Yesterday the St. Paul City Council voted unanimously to enact a ban on so-called “conversion therapy,” following Minneapolis’s lead last fall. Despite the rhetoric, the ban is actually an attack on individual choice in health care as well as on the constitutional rights of therapists, patients, and families. St. Paul’s proposed ban could prevent mental health professionals from helping patients explore all options when addressing questions over sexual orientation and gender identity, something they should be free to do. “Young people should have access to voluntary, compassionate, client-driven care in the field of sexual identity that pursues the goals of the patient, including living in accordance with biblical teaching on sexuality or becoming more comfortable with their biological sex,” said John Helmberger, CEO of Minnesota Family Council.
The difference between what these bans claim to address and what they actually target is significant. Proponents of “conversion therapy” bans frequently point to horror stories of extreme, abusive instances of aversion therapy tactics. No one is arguing that these unethical practices should be used. Any licensed mental health professional who attempts to utilize such methods should lose their license. But as World magazine noted regarding Minneapolis’s ban, “Minneapolis council members… missed one glaring problem: Most tales of abuse apparently do not involve a licensed mental health professional.” These bans only address the actions of licensed mental health professionals who are already held to a standard of ethics that keeps them from resorting to the tactics described by proponents of these bans. If so-called “conversion therapy” bans were really addressing abusive situations, they would be redundant. The “conversion therapy” that these bans seek to limit is talk therapy, in which a licensed mental health professional helps their client through questions and conversation. “Conversion therapy” bans limit what counselors can say and what kind of questions they can ask when their client is dealing with questions regarding their sexual identity.
Counseling bans overlook the fact that not everyone who experiences same-sex desires or questions regarding their sexual identity wants to adopt the LGBT lifestyle or agenda. Nate Oyloe, a pastoral counselor, says people like him would be directly affected by this bill. “I was horrified to hear that the St. Paul City Council has passed a so-called ‘conversion therapy’ ban. As a young person dealing with same sex attractions, I enjoyed the benefit of good psychotherapists and faith-based organizations to help me bring my sexuality into agreement with my faith as a Christian. I was not coerced or harmed by either, in fact I was helped greatly.” These bans dismiss the voices of people who have benefited from this kind of counseling, receiving compassionate help as they have worked through these issues. Not everyone who experiences unwanted same-sex attraction seeks out counseling, nor should they have to, but city officials have no business denying them the option.
So-called “conversion therapy” bans also harm young people who are struggling with gender dysphoria, closing the door on counseling that might help them sort through feelings of confusion regarding their sexual identity, and instead ushering them into irreversible, damaging “treatments” to “affirm” their “gender transition.” As Joseph Backholm has pointed out, this is an example of the LGBT movement twisting the meaning of words. Efforts to help a child feel comfortable in their own body are called “conversion therapy” but insistence that a child was born in the “wrong body,” along with experimental use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgery are called “gender affirmation.” Considering that 80-95% of children who experience gender dysphoria and do not socially “transition” grow up to be comfortable living in accordance with their biological sex, the rush to transition does not make nearly as much sense as a compassionate, patient approach, often involving counseling.
Counseling bans like the approved by the St. Paul City Council take options away from young people and rely heavily on unsupported assumptions of genetic determinism. City leaders have no business denying the city’s residents the freedom to get the counseling they want, not just counseling the city approves of. As legal challenges around the country indicate, this type of ban is a fundamental violation of the rights of patients to set the goals of their treatment, and on the free speech rights of mental health practitioners.
