Free Speech Right to Align Identity to Sex

The US Supreme Court just heard oral argument on Chiles v. Salazar

Chiles v. Salazar, Docket No. 24-539, is a pending United States Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of Colorado's Minor Conversion Therapy Law (MCTL), which bans conversion therapy for minors by licensed mental health professionals. The ban was challenged on violating the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, though the state had constrained the ban to licensed professionals and only as with respect to their professional duties. The ban was upheld in lower courts.

Many briefs are posted.

Here is the argument against the law:

This law harms gender dysphoric kids 1:40:41 because the statistics that we've cited in our verified complaint as well as in 1:40:46 the uh brief that we cited with this court indicate that 90% of young people who are struggling with gender dysphoria 1:40:53 before puberty work their way through it and realign their identity with their sex. But if one of those children go to 1:41:00 a counselor and they specifically say that is the help I want realigning my identity with their sex, they cannot 1:41:07 receive that help from someone like my client. Moreover, if they're continuing 1:41:12 down the path of transition, then unfortunately they get locked into that path and eventually it leads over 90% of 1:41:21 the time once they start down the path of social transition. It will lead to the route of medicalized transition 1:41:27 which the Cass report tells us comes with a lot of harm and devastation.

Conversion therapy applies to homosexuality, and has become more controversial when it is applied to transgender identity. About half the states have similar laws, so a psychotherapist can counsel a patient to go homosexual, but not to go straight.

I am struck by all the bogus language in this case.

The argument in favor of the law is that there is a "medical consensus" on the "standard of care" that "conversion therapy" is not supported by "evidence-based practice". The therapy is "ineffective" and "potentially harmful". Changing sexual preferences is impossible because they are "innate" and "immutable". Homosexuality and transgenderism have been determined to be not pathological, so there can be no legitimate treatment to change them. Any such effort is harmful because, among other things, it can cause "family alienation". No reputable medical society or expert testimonty supports such therapy.

This is all so crazy I don't know where to stert. All psychotherapies are ineffective and potentially harmful. Say you go to a shrink or any other medical professional because you are obese and want advice getting to a healthier weight. The vast majority of people getting such advice do not lose weight. That means the advice is ineffective. Many patients get angry or depressed or develop other unhealthy habits. That means the advice is potentially harmful.

The easy way out for the therapist is the affirm the fatness, and tell the patient to stay fat. Perhaps the studies would categorize such therapy as more successful, because the patient is happier in the short term, by avoid the struggle to lose weight.

All the medical societies need to do is the announce that fatness is not pathological. Maybe also that it is innate and immutable.

This might seem like an artificial example, but it is not. People see psychotherapy for all sorts of problems, including depression, alcoholism, and personality disorders. All of these are heritable, and cannot be changed without a lot of hard work. Most psychotherapy does not work. Some people do change, with help and motivation.

Our medical societies have been corrupted to where they refuse to help kids who need help. Saying that there is a consensus is just proof of how the system has been politicized. The field of Psychology hardly ever has a consensus on anything. For something as controversial as transgenderism, a healthy profession would have a diversity of opinions on what to do about it. Maybe they would accept scientific evidence, but there is no proof that affirming transgenderism has ever benefited anyone.

I think the Supreme Court ducked the issue of conversion therapy for homosexuals, but required licensed psychotherapists to tell small kids to change gender identity is too much. I expect the Colorado law to be struck down. Such laws should have been struck down ten years ago.

Update: The strange thing is that the whole idea of conversion therapy harm is that it can be frustrating to change what you really are. But the approved transgender affirmation therapy does exactly that.