Transgender conversion practices involve attempts to alter, discourage, or suppress a person’s gender identity and/or desired gender presentation, including by delaying or preventing gender transition. Proponents of the practices have argued that they should be allowed until proven to be harmful. Drawing on the notion of expressive equality, I argue that conversion practices are prima facie unethical because they do not fulfill a legitimate clinical purpose and conflict with the self-understanding of trans communities.

So-called ‘conversion therapy’ involves therapeutic attempts to change an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity. It is widely considered to be harmful to sexual minorities and there have been calls for it to be banned in the UK. In this paper, we examine whether victims of the practice could bring tort claims against ‘therapists’ for mental harm. Focusing on talking therapies, we assess tort doctrine in the law of negligence, the rule in Wilkinson v Downton, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and deceit. We conclude that while some forms of conversion therapy will be tortious, others will not and so this area of law may fail to assist many victims of the practice.

In the 1960s and 1970s, psychologists at the University of California, Los Angeles, operated two behaviour modification programs: one aiming to eliminate “feminine” behaviours in male-bodied children (“conversion therapy”), and one targeting autistic children’s so-called problem behaviours (applied behavioural analysis or ABA). The head of the autism program referred to his work as “building a person.” Decades later in Ontario, a radically incommensurate legal context sees conversion therapy banned while ABA receives millions of funding dollars. Drawing on legislation, case law, media, and clinical literature, I argue that the process of trans communities wresting themselves out from under conversion therapy involved discursively shifting from having a condition to being human—a process of “building a person”—still incomplete for autistic communities. While legal reforms protect some trans youth from harmful therapies, this does not extend to autistic trans youth, leading us to question at whose expense a rights-bearing trans person was built.