{"id":12207,"date":"2020-04-27T11:55:26","date_gmt":"2020-04-27T15:55:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/?p=12207"},"modified":"2020-05-01T10:53:14","modified_gmt":"2020-05-01T14:53:14","slug":"reparative-therapy-is-legal-for-adults-heres-why-it-shouldnt-be","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/reparative-therapy-is-legal-for-adults-heres-why-it-shouldnt-be\/","title":{"rendered":"“Reparative Therapy” is Legal for Adults. Here’s Why it Shouldn’t Be."},"content":{"rendered":"

Photo by\u00a0Rosemary Ketchum<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0from\u00a0Pexels<\/a><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Most Americans have probably at least heard of conversion therapy<\/a>, a broad term encompassing various dangerous practices aimed at changing the gender identity or sexual orientation of an individual. These practices have historically included<\/a> everything from hypnosis to electroconvulsive shock therapy to behavioral correction, many of which are still used today. Conversion therapy has been a widely discussed topic in recent years, whether that\u2019s because Vice President Mike Pence has debatably come out in support<\/a> of it or because numerous survivors<\/a> have come forward to speak out about the abuse<\/a> they suffered because of it. Research has shown that not only is conversion therapy almost always unsuccessful<\/a>, but it also causes immeasurable harms<\/a> to those who are forced to undergo it. Today, national health associations<\/a> agree that conversion therapy is \u201cat best ineffective and at worst harmful to those who experience it.\u201d Because of that, many states<\/a> have banned conversion therapy from being performed on children under 18 years old.<\/p>\n

But what most people probably don\u2019t know is that conversion therapy is still alive and well in the United States, masquerading under a different name: \u201creparative therapy.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cReparative therapy\u201d is a form of conversion therapy provided to adults<\/a> who voluntarily seek to change their sexual orientation or gender identity, usually out of a desire to live their lives in accordance with their religious or political beliefs. Proponents of \u201creparative therapy\u201d attempt to distance<\/a> it from conversion therapy by arguing that the practice is not harmful because it does not involve client-shaming or shock treatments, but rather consists of client discussions and behavioral modification. \u201cReparative therapists\u201d market their practice as a voluntary experience<\/a> where the client who does not \u201cidentify with their homosexual urges\u201d comes to them wishing to no longer be LGBTQ+, at which time the practitioner and client set goals to get the client on a path to heterosexuality or cisgender identity.<\/p>\n

This is false advertising. In 2007<\/a>, the American Psychological Association (\u201cAPA\u201d) conducted a comprehensive study of various methods that are used to \u201cchange\u201d sexual orientation and gender identity. \u201cReparative therapy\u201d was among the practices investigated. The APA ultimately concluded that \u201creparative therapy,\u201d like other forms of conversion therapy, does not work. People who undergo \u201creparative therapy\u201d are taught to behave in accordance with a \u201cstraight\u201d identity, a practice that may sometimes change behaviors<\/em><\/a> but doesn\u2019t actually change a person\u2019s sexual orientation or gender identity. Moreover, when individuals who seek out \u201creparative therapy\u201d realize that it is not effective, they tend to experience<\/a> depression, isolation, self-destructive behavior, and self-hatred. They often suffer guilt and shame, or may be blamed<\/a> by people in their lives who feel as though they didn\u2019t try hard enough to be straight. Often, people who undergo \u201creparative therapy\u201d ultimately require actual therapy<\/a> to undo the damage.<\/p>\n

The harms of \u201creparative therapy\u201d extend well beyond those committed against patients who are deceived into thinking the practice is successful. \u201cReparative therapy\u201d has many negative implications for the LGBTQ+ community and for society as a whole. For one thing, \u201creparative therapy\u201d is based in large part on toxic masculinity<\/a>: male clients with \u201chomosexual urges\u201d are told they need to \u201creconnect with their masculinity<\/a>\u201d or learn how to become manly again, rhetoric that defines the worth of men based on traditionally masculine traits. The same is true for queer women<\/a> and people who are questioning their gender identity as well; they are taught to behave in accordance with traits that are stereotypically associated with femininity, or with whatever gender the person was assigned at birth. \u201cReparative therapy\u201d thus reinforces stereotypical gender norms which, in turn, contributes to negative views and treatment<\/a> of LGBTQ+ people who do not conform to these stereotypes.<\/p>\n

More fundamentally, the very existence of \u201creparative therapy\u201d implies that being a member of the LGBTQ+ community means a person is broken and needs fixing. It implies that LGBTQ+ people have a mental disorder<\/a> that needs to be cured. By teaching people that gender identity and sexual orientation is a choice or something that can be changed, proponents of \u201creparative therapy\u201d put LGBTQ+ people at risk for more societal prejudice, which has been proven to lead to harms<\/a> against LGBTQ+ people, particularly youth. \u201cReparative therapy\u201d promotes stereotypes and stigmas that in turn lead to hate crimes<\/a> against LGBTQ+ adults and bullying<\/a> against LGBTQ+ youth, both of which place LGBTQ+ people at an increased risk of suicide and mental health problems compared to heterosexual and cisgender individuals. Permitting \u201creparative therapy\u201d thus places LGBTQ+ people in danger just for existing, and hinders the progress that the LGBTQ+ community is making toward being accepted in society.<\/p>\n

Many leading professional organizations for mental health practitioners have condemned \u201creparative therapy.\u201d The APA<\/a>, for example, has ethically condemned the practice because being LGBTQ+ is not a mental disorder, and \u201creparative therapy\u201d is not an effective or psychologically sound treatment, but a harmful one. Similarly, the American Counseling Association<\/a> states that \u201creparative therapy\u201d violates their Code of Ethics because it \u201cdoes not work, can cause harm, and . . . is an attempt to treat something that is not a mental illness.\u201d Many mental health professionals have condemned \u201creparative therapy\u201d on an individual basis<\/a> as well.<\/p>\n

The United States should follow the lead of these professional mental health organizations and prohibit \u201creparative therapy\u201d from being practiced, even on adults who seek it out voluntarily.<\/p>\n

People who practice \u201creparative therapy\u201d argue that they are simply promoting what is morally accepted within their religion<\/a>, and that they are not forcing<\/a> change upon anyone who does not already want to change. They argue that \u201creparative therapy\u201d is different<\/a> from conversion therapy and should not be banned. Those who seek out \u201creparative therapy\u201d for themselves claim that such a prohibition would unreasonably restrict their free will and their right to make voluntary choices<\/a> about how to live their lives.<\/p>\n

However, federal and state governments do have the authority<\/a> to prohibit people from seeking out medical treatments that the government has reasonably deemed harmful<\/a> or deceitful. For this reason, some states have prohibited<\/a> all efforts to change the gender identity or sexual orientation of a person under 18, including \u201creparative therapy\u201d sought voluntarily. In 2017 the Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear<\/a> a challenge against one such ban in California, thereby upholding the complete ban on all Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (\u201cSOCEs\u201d) including \u201creparative therapy\u201d voluntarily sought by minors under 18 years of age.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s no doubt that \u201creparative therapy\u201d is harmful to those who endure it, regardless of age. Yet unlike other forms of medical treatment that are harmful, it\u2019s still legal for an adult to seek out \u201creparative therapy\u201d on a voluntary basis from providers who are typically religiously-based and do not adhere to prohibitions by mainstream mental health professional organizations. This system fails some of the adults who need its support and care the most. The United States shouldn\u2019t only focus on protecting children from conversion therapy; we should also try to protect adults who, driven by shame or self-hatred, seek out ineffective psychological practices that cause more harm than good.<\/p>\n

If \u201creparative therapy\u201d were banned, there would still be plenty of options for adults who struggle with their sexual orientation or gender identity, most notably traditional therapy. Traditional therapy does not have a preconceived<\/a> end goal in mind, but instead adapts to the needs of the client, thus creating a healthier environment and mindset. Unlike \u201creparative therapy,\u201d traditional therapy has also been proven to be successful at helping individuals learn to accept<\/a> sexual orientations or gender identities that were previously sources of struggle in their lives. There are also numerous support groups<\/a> for people who struggle with their LGBTQ+ identity.<\/p>\n

Prohibiting \u201creparative therapy\u201d would do more than protect people who fall victim to its false promises; it would protect LGBTQ+ people across the country by reducing stigmas and increasing acceptance, thus making the United States a safer place to be LGBTQ+.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Permitting \u201creparative therapy\u201d places LGBTQ+ people in danger just for existing, and hinders the progress that the LGBTQ+ community is making toward being accepted in society.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":101913,"featured_media":12208,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,1220,33],"tags":[1756,1757],"coauthors":[1541],"class_list":["post-12207","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-amicus","category-legislation","category-lgbtq-rights","tag-conversion-therapy","tag-reparative-therapy"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/80\/2020\/04\/Post-1-scaled.jpg","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/peZrWS-3aT","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12207","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/101913"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12207"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12207\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/12208"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12207"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12207"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12207"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=12207"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}