argues that the legislation is necessary to protect people from harmful conversion practices and to close what he sees as gaps in existing criminal law.
The debate is expected to continue as the Bill progresses through the Assembly and the consultation process draws to a close.