Critics warn that the Government’s proposed legislation could discourage parents and professionals from questioning gender transitions, as people who regret changing gender claim their voices are being overlooked.
LABOUR’S controversial plans to criminalise conversion practices have come under renewed criticism after people who regret changing gender claimed they were being excluded from giving evidence to Parliament.
The Government’s draft Conversion Practices Bill, which includes potential prison sentences of up to five years for certain offences, is being examined by a committee of MPs and peers amid growing concerns about its implications for parents, vulnerable young people and freedom of expression.
According to The Telegraph, several people who have undergone gender transitions and subsequently regretted their decisions offered to appear before the committee but have not been invited to provide oral evidence.
Among them is Michael Kerr, 34, founder of Detransition Pathway UK, who lived as a woman for several years before returning to living as a man in 2025.
Mr Kerr believes his decision to transition was influenced by unresolved trauma following a sexual assault and subsequent mental health difficulties.
After taking oestrogen for six years, he developed breast tissue that would require surgery to remove.
He has since become an advocate for people who regret transitioning and argues that their experiences should be central to any legislation concerning gender identity.
Mr Kerr contacted the parliamentary committee requesting an opportunity to explain his experiences but says he received no invitation to speak.
He accused those overseeing the inquiry of selectively considering evidence that supported the proposed legislation.
The LGB Alliance also reportedly submitted details of three detransitioners willing to testify about their experiences. None had been invited to provide oral evidence at the time of The Telegraph’s report.
The allegations raise uncomfortable questions for Labour over whether the Government’s proposed legislation is receiving sufficient scrutiny from those who have experienced the potential consequences of gender transition firsthand.
Parents have also expressed frustration about their apparent exclusion from the committee’s oral evidence sessions.
One mother, identified as Jenny, told The Telegraph that her daughter began identifying as transgender at 13 during the Covid lockdowns.
She claimed her daughter’s school adopted a new name and pronouns for the child and arranged support from a transgender mentor without informing her.
Jenny said she had attempted to give evidence to the committee but was unsuccessful.
She fears the legislation could discourage parents from challenging decisions about their children’s gender identity, even when they believe they are acting in their child’s best interests.
The proposed law has also attracted criticism from campaigners concerned about the distinction between abusive conversion practices and legitimate therapeutic discussions.
Helen Joyce, director of advocacy at the sex-based rights organisation Sex Matters, has warned that people who regret transitioning may themselves consider their experiences a form of harmful conversion practice.
She argues that some vulnerable individuals have been encouraged towards medical interventions they later regretted and that Parliament must examine those experiences before introducing further criminal legislation.
However, the official parliamentary record shows that Sex Matters and the LGB Alliance have not been excluded from the inquiry altogether.
Both organisations gave oral evidence on October 29, alongside representatives from Stonewall, Galop, the Gay Men’s Network and the Ban Conversion Practices Coalition.
The dispute therefore centres particularly on whether individual detransitioners and parents have been given sufficient opportunities to explain their personal experiences.
Labour published the draft Conversion Practices Bill on June 25, proposing three offences intended to tackle abusive practices aimed at changing someone’s sexual orientation or transgender identity.
The Government maintains that the legislation is designed to protect people from coercion and abuse, rather than prohibit ordinary family discussions or legitimate professional advice.
A Government spokesman rejected suggestions that parents could be prosecuted simply for questioning a child’s decisions about gender identity.
Ministers insist that parents would remain free to have difficult conversations with their children, while abusive conduct would remain prohibited.
The parliamentary committee has similarly defended its approach, explaining that its timetable prevents everyone who wishes to appear from giving oral evidence.
It says most submissions will be considered in writing and that evidence from across the debate will be taken into account.
Nevertheless, critics argue that Labour is pursuing legislation with potentially serious consequences for families, medical professionals and vulnerable young people before the concerns of those who regret transitioning have been adequately addressed.
The controversy also places further pressure on the Government to demonstrate that its proposed law will not inadvertently discourage appropriate safeguarding, independent counselling or reasonable parental involvement.
The Joint Committee, chaired by Labour MP Alex Barros-Curtis, is accepting written evidence until November 16 and is expected to report its findings by January 22, 2027.
The legislation has not yet become law, and the Government will consider the committee’s recommendations before deciding how to proceed.
For Labour, the challenge is increasingly difficult to ignore: demonstrating that a law intended to prevent abuse will not create new problems for the very people it claims to protect.
