The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) has urged member states to ban so-called conversion practices, adding questioning gender-identity to the equation.
The call came during its plenary session in Strasbourg yesterday.
“Conversion practices” traditionally mean those aimed at changing, repressing or suppressing sexual orientation. Activists have been pushing to include transgenderism in an expanded definition, including in the resolution.
The resolution calls to “prohibit conversion practices, providing for criminal sanctions and based on a clear and comprehensive definition of the proscribed practices”. That means it wants member states to prohibit any attempt to change, repress or suppress a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.
Critics warned that it de facto calls for making it illegal to question someone’s self-chosen gender.
Citing a lack of scientific basis and serious risks to mental and physical health, PACE emphasised that addressing these practices is both a public health priority and a human rights obligation.
The assembly underscored the right to personal autonomy, as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.
In its recommendations, PACE urged stronger victim support, professional training and public awareness campaigns. It also called for closer collaboration with civil society, especially LGBTI rights organisations and for better data collection to assess the scale and impact of conversion practices.
Regarding worries of parents or clinicians, a token amendment by the European People’s Party (EPP) was added. It stated that “a conversion practices ban should not limit supportive interventions by parents or by qualified clinicians providing healthcare … nor limit the independence of those interventions, so long as the interventions do not attempt to change, repress, or suppress people”, which leaves a wide margin for interpretation.
Nine other amendments focusing on sexual orientation, allowing disagreement and therapeutic caution or prohibit irreversible sex-changing surgical procedures on minors, except during emergencies or life-saving treatment, were all voted down.
Helena Dalli, former European commissioner for equality and ex-equality minister in Malta, described these practices as “grounded in the false belief that diversity is a defect”.
Malta became the first European country to ban conversion practices in 2016, setting a legal precedent that “no one has the right to deny another person’s identity”, Dalli stated.
“Either Europe affirms, unequivocally, that diversity in sexual orientation and gender identity is part of the human condition, or it tolerates practices that treat it as a pathology … No state should claim fidelity to human rights while allowing these practices to continue,” she concluded.
Critics, though, have warned the resolution went too far by including gender identity.
Athena Forum, an Austria-based think-tank working to safeguard and advance sex-based rights, said before the vote it was a “dramatic expansion of the concept of conversion”. It says the move risks sweeping legal, professional and ideological overreach, with serious consequences for children, parents, clinicians and educators.
UK human rights-charity Sex Matters also opposed the resolution.
Progressive proponents of the resolution said the warnings were” a lobbying effort from transphobic groups”.
Belgian Senator Bob De Brabandere, member of the European Conservatives, Patriots & Affiliates (ECPA), said during the debate that the resolution did “not confine itself to banning abuse”.
“It establishes a far reaching ideological framework that intrudes deeply into medicine, education, family life and freedom of thought. It is quite simply based on ideological wishful thinking, not scientific facts,” De Brabandere said.
“The resolution deliberately broadens the concept of ‘conversion practices’ beyond sexual orientation to include gender identity and gender expression. These concepts — particularly when applied to children and adolescents — are neither medically settled nor universally defined.
“Yet the text treats them as unquestionable facts and labels any form of exploration, hesitation or non affirmation as harmful,” he added.
“That is not evidence based policy; it is dogmatic legislation.”
He said it was “troubling” that the resolution called for criminal sanctions because the resolution explicitly frames “disbelieving, denying or ignoring” a person’s declared gender identity as a form of conversion practice.
“In practice, this places parents, therapists, teachers and social workers under legal suspicion for exercising caution, professional judgment or parental responsibility. Criminal law should protect against abuse — not enforce ideological conformity,” De Brabandere said.
He stressed that “a serious ban on abusive practices requires legal precision, proportionality and respect for pluralism”.
A spokeswoman for Athena forum told Brussels Signal it was a “robust debate” and that representatives of the EPP had already agreed in advance with the rapporteur.
She noted that Socialist representatives “didn’t engage at all” with counter arguments and were all issuing “the same talking points”.
She stressed the danger for gay and lesbian youth and other vulnerable profiles who can get funnelled into medical pathways instead of growing up as healthy gay and lesbian adults.
“The impact on families who look for help for troubled adolescent children were not addressed,” the spokeswoman said.
She noted that UK representatives were particularly vocal and that they aimed to introduce a similar ban in the UK, with the approval in PACE being a way to put pressure on the UK.
“There was a low level of understanding of the issue with delegates, they don’t know the differences, didn’t know the basics and never heard the other side of the story,” she said.
She said she was disappointed in the leadership of the EPP, which was “too willing to compromise”.
“We would like to see greater understanding, its not a left-right issue, it is non partisan. People need to understand, those who support this think they do something good, but we explain it is problematic for gays and vulnerable groups, it is not a simple thing, nor is it about sexual orientation but gender identity,” the spokeswoman said.
She stressed the opposition was not about harmful practices, as everyone rejects coercion. “Making affirmation the only permissible approach to a child’s self declared gender identity is not protection. We need to help delegates from all sides understand it.”
Rónán Mullen, an Irish member of the EPP, also voted against the resolution. In a reaction to Brussels Signal he said it was disappointing to discover the radical draft resolution came through the equality committee unanimously.
He did stress that an Austrian EPP member also voted against it.
“I think that the people who would be centrist to conservative can’t just accept everything coming from LGBTQI-activists and pretend they are combatting homophobia. In reality it is not about gay people but this is trans activism: A radical agenda of gender affirmation deliberately stitched into the report,” Mullen said.
He said there should have been more opposition with centrists, in particular in EPP and Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) group on this.
Mullen noted an effort was made to protect freedom of conscience of religious organisations but only to a limited extent.
The demand of “no attempt to change a person”, could include a confused young child, he added. They “need support and help, not to be entrenched in gender confusion”, he said.
Mullen concluded by saying he conducted “principled opposition of a moderate point of view within Christian Democratic tradition”, adding: “I would encourage others to do it too, protect the important distinction between personal liberty and the protection of vulnerable people, children, to toxic ideologies.”
