Helen Joyce, the UK’s Conversion Practices Bill, and the problem of expressive individualism
Helen Joyce is one of the sharpest thinkers I’ve encountered on the subject of sex and contemporary identity politics. She has a remarkable ability to cut through complicated arguments and expose assumptions that others seem reluctant to question.
The accompanying three-minute video illustrates that ability beautifully.
On October 29, 2026, Joyce, representing the organization Sex Matters, testified before a joint committee of the British Parliament examining the government’s proposed Conversion Practices Bill.
Her testimony raises a question that ought to concern parents, clergy, therapists, and anyone who values freedom of conscience:
When did telling a child the truth become something the government might regard as abusive?
An Eleven-Year-Old Girl and Her Mother
Joyce asks the committee to consider an autistic eleven-year-old girl who identifies as non-binary. The child sincerely believes she is neither male nor female.
Her mother knows otherwise.
She knows her daughter is female, that she will undergo female puberty, and that her daughter’s feelings about her identity cannot alter those biological realities.
The mother may feel obligated to explain these things, even when doing so causes distress.
Joyce makes the essential observation:
“Her declaration, her words don’t make reality.”
Now suppose the mother restricts access to certain websites or friendships she believes are reinforcing her daughter’s confusion. The child becomes anxious, perhaps even refuses to attend school.
Has the mother engaged in abusive behavior? Or has she exercised ordinary parental judgment in a difficult situation?
Joyce’s concern is that the proposed legislation does not adequately distinguish between the two.
She offers another illustration. If a husband confiscates his wife’s telephone to isolate her from friends and family, that would constitute coercive control.
But if a mother temporarily confiscates her eleven-year-old daughter’s telephone to protect her from harmful influences, that is an entirely different matter.
Surely our laws must recognize the distinction.
What the Proposed Law Actually Says
The British government’s draft Conversion Practices Bill, published June 25, 2026, seeks to prohibit abusive efforts to change someone’s sexual orientation or transgender identity.
Protecting people from violence, intimidation, and genuine psychological abuse is an entirely legitimate objective.
But the legislation raises questions about what constitutes abuse.
Clause 1 includes conduct intended to cause someone to have, not have, or believe they have or do not have a particular sexual orientation or transgender identity.
In determining whether conduct is abusive, the bill directs attention to factors including controlling behavior and psychological or emotional pressure.
Clause 2 requires serious physical or mental harm, or serious alarm or distress substantially affecting everyday activities. The maximum criminal penalty is five years’ imprisonment.
The government insists that ordinary parenting, religious expression, and legitimate conversations would remain protected.
Nevertheless, the draft contains no explicit general exemption for parents exercising ordinary parental responsibilities. Nor does it provide an equivalent express protection for pastoral guidance.
And that is the concern Joyce and other critics are raising.
The proposed legislation also permits preventive protection orders, potentially bringing disputed conduct under judicial scrutiny without a prior criminal conviction.
The question is not whether genuinely abusive practices should be prohibited.
The question is whether the law distinguishes adequately between abuse and the legitimate responsibilities of parents, counselors, and religious leaders.
Children Need Guidance, Not Merely Affirmation
Children are not miniature adults.
We do not ordinarily treat their emerging preferences, convictions, or self-understandings as beyond question.
A child may sincerely believe something that is mistaken. A loving parent may be obliged to correct that belief, even when the correction is unwelcome.
This is particularly important when children experience distress concerning their developing bodies.
Therapists should be free to explore the possible sources of that distress without being required to reach a predetermined conclusion.
That means rejecting coercive attempts to force a particular identity upon someone. But it also means rejecting the opposite assumption that every declared identity must automatically be affirmed.
Genuine exploratory therapy should be free to explore.
The same principle matters in pastoral care. A priest or pastor should be able to discuss traditional Christian teachings about sexuality with someone voluntarily seeking that counsel, without unnecessary fear that the conversation itself will attract legal suspicion.
Compassion and honest disagreement are not mutually exclusive.
The Deeper Problem: Expressive Individualism
There is a larger philosophical issue beneath this controversy.
In The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, Christian historian Carl Trueman examines what he calls expressive individualism.
The concept, associated particularly with philosopher Charles Taylor, describes the modern conviction that our deepest identity is discovered within our psychological lives—our feelings, desires, and subjective experiences—and that authentic living requires outward expression of that inner identity.
In this worldview, personal authenticity becomes a central measure of human flourishing.
But consider the implications.
If my deepest feelings determine who I am, then someone who questions my self-understanding may appear to be doing more than disagreeing with me.
They may appear to be denying my very identity.
And if affirmation becomes a moral obligation, disagreement can be interpreted as psychological injury.
This helps explain why an ordinary parental conversation about biological sex can become so contentious.
What one person regards as a loving acknowledgment of reality, another may interpret as an attack upon personal identity.
We have moved from the proposition that people deserve dignity and respect to the untenable proposition that respecting someone necessarily requires affirming that person’s subjective understanding of reality.
Those are not the same thing.
The Christian Understanding of the Human Person
Christianity offers a fundamentally different understanding of human identity.
We are not self-created beings whose bodies are incidental to our deepest selves.
We are embodied creatures, made in the image of God—male and female, according to Genesis 1:27, and Jesus (Matthew 19:4).
The body is not an inconvenient biological shell surrounding the supposedly authentic person within.
Our bodies belong to who we are.
Indeed, the Christian story places extraordinary importance upon embodiment: Creation, the Incarnation, Christ’s bodily resurrection, and the promised resurrection of our own bodies.
This does not mean dismissing psychological suffering. Quite the contrary. Christians are called to respond with patience, compassion, and love.
But compassion does not require treating subjective experience as the final authority on reality.
And love sometimes requires telling someone something they do not want to hear.
Protecting Children Without Criminalizing Care
The proposed British legislation remains under parliamentary scrutiny. The joint committee is scheduled to report by January 22, 2027. Its final language and legal consequences remain uncertain.
That makes Joyce’s testimony especially timely. After having followed Joyce for many years now, (see here, here, here, & here), I unhesitatingly say; if she is concerned, I’m concerned.
A civilized society must protect vulnerable people from genuine abuse. But it must also preserve the freedom of parents to parent, therapists to investigate, and religious leaders to offer counsel consistent with their convictions.
None of those freedoms licenses cruelty or coercion.
But neither should they become casualties of legislation that fails to distinguish responsible guidance from abusive conduct.
Helen Joyce has identified a question that reaches well beyond Britain.
When a child’s subjective identity conflicts with biological reality, will parents and professionals remain free to discuss that conflict honestly and compassionately?
Or will the fear of being accused of abuse determine what they are permitted to say?
I encourage you to watch her three-minute testimony and consider what is at stake.
+++