ACT's Response to the Government's Conversion Therapy Consultation
The following letter was sent to Nadhim Zahawi MP, Secretary of State for Education, on 15th January 2021 to express the ACT Board’s concern at the potential impact of the government’s proposed conversion therapy ban on educators who hold to the orthodox Christian view of sexuality and gender. The consultation, which runs until 4th February, can be accessed here - please do consider responding. You may also wish to read our previous blog post which describes the issues linked to the government’s plans.
Dear Mr Zahawi,
I write to you on behalf of the Association of Christian Teachers, regarding our concerns about the proposed ban on so called ‘conversion therapy’. ACT is an association that holds to orthodox, historic Christian teaching on sexual ethics and transgender issues, and we represent many educational professionals who also hold to Biblical teaching on such matters.
ACT, of course, support the protection of children from being coerced into a position or decision against their wishes. However, we want to support school leaders, teachers, and support staff, who could be harmed by the proposals, as well as, of course, children. The definition of what can be described as 'conversion therapy' is expansive, and could even include pastoral conversations, resulting in unsatisfactory outcomes for children and schools. We therefore would like you to consider the following points before furthering the proposed legislation.
1) The proposals will harm children who may need to talk about this sensitive and personal area of gender/sexuality with a school professional, especially those who want to remain in the sex category assigned to them at birth, despite feelings of dysphoria. Allegations leading to criminal convictions and a bar from working with children, could result for any adult who does not affirm a child into a trajectory towards changing sex/gender. This would inevitably mean that children will remain dangerously unsupported due to teachers/professionals being wary of criminal prosecution.
2) These proposals could infringe on children’s own human rights and liberties. Religious groups offer pastoral conversations, alongside and before prayer, as part of their religious practices. This includes school chaplains and teachers, of whom many are our members. Should any child or young person voluntarily request prayer for unwanted dysphoric feelings, the offer of prayer through a pastoral conversation, even in line with the child’s wishes, might be criminalised under the proposals. This would be a breach of their human rights and would discriminate against their own religious traditions and convictions.
3) Many autistic and SEND children are vulnerable and much more likely to experience gender dysphoria. Banning very broadly defined ‘conversion therapy’, will prevent pastoral and safeguarding advice being given by professionals to already struggling children, many of whom are dealing with atypical neurological traits and are aware of being different from their peers. Due to the positive affirmation approach proposed by the legislation to be viewed the only one which will ‘protect children’, radical medical or surgical procedures, could be the eventual destination for children who need measured and complex support. We worry that there is a high chance of such children being coerced and influenced into making decisions, without proper informed consent.
4)The government has a duty to protect children from the impact of ‘progressive’ and aggressive political ideologies, which are becoming increasingly promoted in our schools. Nuanced discussions with children to help them explore issues of gender and sexuality and their distress should not be classified as conversion therapy, despite the insistence of lobbying groups. To view the complexity around supporting a child experiencing gender distress as either “affirm” or “convert” is over simplistic and deeply damaging. Professionals should be free to explore these issues with children without fear of acting illegally.
5) The proposed legislation will have the effect of undermining the Christian ethos of many schools our members work in. The Department for Education is clear that it does not wish that equality obligations ‘undermine the ethos of faith-based education providers’, as stated in the ‘Equality Act 2010: Advice for Schools’ guidance. Schools that adopt a Christian ethos, particularly those based on a biblical understanding of identity, sex and sexuality would nevertheless be put at risk if the state intervenes in their pastoral work.
6) It should not be a criminal offence for educational professionals to gently and graciously express their religious beliefs, when prompted, that God made humans male and female, in his image, and has reserved sex for the marriage of one man and one woman. The broad definitions of ‘counsellors’ and ‘conversations’ in the proposals will be highly likely to result in criminalising Christian teachers for discussing these matters.
We therefore very much hope and pray that these proposals will be dropped in their current form, and that you will take these points seriously in your discussions within the department. Our members have no desire to become criminals, and as a Christian organisation, we place a high value on submitting to and supporting our government. We also ask you to lend your support to a pausing of the furtherance of the proposed legislation so that the points outlined can be given full consideration, as the eight-week extension while we are in the midst of a pandemic is not sufficient. We also ask you to lend your support to a less broad definition of ‘conversion therapy’ for the sake of both children and teachers.
Yours sincerely,
Elizabeth Harewood
Executive Officer of the Association of Christian Teachers and on behalf of the organisation