Equalising "equality"?

 In introducing the recent Westminster Hall debate on LGBT conversion therapy, conversion therapy was defined by the member of parliament leading the debate in the following way:

First, we must ask ourselves what conversion therapy is and why it needs to be banned. According to a May 2020 report by the UN Office for Human Rights, and indeed according to a definition from the Government Equalities Office, so-called conversion therapy is an umbrella term used to describe interventions of a wide-ranging nature, all of which have in common the belief that a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity can and should be changed. These so-called therapies can manifest in many forms, from pseudo-psychological treatments and aversion therapies to practices that are religiously based, such as purification or fasting. At the most extreme, there has been evidence that this practice can also involve physical and sexual violence, including so-called corrective rape.

 What is interesting in this definition is that it refers to "orientation" and "identity"; it leaves out any reference to the question of how behaviours that follow from orientation and identity might be considered. Is it a definition that assumes that an orientation and identity are of necessity only experienced in intimate sexual activities that align with that orientation and identity, and that an orientation or identity only exist when they are experienced in such sexual activities? 

The question matters, and it matters because it touches on the right of communities such as the Catholic Church to propose their teaching on marriage and human sexuality (cf Article 18 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, cf Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights). That teaching is that the sexual act is ordered only between the male and female person, engaged in a married relationship, and in a manner open to the gift of new life. It is a teaching about a sexual behaviour; it is a teaching that has both a moral character based in human reason and a theological character in terms of the analogy of the wedded relationship of man and woman to the relationship of Christ and the Church.

Circumstances can clearly be envisaged where the way and situation in which the proposal of this teaching takes place might constitute an abuse of the freedom of the individual to whom it is proposed; but, equally, and probably more commonly in mainstream churches, circumstances can also be envisaged where it is proposed in a respectful and considered way that is totally fair to the freedom of the individual. And leaving aside the cases of individuals, the Catholic Church will propose this teaching generally to wider society as a whole.

But would this proposal of a teaching that is focussed on sexual behaviours fall foul of legislation banning conversion therapies that is framed exclusively in terms of "orientation" and "identity", and mistakenly assumes a congruence of "orientation" and "identity" with corresponding intimate sexual behaviours? Would the proposal of such a teaching be seen in law as a form of conversion therapy?

Perhaps it is considerations such as this that are prompting considerable caution on the part of Kemi Badenoch, the Minister for Equalities, and the present government in the UK. As she said towards the end of the recent parliamentary debate:

The Government have been clear that we do not intend to stop those who wish to seek spiritual counselling as they explore their sexual orientation, but there will be cases when a line is crossed, where someone is actively seeking to change another’s sexual orientation—an innate aspect of their personal identity—via coercion under the guise of spiritual support. The Government will exercise great care when considering what does and does not constitute conversion therapy, and how to intervene. ....
We continue to work to ensure that the actions we take are proportionate and effective, and will set out our next steps soon. We have heard a range of views and voices, and it is imperative that we continue a constructive dialogue to ensure that we get our proposals right.