Dr Austen Morgan is a barrister at 33 Bedford Row Chambers. His next book is: Bringing Boris Down: the politicisation of the civil service, forthcoming.
Is woke dying?…not among the charity workers of the parliamentary labour party! And the evidence is: enthusiasm for trans rights among the four hundred labour MPs, in the face of feminist defence of women-only spaces (including lesbian communities).
Andy Burnham recently took away Bridget Phillipson’s day job as education secretary, but left her in the cabinet as minister for women and equalities. (Her job before entering parliament in 2010 at 26 years? Yes, charity worker!) On 25 June 2026, Phillipson had published a short conversion practices draft bill. On 27 July 2026, the new prime minister appointed her chair of the labour party.
The draft conversion practices bill – with only six clauses – has little to do with gays and lesbians, historically the victims of alleged medical and religious conversion therapies in a more biblical legal age. Same-sex people are now well protected by the Equality Act (‘EA’) 2010 against any such abuses. Sexual orientation – I submit – has been included in clause 1 (‘meaning of “conversion practice” and related terms’) to create legitimacy for very different groups on the sexual politics front: women who identify as men; and (much more problematically) men who identify as women.
Phillipson’s draft bill, which is not yet ready to be legislated, is a political gesture to trans activism (once based upon sufferers of gender dysphoria, a psychological condition). Trans activists have – largely through Stonewall – replaced the concept of (biological) sex with (subjective) gender, and engaged in cultural warfare with TERFs: so-called trans-exclusionary radical feminists (including the statutory equality and human rights commission, now under Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson).
In April 2025, the supreme court, in the case, was perceived inaccurately to have come down on the side of TERFs and – therefore – against trans rights. Gay intellectuals (including Dan James Smith of this parish on 8 July and 2 September 2026) now argue (and I agree) that Phillipson’s draft bill is itself an illegitimate conversion practice: it seeks to undermine gay and lesbian status ; by foregrounding the concept of gender, and the practice of encouraging young men and women – confused about the world – to find their gender soul by reverting to WPATH: the world professional association for transgender health, a US-based body.
Sex discrimination, as a cause from the 1960s, is now prohibited by the EA 2010, which – to the surprise of many – protects men as well as women. Men, especially young men, will need its protection, where feminization proceeds beyond representation in smashing glass ceilings (including in the parliamentary labour party).
Ironically, it was the equal treatment of men and women principle, in European Union law, which led originally to the Gender Recognition Act (‘GRA’) 2004, whereby one could obtain a (private) certificate indicating transition from one gender to the other (the clue being in the name of the statute).
The protected characteristic in the EA 2010 became, not transgenderism (alongside sex), but gender reassignment (with or without a certificate): ‘if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.’
Proposing to undergo is factually an aspect of self-identification, whether one proceeds or not. And this is the statute which created the idea of legal sex, meaning gender! The concept of sex remained immutable in UK law, being biological, but gender, being (merely) a social construct, is therefore mutable.
The supreme court did not construe the gender reassignment part of the EA 2010 (as many believe) in the Scottish case. Instead, it focussed on section 9 of the GRA 2004, and in particular subsection (3): ‘Subsection (1) is subject to provision made by this Act or any other enactment [including sex discrimination legislation!] or any subordinate legislation.’
Many labour MPs, including ministers, do not accept the supreme court decision, and Bridget Phillipson’s conversion practices bill is intended to continue the fight.
What does the bill say?
It creates ‘transgender identity’ in law, defined very broadly in clause 1 as including (but not limited to): proposing to undergo gender reassignment (as in the 2004 act); ‘the individual is transsexual’; or ‘the individual identifies as…not solely male or female’. This is gender self-identification pure and simple, and amounts to Westminster legislative recognition of the new activists in our sexual politics.
The bill, importantly, is draft criminal legislation, creating new offences: carrying out an abusive conversion practice; encouraging or assisting the same outside England and Wales; and with bodies corporate and unincorporated bodies (through relevant officers) becoming criminally liable – with up to five years’ imprisonment and/or a fine.
The extensive providing for a new sexual identity, means, I submit, that the qualifying ‘abusive’ in ‘conversion practice’ will be construed – by observers and maybe then the judges – narrowly. The government’s argument about limited criminal liability is reckless – and is the main reason why the Burnham government, seeking initially to gratify its MPs, may be heading ultimately for a Starmer-type U turn.
Scandalously, the draft bill also provides for a civil remedy, a conversion practice conversion order. These may be sought from a court by: a chief officer of police; or a local authority. Consider what might happen if the Tavistock clinic had been permitted to continue its harmful work. Some social workers might have supported a child: being put on puberty blockers; and being prepared for surgery. What if a parent had wanted their child to be counselled sensitively on his/her emerging sexuality? I can see a local authority thinking it would be a good idea to seek an order from the family court stopping the parent or parents.
Bridget Phillipson’s draft bill is intended for England and Wales. But we live in the UK? Here, the additional news is mixed.
Nicola Sturgeon (damehood anyone?) passed a gender recognition reform bill through the Scottish parliament in December 2022. Rishi Sunak pounced, using section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998 to stop royal assent because the secretary of state believed the bill would have an adverse effect on the operation of the EA 2010 in Scotland as regards reserved matters.
Meanwhile in Northern Ireland – belatedly but extravagantly woke – the formerly centrist alliance party introduced a conversion practices (criminalisation) bill on 30 June 2026. It is now in committee. Republicans – now way beyond catholic nationalism – will be supportive, while insecure unionists may split for and against trans activism and gender self-identification.
Section 8 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (consent of secretary of state required in certain cases) is less clear than the Scottish legislation. As for Sir Chris – ‘the reverend’ – Bryant, he is known to be a closet supporter of trans activists.
There is a local constitutional device – a petition of concern – which may well be deployed in the Northern Ireland assembly: 30 members may petition for what is called a cross-community vote; this requires the support of two political parties; a delay of 14 days; and a vote requiring a majority of designated nationalists plus a majority of designated unionists.
There is room for political slips, trips and falls.