The pathway the Bill cannot see: same-sex-attracted young people

What changes is how she understands herself: not as a lesbian but as a “trans boy” who likes girls. The Bill defines conduct intended to make someone believe they “do not have… a particular sexual orientation” as a conversion practice (cl. 1(2)(a)(ii)). Her outcome sits squarely inside that definition.

​

But the Bill only sees people who meant to get there. It asks what the adults intended. They intended to affirm a gender identity, not to change how a girl understands her sexuality. The Bill names the destination and cannot travel to it.

​

Abuse forces one path. So does removing every other path. Conversion abuse pushes a young person one way, dictated by someone else. Here the pressure comes from the absence of alternatives: one explanation offered at school, in clubs [GSA], online and in clinics, and affirmed at every step. Four features of the Bill keep this out of view:

​

• It looks for abuse — violence, threats, coercion. A new name, new records and an affirming peer group are gradual. No single step looks like abuse; the momentum is the point.

• It exempts healthcare unless care falls “far below” expected standards (cl. 1(3)). Where affirmation is the standard, affirmation is protected.

• It looks for harm now. The child often feels relief at first [testimony]. The costs, if they come, come later.

• Its civil orders are easier to point at a cautious parent than an institution. A parent who asks whether same-sex attraction, autism or trauma is part of the picture, and holds off on transition, could face a protection order without any offence being proved [Schedule, para 2]. A school that steers the child faces nothing.

​

What’s at stake. Social transition is not a neutral act (Cass Review, 2024) and may make a medical pathway more likely. Puberty blockers followed by cross-sex hormones carry risks of infertility and impaired sexual function. Finland’s national register — every gender-referred young person from 1996 to 2019 — found that psychiatric needs did not subside after medical transition, and that suicide risk tracked psychiatric illness rather than gender dysphoria itself. A pathway that bypasses exploration risks missing exactly the conditions that drive that risk.

​

We are not claiming how often this happens. Detransitioner surveys show what it looks like when it does: in Littman’s 2021 survey, 23% raised difficulty accepting themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual, unprompted; in Vandenbussche’s 2022 survey, 52% reported needing to work through internalised homophobia.

​

What we ask of the committee: [e.g. to weigh how the Bill operates in practice, not only the impact assessment’s symmetry claim, and to protect exploratory approaches by parents and practitioners explicitly].

​

Sources:

• Ruuska et al. 2024, BMJ Mental Health (mortality)

• Ruuska et al. 2026, Acta Paediatrica (psychiatric morbidity)

• Dead Wild Roses analysis of the 2026 study

• Gender Clinic News on Kaltiala’s response to critics

​