Debate contribution: Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage

Debate contribution by Mr Eóin Tennyson on .

MLA
Mr Eóin Tennyson
Party at the time
Alliance Party
Date
22 September 2026
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Private Members' Business
Heading
Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill: Second Stage
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 5741325

Text

I have not finished. As I have said, the test before us is not whether a term is contested; it is whether the courts could interpret it and apply it proportionately.

I am glad that most of our judiciary have a bit more wit than Members when it comes to interpreting those terms and do not come up with such ludicrous assertions as have been made in the Chamber. First of all, this is not the first time that "gender identity" has been written into Northern Ireland law. There is legislation on the census that includes reference to gender identity, so the repeated claims that this would be the first time that that has been written into law are false, inaccurate and not true. Secondly, I have pointed Members to a statutory definition provided in the equivalent UK legislation that refers to trans men, trans women and people who are non-binary or questioning their identity. I have told Members that, if they want that legislative clarity and want to replicate that definition, that is a conversation to which I am open. The truth is that those Members are not interested in the statutory definition. If we took those Members at their word, there would be a statutory definition for every word in the Bill, which is not how legislation works. The Bill would be 400 pages long if that is how we wrote it. That argument is not being made in good faith. It is being made to make light of people whose gender identity does not align with their sex. I have been open about the fact that I respect the rights and dignity of transgender people in our community, and Members will not bait me in the Chamber into diminishing those people. I will not do it.

299 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not qualifying

Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.

  • Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.38 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
  • None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
  • Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.69).
  • The text criticises or condemns the framing or division (0.77).
  • Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
  • The overall probability was low and the text did not adopt any identity-based framing.

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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.17No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.06No
Cultural grievance politics0.07No
Dog-whistle messaging0.12No
Controversy escalation0.30No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.69Yes
Overall judgement0.38Between thresholds
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing0.20
Reports or questions it0.01
Criticises or condemns it (chosen)0.77
Adopts it0.02
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues1.00
No identity-related subject0.00
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00
Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy0.00

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.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification