If a boy wants to “change” his sex, schools and mainstream mental-health professionals will recommend and facilitate his “transition.” But if the same boy later wants to change his same-sex attractions, well, any therapist who helps with that can be punished in many states. But now the courts are beginning to intervene, ruling that such actions are First Amendment violations — the suppression of professional speech.
At issue are bans on reparative therapy, or what some call “conversion therapy”; its focus is the elimination of unwanted homosexual desires and the development of normal sexual attraction, or the remedying of feelings relating to confused sexual identity (e.g., a boy who feels like a girl). Yet with the Velvet Mafia being like so many syndicates — once you’re in, it’s supposed to be for life — states have increasingly been banning this treatment option for minors (New York City and Washington, D.C., have total bans).
In fact, 18 states have thus far done so. Examples are New York, New Jersey, California, Oregon, Illinois, Vermont, New Mexico, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire. Washington, D.C., and one territory (Puerto Rico) also have bans, according to the left-wing Movement Advancement Project.
The good news is that four attempts to legislate this speech suppression have failed this year, in Utah, Nebraska, Minnesota, and Arizona. The bad news is that such a measure being introduced in even “conservative” Utah evidences how intensely the sexual devolutionary spirit imbues the entire nation.
{modulepos inner_text_ad}
Nonetheless, the courts are beginning to step in — on First Amendment grounds. This will likely continue, too, states traditionalist activist group Mass Resistance (MR), which has defended counselors’ speech rights. As WND.com reports:
“We believe that all reparative therapy bans will eventually get struck down by the courts,” Mass Resistance’ report said. “In NIFLA v. Becerra, the majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that ‘professional speech’ is just as protected as any other speech. This signaled that they are prepared to strike down reparative therapy bans across the country.”
The NIFLA case was about California’s requirement that pro-life crisis pregnancy centers promote nearby abortionists. The high court said the state couldn’t do that.
“More recently, in Vazzo v. Tampa, a federal district judge in Florida struck down the Tampa Bay reparative therapy ban which had passed the previous year. The district judge relied on the legal opinion of the majority ruling in NIFLA to establish his own decision,” Mass Resistance said.
“Shortly after the passage of a ban on reparative therapy for minors in Maryland, Virginia-based therapist and pro-family activist Chris Doyle filed his own lawsuit against the law in Doyle v. Hogan et al. According to some reports, the federal district judge in that state respects and follows closely the legal precedent of the Supreme Court, which very likely means that he will strike down Maryland’s reparative therapy ban.”
The developments — “two different federal jurisdictions fighting this agenda, plus our own legislative activism and victories against these bans” — mean that the U.S. Supreme Court likely will need to step in to resolve the issue.
Interestingly, the reparative-therapy bans only apply to licensed mental-health professionals; there’s also an exemption for religious mental-health professionals, though they can offer the service only within the context of their religious ministry, not in their capacity as therapists.
The sexual devolutionaries surely don’t appreciate this loophole, especially since they describe the therapy as dangerous and one of history’s “worst frauds.” Yet as is the Left’s wont, this is pure projection.
Note that the same people leveling these accusations also may assert that there’s a biological basis for “transgenderism” (a made-up sexual status), even though there’s no scientific basis for this claim whatsoever. What’s more, without identifying any physiological markers to indicate this supposed biological condition’s presence in a person with sexual-identity confusion, they nonetheless may prescribe a biological “fix”: Hormone treatments and so-called “gender-reassignment” surgery, which have irreversible, life- and body-rending effects.
Yet these sexual devolutionaries then turn about and claim that mere talk therapy — which is all reparative therapy usually involves — is what causes irreversible damage.
These critics also complain that reparative therapy is based on the supposition that homosexuality is a mental disorder. Yet that’s precisely how it was regarded by the mental-health establishment until the American Psychiatric Association declassified it as such in 1973 — for political reasons.
Likewise, “transgender” is a political designation, not a legitimate scientific one. As former “transsexual” Alan Finch once put it, “You fundamentally can’t change sex…. Transsexualism was invented by psychiatrists.”
This isn’t to say all forms of reparative therapy are valid or that its success rate is or isn’t impressive. Sexual problems generally stem from factors in early childhood and can be quite intractable. Yet psychiatry and psychology themselves have a checkered past, with primitive electroshock therapy and destructive lobotomies being notable sins.
Consider, though, that while the frontal lobotomy has never been banned in the United States, reparative therapy is increasingly criminalized. Is there something wrong with this picture?
Moreover, why can people still seek treatment for feelings relating to other sexual anomalies, such as bestiality or the multitude of other “paraphilias” (noticeably harmful or obsessive fetishes, such as deriving sexual excitement from being an amputee, drinking blood, stuffed toy animals, or being strangled)? Can’t seeking their elimination also be “dangerous”? Why is one deviation from the norm, homosexuality, singled out for special treatment?
It’s unlikely it has anything to do with science. Rather, people of those other bents probably just need better lobbying groups.
