That is not true. There are certainly forms of "talk therapy" which have been shown to contribute to harmful outcomes (and not shown to be at all effective in changing someone's sexuality or gender identity).
No one is talking about changing 'gender identity' (are you thinking about those who "transition"?) - and sexuality is not the same as sexual 'orientation' which is a construct which is sometimes self-chosen (if people are not pressured), sometimes following a period of uncertainty and ambivalence towards the same sex or opposite sex and perhaps after experimentation.
The attention has been mainly on what amount to aversion therapies (you yourself used that as an example). Because descriptions of that are more likely engender outrage - and that is the tactic being used by LGB activists.
If you want to talk about outcomes - for someone who has unwanted sexual feelings for the same sex the outcome would be less successful with a "gay affirming" therapist and there is no guarantee harm would not be done. You seem to be ignoring that? If same sex needs are being misinterpreted and there is symbolic confusion, and they have come to the point of seeing the homosexual lifestyle as futile (which it is a conclusion some homosexuals come to) they will be left with little or no hope by such therapy no matter how "affirming" the therapist is.
No one in this discussion thread I will repeat has or is arguing for this sort of therapy to be required. A mixture of outcomes are a part of every sort of psychotherapy whether it be for unwanted sexual feelings, depression or something else - if actual harm is done it is harder to evaluate but there could several reasons for that perhaps because someone was required to undertake this sort of therapy unwillingly - but it could occur due to simplistic versions of this sort of approach by unqualified people.
And I don't think this sort blanket ban is going to do anything at all to improve the lot of most LGBT people.
Last edited:
Upvote
0