Laurie Higgins is the “Cultural Analyst” for the Illinois Family Institute, and she’s quite agitated about the state’s attempt to ban conversion therapy for teens.
…they want minors to be prohibited from even hearing any ideas that may be linked to their unchosen same-sex attraction, because such ideas undermine the unproven, non-factual, self-serving assumptions of homosexual activists and their highly politicized, Leftist mental health community allies.
Such a tizzy. Though I’m not sure exactly what it means. But Laurie clearly thinks it’s a bad idea.
The sponsors of this bill have marshalled an unimpressive array of claims from mental “health” organizations, all of which are loaded with biased and ambiguous language in support of an astoundingly totalitarian bill. If we have any really good critical thinkers and debaters in Springfield, they should be able to shred this bill in a floor debate.
Not just regular totalitarian, like in North Korea or the Soviet Union, but astoundingly so.
Now you might think Laurie is about to shred the bill with facts and careful analysis. But that’s not her style. Laurie would rather just ask questions of the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Kelly Cassidy. I’ve seen this just askin’ strategy before. It’s lazy and dishonest. Lazy, because it doesn’t require any evidence or even decent reasoning just to ask a question. Dishonest, because it leaves a gullible reader thinking a point’s been made even though nothing’s actually been said. The reader just fills in the missing answers with whatever the author insinuates.
The danger with this strategy, though, is that we can demolish simply by answering the questions. So let’s give that a try. Before we begin, though, let’s establish one thing. There is no evidence conversion therapy works, and a good bit of evidence that it can be harmful, so let’s call it what it is: dangerous medical experimentation on teens. That’s what it is, and that’s what we should always call it. Now, with that out of the way, first question:
What specifically constitutes “sexual orientation change efforts”?
Attempts to change one’s sexual orientation from gay, straight, or bisexual to a different one of those categories, or to alter the patient’s gender-related identity. That’s actually explained in the bill and its references; I’d have thought you would read the law before opposing it.
The bill cites the AMA’s criticism of one type of therapy (i.e., aversion therapy). Is that the only form of therapy that would be prohibited by this bill?
No, the bill would prohibit all sexual orientation change efforts. Again,that’s in the bill. And you know, this question would make sense if the AMA were the only group cited. But it’s not.
Would a 17-year-old who experiences homoerotic feelings but wants to construct an identity that does not include affirming those feelings be allowed to get help from a mental health provider for such an endeavor?
I suppose it depends on what you mean by “affirming.” Obviously the therapist is going to affirm the existence of those feelings if they do in fact exist. Perhaps by “affirm” you mean calling them “good.” But no worries there; therapists often aren’t concerned with labeling feelings “good” or “bad.” They just want to help the patient deal with what’s there in a constructive way. So to answer your question: Sure! — as long as the therapist is not performing dangerous medical experimentation on teens.
Would a 14-year-old who experiences homoerotic feelings and admits to having been sexually molested be allowed to explore the connection between sexual molestation and homoerotic feelings with a mental health provider?
Of course. What makes you worry otherwise? The therapist would likely want to explore all impacts of molestation on the patient’s sexuality — on any aspect of the patient’s psychology, in fact. And along the way, the patient would learn there is no evidence supporting the notion that molestation causes homosexuality.
The bill claims that homosexuality is not a “disorder, deficiency, or shortcoming,” stating that “The major professional associations of mental health practitioners and researchers in the United States have recognized this fact for nearly 40 years.” What specifically does this mean? Are the bill’s sponsors asserting as fact that engaging in homoerotic activity is not morally disordered, morally deficient, or a moral shortcoming? If so, where is their conclusive scientific proof for such a claim about the moral status of freely chosen activity?
What are you talking about? These professional organizations don’t have names like the “American Moralist Association.” It ought to be clear to anyone exploring this in good will that a group like the American Psychological Association is saying homosexuality is not a psychological disorder, deficiency, or shortcoming. This whole question is odd, akin to wondering if a member of the Plumber’s Union will come to your house and discuss whether your clogged drain is immoral.
One of the “expert” organizations cited refers to “bias” and “societal prejudice,” neither term of which is defined. Is the belief that voluntary homoerotic activity is immoral proof of bias and prejudice? So, for example, since Pope Francis, Oxford University law professor John Finnis, Princeton University law professor Robert George, and New Testament scholar N.T. Wright believe that homoerotic activity is immoral, are they—in Cassidy’s view—biased and prejudiced? If the bill’s sponsors think such moral beliefs about homoerotic activity are inherently biased and prejudiced then they must include their definitions of “bias” and “prejudice” in the bill.
I can’t read Cassidy’s mind, of course, but Robert George’s writing shows clear indication of bias and prejudice. And, frankly, anyone who is so committed to their religious views that they automatically dismiss any dissenting view is clearly biased. As for the definitions, that’s not hard:
Bias: a particular tendency, trend, inclination, feeling, or opinion, especially one that is preconceived or unreasoned; unreasonably hostile feelings or opinions about a social group
Prejudice: an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason
The bill cites the American Psychological Association’s (APA) claim “that sexual orientation change efforts can pose critical health risks to lesbian, gay, and bisexual people.” Note that the APA did not claim that such efforts do pose risks but rather that they can. Additionally, the claim does not identify if all “sexual orientation change efforts” pose such risks. Nor does the bill provide conclusive, incontrovertible proof for this nebulous claim. The bill’s sponsors should be asked which specific “sexual orientation change efforts” have been unequivocally proven to cause serious health risks and asked to provide their incontravertible proof.
You’re playing a semantic game, and you’re losing. A “risk” is something that can happen but may not. Thus, saying something can pose a risk is nearly synonymous with saying it does pose a risk — at least to some people or under some circumstances. The problem is we can’t know in advance which adolescents might be harmed.
As for whether all sexual orientation change efforts pose such risks, the situation is this: if a therapy is not effective (and none of these are), then demanding change when none is possible is inherently harmful, especially for teens who are already struggling with issues of identity and self-acceptance, no matter what their sexual orientation. But your whole wish for “incontravertible [sic] proof” is pretty strange. We tend to err on the side of caution with kids. Adults are one thing, but when it comes to minors, the burden of proof is on your side.
The bill cites the APA’s admission that there exists “anecdotal reports of ‘cures’” which are “counterbalanced by anecdotal reports of psychological harm.” Someone should ask Cassidy, why she believes there are quotation marks around the word “’cures’” while no such marks surround “harm.” Then someone should ask if she believes anecdotal reports of “harm” should be treated the same as anecdotal reports of cures.
Seriously? Are we really going back to middle-school punctuation lessons? Okay, for those who are having trouble, it makes no sense to speak of curing something that is not a disease or affliction, and since these groups don’t view homosexuality as a disease or affliction, the authors put “cure” in quotation marks, signifying that they are quoting someone else’s characterization of these efforts. That’s what quotation marks do. That’s why they’re called quotation marks (quot-ation, get it?). On that other hand, the authors do believe there’s a risk of harm, and are not merely quoting a view they disagree with, so no quotation marks are needed.
The bill cites the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry’s claim that “there is no medically valid basis for attempting to prevent homosexuality.” Might this statement hold true for other conditions for which people seek counseling, like “minor-attraction,” paraphilias, and relationship problems? Couldn’t an argument be made that “there is no medically valid basis for attempting to change” minor attraction, or paraphilias, or relationship dysfunction? In addition, aren’t there reasons other than medical reasons for which people seek counseling?
No.
Really? You need more? Minor-attraction is dangerous to minors, physically and psychologically, so there is a medically valid basis for changing such feelings. Relationship problems? Well, sure, there’s a valid basis for preventing problems, or at least addressing them. If there weren’t we wouldn’t call them problems. (Come on, it’s not like “problem” is a heavy duty SAT word only understood by the sharpest minds; this is pretty basic). As for paraphilias – which ones do you have in mind?
The bill claims that “Minors who experience family rejection based on their sexual orientation face especially serious health risks.” First, what does this have to do with prohibiting certain therapeutic modalities? And second, not all parents who believe homoerotic activity is immoral reject their children. Merely holding the belief that homoerotic activity is immoral no more constitutes rejection of minor children who experience unchosen homoerotic attraction or engage in homoerotic activity than does disapproval of polyamorous activity constitute rejection of minors who experience polyamorous feelings or engage in polyamorous activity.
Okay: “not all parents who believe homoerotic activity is immoral reject their children.” I hope not. But of course someone of them do kick their kids out the house, and the problem doesn’t go away just because it’s not universal.
On the other hand, it also depends on the meaning of “reject.” If the family is saying, “This is unacceptable and must change,” but the only strategies for change are not just ineffective but harmful, then that puts the youth in a quandary that feels a lot like rejection. In fact, it is rejection, and every therapy session is little more than a useless hour of intense familial rejection in action.
The bill cites the National Association of Social Workers’ claim that “sexual orientation conversion therapies assume that homosexual orientation is…freely chosen.” This claim could mean two different things. It could mean that some therapies assume homoerotic feelings are freely chosen, or it could mean that some therapies assume a “gay identity” is freely chosen—which, of course, is true. Cassidy should explain which of these two interpretations is correct. More important, if the justification for banning “sexual orientation conversion therapies” is related to the claim that homosexuality is freely chosen, shouldn’t Cassidy identify which specific therapeutic modalities make that claim?
The fact that you are inexplicably confused does not impose a “need to explain” on Cassidy, but let me give you a hand. “Sexual orientation” refers to “a person’s romantic, emotional or sexual attraction to another person,” so it’s the first alternative you listed. This is not especially difficult. Here’s a tool that may help in the future.
As for the rest of your question, since Cassidy is not relying solely on the NASW claim, Cassidy doesn’t need to identify which therapies rely on the notion of “choice.” As long as we’re dealing with dangerous medical experimentation on teens, we know it’s bad policy
The bill cites the National Association of Social Workers’ claim that “no data demonstrates that reparative or conversion therapies are effective.” But what about, for example, the study conducted by Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse and published in the book Ex-gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Medicated Change in Sexual Orientation that suggests that some therapeutic modalities can result in “sexual orientation” change in some people?
Oh, I love the Jones & Yarhouse study and have never understood why your side touts it so highly. Do you know what those authors actually said? Their single-sentence summary:
In short, the results do not prove that categorical change in sexual orientation is possible for everyone or anyone, but rather that meaningful shifts along a continuum that constitute real changes appear possible for some. [emphasis added]
So it appears possible that some folks who are bi may become a bit more so. That’s all. And they can’t even say that small change is possible — only that it appears so — because some of the “successes” are, in the authors own words, “likely overly optimistic projections of anticipated success for persons.”
If this is your flagship research, Laurie, you’re in trouble.
The bill cites the American Counseling Association Governing Council’s statement that they “oppose the promotion of ‘reparative therapy’ as a ‘cure’ for individuals who are homosexual,” which is a very specific and limited claim. So, would therapeutic models that do not promote therapy as a “cure” but instead allow for the possibility of change or allow for the construction of an identity that does not affirm homoerotic feelings, activity, and relationships be permissible?
As you’ve described it, I can see the possibility. But do you have any examples? Because your side has a way of misrepresenting this sort of thing. Also, this is just a repeat of your earlier “affirm” question, and we dealt with it there.
The bill cites the American Psychoanalytic Association’s claim that “Psychoanalytic technique does not encompass purposeful attempts to ‘convert,’ ‘repair,’ change or shift an individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.” If passed would this bill allow for discussions that are not initiated by mental health providers but rather are initiated by minors who desire to purposefully pursue shifts in their sexuality identity?
Yes, of course, it’s okay to for a therapist to discuss a patient’s questions. This bill merely prohibits dangerous medical experimentation on teens.
What is the goal of mental health practice?
Goals of therapy and mental health practice are set by the patient and the therapist. But it would be unethical for the therapist to make unrealistic promises like, I can make you psychic, or I can make you a kitten, or I can make you straight.
Is the goal of mental health practice to eliminate all guilt?
I’ve never heard of such a thing. Why do you ask? The question seems to be built on a mountain of unstated assumption and misconceptions. You should look into that. Maybe therapy would help.
Is the goal to affirm all feelings, desires, or attractions? If not, how do the bill’s sponsors determine which feelings must be affirmed?
Again, I’ve never heard of such a thing, though once again I suppose it depends on what you mean by “affirm.” Certainly a person’s actual feelings or desires, wanted or unwanted, must be acknowledged and accepted before they can be dealt with. Also, the bill isn’t about which feelings to “affirm” but is concerned with preventing dangerous medical experimentation on teens.
Is the goal to prevent or alleviate depression by any and all means (including even affirming non-factual, subjective assumptions as unassailable, incontrovertible facts)?
I’d say no. For instance, it would unethical for a therapist to counsel depressed patients to murder their parents, even if their parents are at the root of the depression. What’s with this “any and all means” anyway? Are you building up straw men here?
Might a healthy identity ever entail rejection of or resistance to feelings, desires, attractions, or volitional acts?
Sure. Remember what I just said about a desire to murder one’s parents. The therapist would probably counsel resisting that.
Can sound mental health practice include helping people of faith—including minors—to incorporate their religious beliefs—including orthodox religious beliefs—into their construction of identity or their choice of life path?
Yep. As long as it doesn’t turn into dangerous medical experimentation on teens.
Is our contemporary mental health community capable of responsibly and ethically treating those whose faith is central to their identity?
Yes.
Is the rejection of or hostility to the existence of God corrupting social science research and counseling?
No. Or at least, I have no reason to believe so. If you disagree, how about you make a case for it — because just asking a question lets your reader’s imagination run amok with way in which this might be true, and shields you from the responsibility of establishing that it is true. Crafty strategy on your part, in a lazy, disingenuous kind of way.
Has society elevated unstable social science research to an omniscient, godlike epistemological status it does not warrant?
No, that’s more the prerogative of the religious community.
What if the Left’s assumptions about guilt, shame, depression, homosexuality, gender confusion, morality, and identity are in reality false?
Let’s clear up this italicized “assumptions.” These aren’t assumptions you’re talking about. They’re rooted in scientific research and personal experience. Actually, that’s not fair. I’m letting you off the hook too easily. Can you name the “assumptions” you have in mind?
Ultimately, though, this is not about the “Left’s assumptions.” This is about whether its ethical to charge someone for conducting dangerous medical experimentation on teens. And the answer to that is easy.
So there you go: Laurie Higgins questions, asked and answered. I doubt Laurie reads this blog, so it would a lovely gesture, perhaps, if we alleviated her confusion by sending her a link. Here’s the twitter account for her organization, should the spirit of generosity move you.