|
THE HARM OF CONVERSION
THERAPY
The studies cited above allege that a typical
success rate for conversion therapies is about
30%.Ê Surprisingly, those researchers never question
what might have happened to the other 70%.Ê The
only comment that conversion therapists offer
is that sexual orientation is difficult to change.21
Ê All conversion therapy rests solidly on the
assumption that homosexuality is in conflict with
a fulfilling life, balancing out any risks from
treatment in the eyes of those therapists. It
is important to ask if these treatments might
result in negative consequences, however.
This authorâs fifteen years of clinical experience
with gay men who have gone through some form of
conversion therapy suggests a wide variability
in the way people are affected.Ê All of the following
comments are based upon the authorâs own clinical
observations and numerous anecdotal reports which
await confirmation in controlled studies.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ Some--but not all--conversion therapy
clients are harmed.Ê In particular, those who
have undergone treatments such as electric shock
or drugs inducing vomiting while homoerotic material
is presented are likely to have been harmed the
most.Ê Many such individuals seen in my practiceÊ
are not only tormented by an exacerbated level
of shame but are physically rendered ãasexualä--not
changed into heterosexuals, but no longer functioning
as homosexuals either.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ In recent years, however, refugees
from such cruel therapies have become less common
in this authorâs practice as these treatments
have fallen into disfavor.Ê At present, the majority
of former conversion therapy clients, or ãex-ex-gaysä,
as they are sometimes known, have gone through
a religious, prayer-based program or a talk-oriented
therapy of some sort.Ê Such individuals often
experience continued depression over their homosexuality,
compounded with a sense of shame over having failed
at conversion therapy.Ê Further, they may have
a psychologically debilitating sense of having
lost those important life elements--family of
origin, religious affiliation, social support--for
which there was still some hope as long as the
individual was trying to change.Ê Some former
conversion therapy clients report extraordinary
difficulties with interpersonal interactions,
and particularly sexual intimacy, with same-sex
partners.Ê
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ The authorâs own clinical practice
and the views of other practitioners working with
former conversion therapy clients suggest that
the problems associated with conversion therapy
are not limited to the client.Ê The goal of conversion
treatments is to involve other individuals in
the clientâs romantic and sexual life.Ê For the
ex-spouses and children of conversion therapy
ãexperiment relationships,ä the sense of betrayal
and loss can be devastating.Ê Very often individuals
and family members who have been caught in the
conversion therapy process need counseling of
their own.
THE DANGEROUS SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF CONVERSION
THERAPY
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ The recent conversion therapy ad
campaign and the practice of conversion therapy
are prime pathways for devaluing lesbian, gay,
and bisexual people and reinforcing stigma.Ê Inaccurate
information encourages prejudice and discrimination.Ê
Research in social psychology tells us that while
public opinion about lesbian and gay people has
moderated over the past two decades, negative
attitudes about homosexuality persist, and lesbian,
gay and bisexual people still experience harassment,
discrimination, and violence.22
Ê Although the literature on hate crimes against
gay people is only starting to emerge, recent
evidence suggests that anti-gay attitudes, fueled
by misinformation and cultural sanction, may greatly
influence the behavior of those predisposed to
abuse lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals.23
Ê
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ But if sexual orientation can be
freely chosen, as conversion therapists claim,
then why not change it therapeutically?Ê And why
pass laws that protect the rights of gay, lesbian,
and bisexual people in the same way that laws
prohibit discrimination on the basis of race,
gender, or national origin?Ê From a practical
perspective, even the staunchest advocates of
conversion therapy will admit that sexual orientation
is extremely difficult to change.Ê For every satisfied
client who comes forward claiming that conversion
therapy changed her or his sexual orientation,
there are many more who disavow its efficacy.Ê
Sexual orientation is a deeply rooted, psychologically
complex aspect of the human experience.Ê Though
oneâs feelings about his or her sexual orientation
may be changeable and susceptible to social influence,
no evidence suggests that sexual orientation itself
is so malleable.
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ From a civil rights perspective,
the issue of whether homosexuality is unchangeable
or a matter of free choice is equally irrelevant.Ê
Ultimately, the right of the individual to choose
a sexual orientation or to refuse conversion therapy
should not be grounds for stigmatization or for
limiting civil rights.Ê Our laws provide civil
rights protection against discrimination related
to numerous characteristics (such as religious
beliefs or some disability conditions) that are
the product of choices.Ê For instance, 29 states
have laws that prohibit discrimination against
cigarette smokers.24
ÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊÊ Conversion therapy is not just an
individual mental health issue but has implications
for society.Ê This discredited and ineffective
psychological treatment harms people and reinforces
the notion that homosexuality is bad.Ê In this
regard, it is not a compassionate effort to help
homosexuals in pain, but a means of exploiting
unhappy people and of reinforcing social hostility
to homosexuality. Herein lies the real ãreparative
therapy:ä helping refugees of conversion therapy
reconstruct their sense of identity and rediscover
their capacity to love, as well as repairing a
society still affected by the myth that lesbian,
gay, and bisexual people are mentally ill.Ê Reparative
efforts are best directed toward a broken social
context, not the individual who has been victimized
by it.
Next Page | 1,
2, 3,
4
NOTES:
21. Haldeman, 1994 (note
4).
22. Herek, 1991 (note
5). Herek, 1998 (note
5). Badgett,
M. V. L. Vulnerability
in the Workplace: Evidence of Anti-gay Discrimination,
Angles. Vol.
2, 1997.
23. Haddock, G. & Zanna, M. Authoritarianism,
Values, and the Favorability and Structure of
Antigay Attitudes. In G.
Herek (Ed.), 1998 (note
5).
24. Of the 29, 18 explicitly forbid discrimination
against smokers, while the others use wording intended
to include smokers rights. Dworkin,
T.M. Its My LifeLeave Me Alone:
Off-the-job Employee Associational Privacy Rights,
American
Business Law Journal, Vol. 35, 1997. |