I've got lesbian and gay friends who are concerned about this bill because actually that community, the LGBTQIA+ community, is not a single cohesive unit. As one acquaintance put to me, "As a gay man," he said, "actually, in today's day and age I'd be afraid that I'd be told actually I'm really just needing something gender affirming—I'm not actually a gay man; I'm a woman and I just need to explore that." He feels his identity as a gay man could be erased with the modern zeitgeist at the moment that's is more around transgender issues. That's his experience. It's only one of them, but I do put to those colleagues voting for this bill: how does he and others have a genuine dialogue without the fear that he is, or those talking to him are, going to be captured by this bill? Because as I keep saying, unfortunately—and I do want to stress that because as I keep wanting to repeat—if this was a narrow well-defined bill around conversion practices, we'd be fine—we'd be fine. But it's now about sustained effort. It's about wider treatments. And it was also put forward by the previous speaker around examples of conversion practices of someone who may encourage here gender-conforming behaviour. Does that capture biological women who want to use biological terms like "she" and "her"? Is that going to offend people who actually want different pronouns? Maybe it does. I don't know—