Reading time: 5 minutes

 

Brussels 10 Feb- 2026 MCC Brussels today challenged what it described as disingenuous, misleading and politically motivated claims by the lobby group ILGA Europe regarding so-called “conversion therapy”, warning that flawed data is being used to push far-reaching legislation with serious consequences for families, clinicians, and young people.

ILGA Europe has produced a reinterpretation of the 2023 FRA LGBTIQ III Survey to claim that Europe faces a growing crisis of “conversion therapy.” 

But the survey measures no such thing. Only by deliberately misinterpreting the survey and applying their own politically motivated interpreration have they resulted in the wild claims being circulated in the media. By combining a range of completely undefined behaviours -which could include everything from asking heartfelt questions about a proposed transition to physical violence -and inventing the slippery term “conversion  practises” to capture them all, ILGA Europe is manipulating media debate and policymaking.

“ILGA presents a wilfully distorted picture designed to provoke panic,” Ashley Frawley Reseach Fellow at MCC Brussels said. “The language and imagery of ‘conversion’ is designed to evoke historical abuses, but ILGA Europe have lumped together a whole range of behaviours under the banner of ‘conversion practises’. The survey is not measuring what the public understands as conversion therapy. This risks profoundly distorting public debate and policymaking.”

What the Survey Actually Asked

The term “conversion therapy” has been circulated in the media and is deliberately deployed to conjure images of coercive medical treatments and religious extremism. Yet the survey ILGA relies on never asked respondents about “conversion therapy” at all.

The FRA survey asked about “conversion practices”- a term left entirely undefined. Respondents were free to interpret it however they wished, in a climate where young people are repeatedly told that anything short of immediate affirmation of a declared gender identity may constitute “conversion therapy.”

Unsurprisingly:

  • Trans-identifying respondents reported exposure to “conversion practices” at roughly twice the rate of gays and lesbians- nearly half compared to about one in five.

Rather than prompting caution, this discrepancy has been presented as evidence of an organised campaign of abuse.

When Everything Becomes “Conversion Therapy”

The survey collapses an enormous range of experiences into a single category, including:

  • outright violence (rare),
  • “intervention by family members” (common),
  • verbal conflict or disagreement,
  • and undefined actions by professionals or relatives.

In practice, ordinary parental concern, hesitation, or therapeutic exploration can be reclassified as harmful “conversion therapy.” Simply questioning a child’s self-declared gender- something many parents and clinicians do in good faith- is swept into the same category as abuse.

Media Uncritically Amplify the Claims

In a troubling example of uncritical reporting, major media outlets have reproduced ILGA’s claims without scrutiny or counter-argument, including a recent Euronews video that repeats these allegations as fact:
https://x.com/euronews/status/2019818116344127665

Who Is Actually Being Accused?

According to the survey itself:

  • Doctors are the least common source of alleged conversion practices.
  • The most frequently cited source is “verbal abuse or humiliation.”

But what does that mean?

  • Activist frameworks increasingly define misgendering as a grave form of verbal abuse.
  • Were disagreements, parental objections, or boundary-setting counted?
  • Was misgendering interpreted by respondents as “conversion therapy”?

We simply do not know- because respondents were never asked.

A Climate of Professional Fear

This ambiguity has serious consequences. The Cass Review (2024) documented how clinicians felt unable to question prevailing gender-affirmative approaches, describing a professional culture in which automatic affirmation became the only “safe” option.

When anything else can be interpreted as “conversion therapy,” clinical judgment collapses under legal and reputational risk.

From Moral Panic to Policy Harm

Campaigners encourage the public to imagine a coordinated network attempting to “convert” LGBTIQ youth. In reality, the data suggests that:

  • insults,
  • family conflict,
  • uncertainty,
  • and cautious professional engagement
    are being retrospectively redefined as a single, malevolent practice.

This has grave implications. Broad bans on “conversion therapy” risk:

  • silencing families who want time and caution,
  • criminalising clinicians who do not immediately affirm,
  • and fast-tracking young people toward life-altering medical interventions, even as multiple countries reassess and retreat from the affirmative-only model.

Real-World Consequences Are Already Visible

These risks are no longer hypothetical:

  • A Ukrainian family in California was placed on an abuse registry and separated from their 16-year-old daughter for refusing medical affirmation.
  • A Canadian father was compelled by court order to use male pronouns for his daughter.
  • Detransitioners are now winning legal cases after describing harm caused by professional and legal pressure to affirm without question.

A Call for Clarity, Not Panic

Ashley Frawley, Visiting Research Fellow at MCC Brussels, said:

“Citizens and policymakers across the EU deserve clarity about what ‘conversion therapy’ actually means- and what it does not. Blurring the line between abuse and disagreement may serve activist narratives, but it does not protect young people. On the contrary, it risks doing profound harm to families, clinicians, and the very individuals these organisations claim to defend. Public debate must be grounded in precision, not fear.”

Further Reading and Media

Ashley Frawley’s research on the LGBTI lobby:

Video interview on the funding of the LGBTIQ lobby: