Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Brian Kingston on .
- MLA
- Mr Brian Kingston
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 28 September 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5762576
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for giving way. The Member has touched on two of the most disturbing aspects of the Bill. First, there is no list of genders in the Bill, and we are left to look up on the internet whatever crazy list we can find. The one I have had 72; I think others found a list of over 100. I will read a few of them. Affectugender is based on a person's mood swings or fluctuations: having mood swings is not a gender. Astergender means that a person has a bright and celestial gender identity. Astralgender is having a gender identity that fails to be related to space. I do not know what any of those mean. Biogender means having a gender that is closely related to nature. They sound more like having an interest in something; they are not genders. Colourgender: in this category, colours are used to describe gender, for example, pink gender or black gender. Femgender is a non-binary gender identity that is feminine. It is non-binary and feminine: does that mean "female"? Genderblank is closely related to a blank space. I would have to conclude that, under the Bill, anybody can create their own gender and say that it has to be recognised. The Member also pointed to one of the most important parts of the Bill — clause 7(1)(c) — as a get-out clause where a person will not be accused of an attempt to change or suppress if:
"the intent is to affirm a sexual orientation or gender identity which the victim considers is, or may be, their sexual orientation or gender identity".
If a child says to a parent, "I think I am genderblank", and the parent says, "Are you sure?", apparently that is the wrong response. You have to say, "Oh, that's wonderful. I'm pleased for you". You cannot question the child or say, "Look, I think this is not healthy for you", as any parent would want to do, and challenge their child or anyone who is counselling or supporting that child. You can only affirm, you cannot question. It could be that the child comes back a couple of days later and says, "Actually, I've decided I'm something else. I'm surprised you didn't challenge me when I told you the first time". As the Member said, people challenge us all day about our politics and views on matters. We expect that and we take that, and that is part of having views on anything. On this issue, you are not allowed to question somebody. You just have to affirm it, and, if you do not do that, you are potentially committing a criminal offence.
447 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met every documented threshold for a qualifying culture-war activity.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.71 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- Criteria met: Sectarian or communal antagonism (0.64); Dog-whistle messaging (0.94).
- The text adopts the identity-based framing in its own voice (0.61).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The text adopts a strongly antagonistic or dog-whistle framing, which qualifies even alongside legitimate scrutiny.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.31 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.64 | Yes |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.06 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.94 | Yes |
| Controversy escalation | 0.54 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.57 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.71 | Above qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing | 0.37 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.01 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it (chosen) | 0.61 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 1.00 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 01:21 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9. This record has been assessed 3 times; the latest assessment is shown.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.