The lack of evidence to support the 'transgender identity' aspect of the government's conversion practices bill would be risible if the consequences were not so appalling. Let's take what is virtually the opening paragraph of the updated Equality Impact Assessment, which claim "There is growing evidence on the harm associated with conversion practices, including long lasting damage to those who go through it". A footnote is given with 3 references, which an innocent reader might imagine would back up that claim. Two of the references relate to work commissioned by the Government Equalities Office in 2021 to research conversion therapy (which was the term used before the broader concept of 'conversion practices' was adopted). How confident are these researchers that their work offered reliable evidence? In their own words: "Whether or not these experiences constitute ‘conversion therapy’ may depend on the definition, but they were perceived to be so by the interviewees." As for specific examples of 'conversion' on people with a gender identity, the researchers chose to cite cases in therapy such as "looking for ‘causes’ by discussing childhood trauma and family relationships". Yet government officials have repeatedly stated that exploratory therapy of this kind does NOT qualify as 'conversion'. In summary, the 2021 research admits that what is reported as 'conversion' might not qualify as such, and fails to offer any examples of even subjective claims of so-called gender identity conversion that would warrant criminal sanctions. What about the 3rd reference cited in the EqIA? This is a report by the American Psychological Association, which states: "we limited our review to sexual orientation and did not address gender identity". In conclusion: 3 citations, no evidence that could remotely be relied on for the accompanying claim as it relates to (trans)gender identity. And this is the basis for introducing a new criminal offence punishable with up to 5 years in prison.