The Argument for the Colorado LGBTQ Law

I mentioned that under Colorado law, if a child is confused or questioning about sexual orientation or identity, psychotherapy must push the child towards LGBTQ, while encouraging normal behavior is illegal. You might wonder who could defend such a law.

More than 20 states have similar laws, and courts have upheld them. Here is the brief defending the Colorado law, and it claims that all of the science and expert opinion is on its side:

As the record makes clear, the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence demonstrates that conversion therapy is an unsafe and in- effective treatment.

That conversion therapy inflicts harm has been confirmed by at least twelve research studies, four sys- tematic reviews of that research, and two independent evaluations of conversion therapy and the attendant research. D. Colo. Decl. of Dr. Judith Glassgold, Dkt. No. 45-1 (“Decl.”), ¶ 14. Conversion therapy’s docu- mented harms include depression, anxiety, loss of sex- ual feeling, negative self-esteem, negative changes in family relationships, loss of faith, and suicidality. Decl. ¶¶ 65-68, 72-84 (citing studies). A cross-sectional survey of over 27,000 transgender adults found that exposure to conversion therapy at any time in a transgender person’s life was associated with adverse mental health outcomes in adulthood that included se- vere psychological distress, suicidal thoughts, and su- icide attempts. Id. ¶ 78. The studies of adults who underwent voluntary conversion therapy also found that they experienced harms including shame, a loss of faith in religious institutions, and suicidal thoughts. Id. ¶¶ 70-71, 83 (citing studies).

In short, “[s]tudies dating across two decades have evaluated [conversion therapy] and identified it as a potentially harmful treatment.” Decl. ¶ 61. A sys- tematic review of this evidence led the American Psy- chiatric Association, American Psychological Association, and other professional health care provid- ers’ associations to recommend against the use of con- version therapy due to the evidence that it harms young people. Id. ¶ 19. Nothing in the Cass Review— cited for the first time in the Petition, see Pet. 3-4, 8-9, 282—challenges the evidence on conversion therapy’s harmful effects. Indeed, that Review states that “no LGBTQ+ group should be subjected to conversion practice,” Cass Review at 150 § 11.5, and observes that “[n]o formal science-based training in psychotherapy, psychology or psychiatry teaches or advocates conver- sion therapy.” Id. at 151 § 11.7. It advocates the ap- proach taken by the MCTL: “If an individual were to carry out such practices they would be acting outside of professional guidance, and this would be a matter for the relevant regulator.” Cass Review at 151 § 11.7.

I post this so that you can get both sides, but also so you can see how overwhelmingly corrupted the psychiatric establishment is. You could tell a confused child to try to go straight, and all the experts say not to do it.

The way it is written, it sounds as if the case for the law is overwhelming, but look closely, and it is all bogus. It cites a "survey of over 27,000 transgender adults" as if that is scientific. It is not. Any real study would have control groups, and look at treatment outcomes. They were calling people who rejected advice, and asking if the advice was bad.

It says treatments were associated with harms. That could be said about most medical treatments. Have you ever looked at the list of possible harmful effects of common prescription drugs? The above says nothing about whether the benefits outweigh the harms.

Nevertheless it is worth pointing out that the major psychiatric and psychological associations are fully on board with this Colorado law. Every parent who considered taking a child to psychotherapy should know that. That therapist is likely to believe in an ethical obligation to push the child to being LGBTQ, and believe that it is unethical to encourage the child to live a normal life.