California knows what’s best for your maybe-gay child, not your child’s therapist. Resistance is futile…
California’s legislature is poised to pass legislation that would ban state doctors, counselors and therapists from offering sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) treatment for minors, and parents from seeking them. The rationale is a tangle of research, opinion, politics, ideology and political correctness that makes distinguishing legitimate reasons from illegitimate ones impossible. The end result, however, is a law that tells counselors and therapists what is appropriate treatment regardless of their expertise and the wishes of parents, because, of course, the typically moderately IQ-endowed legislators know best, or rather the gay rights advocates who dictate to them do. Either way, this is a serious intrusion of government into the counseling profession, free speech, parental authority and individual freedom, and any competent elected official would see that the second such an over-reaching and presumptuous bill reached his or her desk.
Naturally, this unethical and quite possibly unconstitutional bill is the creation of various gay rights advocacy groups. You know, some deaf rights advocacy groups hold that it is wrong to surgically implant devices in the ears of deaf children to let them hear, and presumably the California legislature, if enough campaign contributions were forthcoming from the deaf lobby, would be happy to prohibit that too.
Bad analogy? I don’t think so. Being gay in America is a handicap in many ways. It shouldn’t be, but it is. One does not have to be hostile to gays in any way to conclude, if one is a parent, that a son or daughter is likely have an easier life as a heterosexual than as a homosexual. Why shouldn’t a parent be able to seek counseling for a child who says he is gay, thinks he might be gay, doesn’t want to be gay, feels attractions to the same sex (or both sexes) and is confused about his sexuality, or just wants some guidance? I have talked to therapists about this, and many have told me that children and teens often think they are gay when they are not, and vice-versa, and that sexual orientation may be fluid for quite a while. Yet the California legislature is decreeing that no parent has the right to seek a therapist who believes he can resolve a child’s equivocal case in the direction of heterosexuality.
On what basis? That it can never work? (That it should never work?) How can the legislature say that? How can anybody say that? I agree that the Michele Bachmann contention that homosexuality can be cured like a case of bronchitis is insulting to gays and flies in the face of what we know, or think we know, about sexual orientation. Still, for a state to unilaterally declare that all psychiatric, psychological efforts in this or any other sphere must cease and that no parent may attempt treatment or counseling methods that the legislature disapproves of on philosophical or political grounds is an infringement of personal and family autonomy that cannot be defended as being within the government’s legitimate sphere of activity.
State Senator Ted Lieu, the sponsor of the bill, argues that this is a health issue and his bill was written to protect the health, welfare and rights of children who thought they were gay. “We (the government) intervene all the time to restrict the rights of individuals and parents regarding health issues,” he said. “We pass laws saying minors can’t buy tobacco products; anyone under 21 can’t legally drink alcohol and we force parents to put their very young children into car seats while they’re driving.” Yes, and these are all laws relating to dangerous products and conclusively established health risks with no appreciable benefits. Even in the case of cigarettes and liquor, a parent can allow a child to take a sip of wine or puff a cigarette under their supervision. (Mine did. Got me off smoking for life. But perhaps a tobacco-growing state will declare such prophylactic “treatment” by parents illegal, using the California model.) I’m trying to find any example of controversial psychological treatments or therapy by licensed professionals being banned by state or national law. So far, no luck. If a particular treatment is supported by a minority in the profession, should the majority be able to persuade the legislature to ban it? The concept is pure paternalism. Proponents of the bill cite the report of an American Psychological Association 2009 Task Force that concluded that SOCE therapy “could lead to depression, feelings of shame, self-loathing, drug abuse, high-risk sexual behavior, anger, withdrawal and in some cases, even attempted suicide in minor children, if those same-sex attractions continue to persist.” First of all, there is a “could” there: all treatment involves risks. Second, many of those same undesirable reactions can occur in response to any legitimate therapy or treatment that doesn’t work. Third, assessments of what is or isn’t effective and valuable therapy change radically over time, and preohibiting approaches that happen to be out of favor risks interfering with the advance of knowledge. Finally, all professional associations are political organizations, and have agendas. Basing such restrictive legislation on association reports is irresponsible.
Meanwhile, California applauds extreme surgical treatment, therapy and counseling designed to let individuals change their sex, but want to make it illegal for a parent to ask a therapist try to change a child’s alleged sexual orientation.
Let parents weight the risks and dangers of various therapies. Let the civil justice system address cases or negligence and recklessness, where treatment causes harm. The government is wildly abusing its power and over-estimating its wisdom to presume to dictate what is or isn’t the proper way for a parent to respond to a child who believes he is gay.
___________________________
Facts: Fox News
Graphic: Silver Bear Cafe
Ethics Alarms attempts to give proper attribution and credit to all sources of facts, analysis and other assistance that go into its blog posts. If you are aware of one I missed, or believe your own work was used in any way without proper attribution, please contact me, Jack Marshall, at jamproethics@verizon.net.
Ethics Alarms 
I would like to be able to say, “only in California,” but this may be coming to a state near you….
The minority in this case base their beliefs on superstition, and deny that the scientific method is valid. They are self-confessed “Faith Healers”.
Who will litigate? Parents who’d rather have a dead child than a gay one? To them, “curing gayness” is a good outcome, but the child suiciding is acceptable too, even desirable, if the first is impossible.
I suggest that you contact professionals who have seen the results of such therapies. May I suggest Dr Warren Throckmorton as a good start. He used to believe that such therapies were effective, and certainly desirable due to his religious beliefs. As he looked at the evidence, he changed his opinion.
In the same way that putting a gun to someone’s head and shooting them “could” result in their death, or significant cognitive impairment. It may not in all cases.
I don’t like this law. I would like to think it’s an over-reach. It’s ethically dubious. I fear it might also be necessary, given the circumstances.
What I most fear is Unintended Consequences: an increase in “runaways” whose bodies are never found, once this alternative is removed, and an increase in the “underground” treatments involving aversion therapy and brain surgery.
The average age homeless gay kids are kicked out is 14. For trans kids it’s 13 1/2. Those figures are reliable. We don’t have reliable figures for the “runaways”, but we do know it happens as some survive the attempt at “honour killing”. Getting enough evidence to prosecute that though is nigh impossible, it appears to happen most often in areas where law enforcement is sympathetic to the idea.
I strongly object to your term, Jack. They are the most incompetent elected officials of the decade. Please make that correction before the big one pushes us into the sea
Boy, I don’t know about THAT. The competition’s pretty stiff.
That is the contradiction. When it comes to sex, people are born that way.
“When it comes to sex, people are born that way”
I could equally state that people are not born that way. Neither your statement nor mine is factually correct. Research into homosexuality has been biased, debunked, junk or not reproducible on both sides. For California legislators to “outlaw” services that have not been banned by APA or any other like association because of a lack of evidence is absurd and dangerous. Even the California chapter of the APA is opposed to it, although they don’t state why. These legislators are clearly bending to the very vocal minority with little regard to the harm it may cause. This bill promotes therapy encouraging homosexuality because anything counter to that is illegal, it’s very nature stereotypes and treats all individuals who have same sex attraction as a group and not on an individual basis. How is this sound treatment?
Jacks solution is the only ethical one
“Let the civil justice system address cases or negligence and recklessness, where treatment causes harm.”
I must disagree, in part anyway.
An awful lot of Junk Science has been produced, and the evidence for that is incontrovertible.
However, there’s a large body of work now, showing entirely reproducible measurements of differences in the brain. We can reliably induce same-sex attraction in animals due to hormonal manipulation in the womb, and observe similar effects on humans with Intersex conditions causing similar hormonal anomalies.
To summarise, from Sexual Hormones and the Brain: An Essential Alliance for Sexual Identity and Sexual Orientation Garcia-Falgueras A, Swaab DF Endocr Dev. 2010;17:22-35
The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in extreme cases in trans-sexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation.
My interest is mainly in Gender Identity rather than Sexual Orientation. I know relatively little about the latter, mainly because I’m not sure exactly what stimuli are needed to categorise someone as “male” or “female”, not which components are instinctive and which are learnt.
But the case that sexual orientation is mostly (possibly always) set before birth is now very strong, and that while movement within the bounds set by Nature obviously happens, the degree is limited, especially in males.
If psychotherapy can change sexual orientation, it should also be able to create genius- and above-genius IQ levels, instil musical and other talents, cause many deaf people to hear and blind people to see, and so on. Indeed, all those who claim that such change is possible also believe that Prayer can do the rest too. Just don’t ask them for double-blind follow-ups, nor ask what seqelae their therapy regime is associated with, in particular the mortality rate.
Your commentary here, and elsewhere, on this topic have had a significant influence on my thinking, I must admit. And for a “fundamentalist,” Pentecostal Christian, this requires quite an adjustment, indeed. It’s apparent to me that there has always been homosexuality (and perhaps always some form of transgender identity issue, lurking in the shadows in times of past history). As a Christian, I am well aware of the current interpretations given, that prayer should be tried to “cure” these conditions, but as a physician, trained in the hard sciences (physics), as well as medical biology, I am also aware of the physiologic changes to brain structure and function that you have referenced above. And God made our bodies to have, in some instances, for some individuals, these “vagaries” of ambiguous gender identity, simply as a result of how He designed us. However, as the crude aphorism goes, “God don’t make no junk,” and so, I have to believe that this matter is complicated, very difficult to understand, but is indeed part of God’s creation. What we have NOT discussed, and what I think is greatly relevant, is the increasing presence of estrogenic homologues in our food supply, that is, the various plastics, BPA among them, pesticides, and so on, which undoubtedly influence fetal development, both of brain and of genitals, and this leaves aside for a moment the huge issue of GMO foods and so on, which are also just being “outed” for their influence on cognitive development, immune system modification and development of sterility in subsequent generations. These developments are a creation of man, taking the place of God in nature, and undoubtedly influence the incidence of gender identity and homosexual identity issues, as well as account for the progressively earlier onset of puberty in girls, and the increasing feminization of males in childhood development as well.
Nevertheless, this is context to the original question. I believe, as Jack has stated, that neither a state legislature, nor Federal, nor ANY such body capable of compulsory edicts, which do not take into account the individual’s rights and freedom, has ANY place in this matter. Governmental bodies are, by nature, stupid, misguided, and crude in their effects, destructive of the individual’s rights and freedoms, and this is yet another example of same. Homosexuality, and transgender matters remain, and will always remain OUTSIDE of the mainstream, and we must recognize the difference between ACCEPTANCE of the minority (not just tolerance, but compassionate ACCEPTANCE), and ADVOCACY for what still remains outside the mainstream, and yes, what ALWAYS will.
“Your commentary here, and elsewhere, on this topic have had a significant influence on my thinking, I must admit. And for a “fundamentalist,” Pentecostal Christian, this requires quite an adjustment, indeed”
Bravo, Peter, old friend. This is the watermark of an ethical, rational, fair and open-minded man. It is something to aspire to, and you deserve great credit and admiration.
If all “fundamentalist” Pentacostal Christians were like Peter, then people like me wouldn’t be so prejudiced against them.
The fact that even one exists means I have to change my opinions. The evidence compels me to. Peter may have learnt something from me, but I’ve possibly learnt something more important from him.
Parson me while I martial arguments in rebuttal.
This might take awhile. I have to find flying unicorns first, they’re easier to come by.
This is just more of California legislators pandering to the fringe. I really think it will take a disaster of cosmic proportions to drive some sense into these folks. Good post Jack.
How is it that they get away with this?
If someone running for statewide political office in Missouri were to pander to this fringe, they would handily lose to someone who claims that women could not become pregnant by legitimate rape.
Good comparison, Todd Akin’s science is just as sound as supporters of SB 1172.
And about as accurate as Senator Blumenthal’s claims about his combat service in Vietnam.
And as intellectually honest as Priorities USA