The Empirical Case against “Conversion-Therapy” Bans
A compassionate approach to trauma requires that individuals ought to be able to access therapy, in order to explore the relationship of these adverse experiences to their sexuality.
Currently a bill to ban “conversion therapy” is being considered in the Canadian Senate (Bill C-8), as well as in multiple states in the US. Unfortunately, in most cases there is tremendous ambiguity about which practices and services are being prohibited, which obfuscates a multitude of problems: the endangerment of previously established legal rights for individuals to choose health treatments, the removal of the professional autonomy of doctors in providing treatment according to their expertise, the question of whether “sexual orientation” includes pedophilia, and the controversy surrounding medical transition for gender identity.
This last concern relates to the irony that helping children become comfortable with their natal sex would be banned in favor of experimental drug treatments and surgeries that lead to sterilization and have not been shown to alleviate psychological distress long-term. More ironic yet, and tragically so, is the fact that the studies indicate that, for the majority of children for whom their gender dysphoria remits, roughly half are same-sex-attracted. This fact leads to the stunning conclusion that a ban on conversion therapy for transgender youth assures the worst kind of conversion therapy for same-sex-attracted youth—a kind of gay eugenics. Sadly, few politicians have read the primary research, and the prevailing narrative in the mass media is that it is social “justice” to ban conversion therapy.
Although it is the disastrous consequences of a conversion therapy ban for gender identity that have generated the most concern, there is also an important argument to be made against bans from the standpoint of compassionate counseling for those who have faced childhood trauma. Research over the last decade has solidified the finding that sexual minorities are far more likely to have faced adverse experiences during childhood. This is not a completely new finding, as researchers have known for some time that gay men, in particular, are far more likely than heterosexual men to have been sexually assaulted as children or adolescents. Two theories have been put forward to explain this finding. It has been suggested, firstly, that proto-homosexual children may be particularly vulnerable to predators because of their gender non-conformity. This non-conformity may mark children as outsiders among their peers or family members, and may be noticed by abusers who would take advantage of it. The second theory, one that is held by a minority of therapists and researchers, is that sexual abuse may at times be a confusing or causal mechanism in same-sex attraction, behavior, or identity. Richard Gartner writes that an abused boy,
may fear that he somehow invited the abuse and therefore is “really” interested in men. Or he may wonder why he was chosen by a man as a sexual target, and whether having been chosen means he is “truly homosexual.” Whether he is aroused or not during the abuse, he may fearfully assume he is “really” gay.
As the literature has expanded past the particular category of childhood sexual abuse, however, it has become a well-replicated finding that almost all categories of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are elevated for sexual minorities, and in particular for those who identify as bisexual. For instance, in one of the largest studies to date, the researchers found that a wide range of ACEs, from parental divorce to physical abuse, were elevated for both bisexuals and homosexuals when compared to heterosexuals.
What is particularly relevant for considering bans on treatments of sexual minorities, however, is that some of these adverse childhood experiences cannot be associated with the prevailing minority-stress theory. The minority-stress theory posits that sexual minorities face both overt victimization as well as more subtle structural stigma in society, and that these experiences are responsible for the elevated rates of mental disorder, substance abuse, and physical illness found in this population.
-
I Don’t Want to Be Nuanced
We don’t need to guess what God really believes about sexuality, abortion, and critical race theory. The Bible is clear about these things. It isn’t nuanced, so we shouldn’t be either.
One of the biggest criticisms I receive over my blog and social media posts is also one of the biggest compliments I receive.
Some people say I am not nuanced. But considering its meaning, that isn’t a criticism, it’s a compliment.
Actually, I think nuance is one of the biggest problems with evangelicals today.
I don’t want to be nuanced.
Nuance is one of the reasons why many professing Christians get abortions. 20% of American women who get an abortion go to church at least once a week. Meaning, 200,000 babies are murdered every year in America by people who regularly go to church.
Nuance is also one of the reasons why many Christians have embraced critical race theory. Nuance is one of the reasons why many evangelical leaders and pastors have become ineffective in rescuing people from critical race theory and deconstruction.
This is because many evangelicals believe it’s divisive to speak clearly on controversial issues.
The Oxford Dictionary defines “nuance” as “a very slight difference in meaning, sound, color, or someone’s feelings that is not usually very obvious.”
“Nuance” is originally a Middle French word to describe making something more cloudy, shady, or subtle. Meaning, as the Merriam-Webster Dictionary says—“nuance” is making something “so subtle you might miss it.”
So when some evangelicals say we should be more nuanced on controversial issues like abortion and critical race theory—they’re (intentionally or unintentionally) suggesting our words on abortion and critical race theory should be “so subtle others might miss it.”
Naturally, that explains why many Christians are confused about critical race theory. Nuance is also apparently why some evangelicals claim the Bible “whispers on sexual sin”.
But God doesn’t whisper on controversial issues. God isn’t nuanced. He isn’t vague.
Read More -
Dagon: God is Sufficient
Woe to us, brethren, when we set up any other kind of god other than the one true God. It could be that God will send it toppling. What if that god was the approval of man? Money? Power? Control? We’ve all seen those gods tumble down from high places. They roll their creators underneath until the remains of both smash on the ground. What if that god was the government itself? Should we attempt to hoist the government back onto the shoulders of our beloved Lord?
As a younger man living in Mississippi, I loved to listen to the variety of talk radio options. One that I enjoyed listening to quite a bit was American Family Radio. I enjoyed the programs where listeners were able to call in and ask/answer questions from the host. As a relatively new believer, I gravitated toward programming like this. It sharpened my wits and helped me to better handle my own faith. On one such program, the host discussed some recent changes in the government. Those changes concerned him. A listener called in and said, “the government has fallen off God’s shoulders, and it’s up to us to place it back on.” There was an obvious allusion to Isaiah 9:6, and some obvious misunderstandings of who God is and who we are. Recently, my congregation has been going through 1 Samuel. Our study in chapter 5 made me think back to that radio program.
The Philistines captured the ark of the covenant and they set it up in their temple next to Dagon – who was a kind of mermaid. The Philistines wanted to celebrate the victory the actual God gave them over his own people. So, they displayed the ark – representing God’s presence, next to Dagon, a stone mermaid. When they come back the next morning, Dagon is on the ground. And notice the language – “they took Dagon and put him back in his place” What kind of God needs others to put it in his place?
Read More
Related Posts: -
The Children Who Kill Children
Written by Samuel D. James |
Wednesday, June 15, 2022
Whatever we’ve been doing isn’t working. Even granting that the temptation in moments like these is to overstate the frequency of mass killings, the fact remains that the social and spiritual condition of young American men accords perfectly well with their ascendant role in these horrific events.Ted Kaczynski, aka the Unabomber, was thirty-six when he began his bombing campaign. Charles Manson was likely at least that age at the onset of his murders. John Allen Muhammad, aka the D.C. Sniper, was about forty-two, and Timothy McVeigh bombed the Oklahoma City Murrah building at the age of twenty-seven.
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold entered Columbine High School at eighteen and seventeen, respectively. Adam Lanza was twenty when he murdered twenty children and six staffers at Sandy Hook Elementary. Dylann Roof was twenty-one. Payton Gendron opened fire at the Tops Friendly Market in Buffalo at eighteen, the same age as the alleged shooter who murdered nineteen children and two teachers on Tuesday in Uvalde, Texas.
The ages of these two groups are far apart, and their distance expresses a hemorrhaging wound near the soul of contemporary American culture: We have become a society filled with very young men who are ready and willing to throw away their lives and the lives of others.
Yes, America has experienced a meaningful decline in violent crime from the chaos of the ’70s and ’80s. But the value of this decline is obscured by ever-younger killers and their ever-younger victims. The designation of eighteen as legal adulthood is a misleading technicality. We are living in an age of literal child-on-child murder. What can make the conscience tremble if not this?
There are some who sneer at people, like me, who offer prayers in times like these. Prayer, they say, is non-action: an ineffective, meaningless piety meant to maintain the status quo on gun control. Yet it’s these same scoffers who instinctively pivot to the topic of gun control whenever a child takes the lives of other children, and their political rage is no less a religious recitation simply because they confuse Congress for God. An inability to talk about anything other than gun control threatens to deaden our lament and neutralize a vital conversation about why so many of our country’s most lost, most hateful people are boys with their whole lives ahead of them.
Read More
Related Posts:
