Science does not support LGBTQ Counseling Policies

I asked an AI LLM about the Colorado MCTL, and it defended the law as being grounded in scientific evidence about the prevention of harm.

It admitted:

Asymmetry in Counseling: The law creates an asymmetry: therapists can support a minor exploring or adopting an LGBTQ identity but cannot counsel them toward a heterosexual or cisgender identity if it involves trying to change their current orientation or identity. This reflects the law’s grounding in the medical consensus that conversion therapy is harmful, whereas affirming care is not. ...

Under the MCTL, if a minor is confused about their sexual orientation or gender identity, a therapist can affirm or support an LGBTQ identity if it aligns with the minor’s exploration, but they cannot counsel the minor to be straight or cisgender if it involves attempting to change their orientation or identity.

When I pressed it for the evidence, it admitted that there are no randomized clinical trial, or similarly rigorous studies. The studies cites by the authorities are mostly surveys of teenagers who already identify as LBGTQ, and asking them if they prefer therapy that affirms their beliefs or asks them to change. And yes, they are happier being told that what they already believe is good.

There are several things wrong with this. First, if Colorado is going to pass laws intruding on psychotherapy free speech in a way that has never been done before, there ought to be good evidence. Even if Colorado considers such as study unethical, as it argued in court, it ought to be able to use studies from somewhere else where it would be ethical.

Even if these studies are valid, they tell us nothing about how to counsel the confused or questioning teenager. This law requires the therapist to push the kids into being LGBTQ, when that may not be what he wants at all.

Third, kids do not necessarily know what is good for them. The same arguments would say that fat teenagers should be counseled to affirm their fatness, and be happy about it. Surveying them might well find that they prefer being told it is good to be fat. However it would be incorrect to deduce that teenage health is promoted by affirming fatness.

Fourth, there is really something sick and perverted about adults passing laws mandating children to receive pro-LGBTQ counseling. It is called grooming kids to be molested. Some also pass laws requiring pro-LGBTQ pornography to be available to kids in school and public libracies. Some force drag shows and pride parades for children. Many schools are now required to have pro-LGBTQ programs, classes, and symbols. Some even conceal this from parents.

Everyday I see stories about how Jeffrey Epstein and Puff Diddy were the epitome of evil for sex trafficking. The evidence seems weak to me. But the Colorado legislature is openly and brazenly conducting its own form of sex trafficking.

You might say that these lawmakers and others are just following expert opinion on what is good for the kids. Do you believe that? Why? It is against common sense, against scientific studies, and against moral views that have prevailed for centuries. Believing these supposed experts is about like following witchcraft or voodoo.

There are many court briefs against the Colorado law, and they make many good arguments, but I did not see any arguing the points 2-4 above. Some did argue that lack of good studies.