"Twitter does not lend itself to nuance or subtlety, but legislative proposals and clinical best practice are ill-served by simplistic sloganeering.
So, let me optimistically use Twitter to try to unpack the conflicting views on the govt's conversion therapy bill. 1/20

Apologies in advance for another epic thread, but hopefully this will underscore that differences of opinion on the wisdom of the proposed conversion therapy legislation are not a case of "pure, cold-eyed evil" (thanks Philip Pullman) versus enlightened progressives. 2/20

Those questioning the bill have immersed themselves in the detail: consultation documents, multiple reference studies, a range of responses pro & contra, the interim Cass Review. Before you dismiss them, do them the honour of a similar breadth of research. 3/20

The first thing to understand is that people with qualms about the transgender aspect of the bill are not "in favour of conversion therapy". (Sigh - this should be obvious, but Twitter loves a cheap insult, so it needs saying.) 4/20

A vital question to ask is whether the term "conversion therapy" is even applicable in this context, but to answer that we need to address a more fundamental problem: what did the original proposals mean by "being transgender". 5/20