SCOTUS Decision: Ban on "Talk" Conversion Therapy is Unconstitutional

[smac97]

The Church has a fairly sensible approach to "Conversion Therapy."

Quote

God loves every one of us completely. His Son, Jesus Christ, showed this love by the way He ministered to others, one by one. He offered love and compassion to vulnerable individuals, those on the margins of society, who were sometimes hated and mistreated by others. He listened, offered hope, and encouraged people to move forward with their lives in positive ways. As followers of Jesus Christ, Latter-day Saints strive to do the same.

Because each person is born with inherent worth and dignity, no one deserves to be subjected to abuse or cruelty. As a church we oppose any therapy ─ including conversion therapy for sexual orientation or gender identity ─ that subjects a person to abusive practices. We encourage all interested parties to seek solutions that harmonize the wellbeing and protection of individuals with safeguarding the foundational freedoms of society ─ freedoms to do, be and become, as our personal values and core beliefs lead us.

We seek to do all we can to respect everyone with love and compassion. We offer listening ears, supportive shoulders, and willing hands to all who desire help on their journey back to God.

"Abusive practices" is key.

From October 2019:

Quote

Church Continues to Oppose Conversion Therapy

Updated October 25, 2019
 

Update Regarding Opposition to Utah Psychologist Licensing Act Rule

In response to the many stories inaccurately reported by the media that do not reflect the Church’s position, Marty Stephens, director of government and community relations, gave the following clarification:

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints opposes ‘conversion therapy’ and our therapists do not practice it.”

This clarification is the latest in a series of statements on the topic. The most recent statement —released October 15, 2019 — that opposes the proposed Utah Psychologist Licensing Act provided these Family Services notes:

Family Services has a longstanding and express policy against using therapies that seek to ‘repair,’ ‘convert,’ or ‘change’ sexual orientation, such as from homosexual to heterosexual. Research demonstrates that electric shock, aversion and other analogous therapies are [ineffective] and harmful to youth who experience same-sex attraction. Those, including youth, who seek therapies that constitute sexual orientation change efforts will not receive them from Family Services counselors.

February 2019

Statement as Utah Legislature Introduced House Bill 399

“The Church denounces any therapy, including conversion and reparative therapies, that subject an individual to abusive practices, not only in Utah, but throughout the world.”

March 2016

First Presidency Statement

“The Church denounces any therapy that subjects an individual to abusive practices.”

October 15, 2019

Original Statement Issued October 15, 2019

The Church has released the following statement in connection with comments filed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Family Services regarding a proposed professional licensing rule governing sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts.

The Church hopes that those who experience same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria find compassion and understanding from family members, Church leaders and members, and professional counselors. The Church denounces any abusive professional practice or treatment.

We teach the right of individuals to self-determination and the right of parents to guide the development of their children. We also believe faith-based perspectives have an important and ethically appropriate role in professional counseling.

As detailed in the comments submitted by Family Services, the Church is concerned that the proposed professional licensing rule is ambiguous in key areas and overreaches in others. For example, it fails to protect individual religious beliefs and does not account for important realities of gender identity in the development of children.

We therefore oppose the proposed rule in its current form and respectfully request that it be appropriately amended to address the concerns raised in Family Services’ comments, or that Utah’s lawmakers provide statutory guidance on this important issue.

Today: 

Supreme Court rules against Colorado's conversion therapy ban on First Amendment grounds

Quote

The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled in favor of a Colorado counselor who challenged a state law that bans "conversion therapy" for minors, ruling that lower courts failed to apply "sufficiently rigorous First Amendment scrutiny" in the case. 

The high court ruled 8-1 that Colorado's law, when applied to talk therapy provided by counselor Kaley Chiles, regulates speech based on viewpoint.

A Grok summary:

Quote

As of March 31, 2026, 23 states plus the District of Columbia have enacted laws prohibiting licensed mental health professionals from providing “conversion therapy” (also called sexual orientation change efforts or gender identity change efforts) to minors.

These laws typically ban practices—whether talk therapy, counseling, or other methods—intended to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity. A handful of additional states have narrower or partial restrictions, while some municipalities have their own local bans. Roughly half of U.S. LGBTQ+ youth live in jurisdictions with these protections.

Today’s SCOTUS Decision in Chiles v. Salazar (March 31, 2026)

In an 8-1 decision (opinion by Justice Gorsuch; Justice Jackson dissented; Justice Kagan concurred, joined by Sotomayor), the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the Tenth Circuit’s ruling that had upheld Colorado’s 2019 ban.

Key holding: Colorado’s law, as applied to talk therapy, is a viewpoint-based restriction on speech, not merely a regulation of professional conduct. Lower courts applied the wrong level of scrutiny (rational basis instead of sufficiently rigorous First Amendment review, likely strict scrutiny). The ban prohibits counselors from discussing or assisting minors with certain goals (e.g., reducing same-sex attraction or aligning gender identity with biological sex) while allowing discussions that affirm or support other outcomes. This is unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.

Impact on Existing State Laws

• Immediate effect: The decision does not automatically strike down the 23 state + D.C. bans nationwide. It applies directly to Colorado’s law and sends that specific case back for further proceedings under the correct (heightened) scrutiny.
• Broader consequences: It creates a strong nationwide precedent that similar bans on “talk therapy”/counseling are viewpoint-based speech restrictions subject to strict (or at least rigorous) scrutiny. Most existing state laws are structured similarly to Colorado’s, so they are now highly vulnerable to First Amendment challenges.
• Expect a wave of new lawsuits (or revived ones) in the other states. Many bans could ultimately be invalidated or severely narrowed, especially those that reach pure talk therapy rather than coercive or fraudulent practices.
• The ruling does not affect bans limited to non-talk interventions (e.g., medication or physical treatments) or laws targeting only adults.

In short: Today’s decision significantly weakens the legal foundation for the existing patchwork of state bans on conversion therapy for minors. While the exact fate of each law will play out in future litigation, the practical effect is that many (likely most) of these protections for minors are now on very shaky constitutional ground.

I will be curious as to how this ruling shakes out in the real world.  Candidly, I think the effect will not be substantial.  I think "conversion therapy" will now be absent from therapeutic practices due to de facto, rather than de jure, considerations.

Quote

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the lone dissenter. She read her dissenting opinion from the bench.

The ruling reverses a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit that found the law did not violate Chiles' free-speech rights. The appeals court instead concluded that it regulates professional conduct and only incidentally burdens speech.

The decision from the high court is a narrow one and does not overturn Colorado's law outright. It requires the lower courts to apply the most stringent level of scrutiny when evaluating its constitutionality, one that sets a high bar for the state to meet.

So the case really isn't over.  The lower courts now have to re-do the constitutional analysis. 

Quote

"Colorado's law addressing conversion therapy does not just ban physical interventions. In cases like this, it censors speech based on viewpoint," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority. "Colorado may regard its policy as essential to public health and safety. Certainly, censorious governments throughout history have believed the same. But the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country."

Beautiful words.  I am grateful for the First Amendment.

Quote

Gorsuch write that Colorado's law doesn't just regulate the content of Chiles' speecy, but "goes a step further, prescribing what views she may and may not express."

The pushback continues apace.

Quote

Jim Campbell, chief legal counsel at the Alliance Defending Freedom who argued on Chiles' behalf before the Supreme Court, cheered the ruling.

"Kids deserve real help affirming that their bodies are not a mistake and that they are wonderfully made. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision today is a significant win for free speech, common sense, and families desperate to help their children," he said in a statement. "States cannot silence voluntary conversations that help young people seeking to grow comfortable with their bodies."

Chiles called the ruling a "victory for counselors and, more importantly, kids and families everywhere."

Thoughts?

Quote

Colorado's ban on conversion therapy

Colorado is one of more than 20 states that have enacted restrictions on conversion therapy. Its measure, called the Minor Conversion Therapy Law, was enacted in 2019 and prohibits mental health professionals from engaging in any practice or treatment, including talk therapy, that attempts to change an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity. Violators face fines of up to $5,000 and may be suspended from practicing or stripped of their license.

"Including talk therapy."

Quote

Several years after Colorado's law went into effect, Chiles, a licensed counselor who performs "faith-informed" counseling when sought, sued state officials. She argued that the ban violates her free-speech rights by censoring her conversations with patients based on viewpoint and the content of those discussions. 

She aims to engage in talk therapy with minors who want to "reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors or grow in the experience of harmony with [their] physical bodies." Chiles argued that under Colorado's ban, families and teens who want to address gender dysphoria by aligning identity and biological sex at birth cannot work with a licensed counselor to help reach that goal. But the measure does allow treatment that supports patients undergoing gender transition, Chiles' lawyers said.

Yes, the asymmetry sure is glaring.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

I think an acknowledgement that the Church (through BYU) practiced conversion therapy and then stopped would make this seem more honest as opposed to ‘continuing’ to oppose conversion therapy suggesting it was always that way.

As to the ruling the net effect will probably be limited. The only shift is that conversion talk therapy can be offered by those operating in a professional setting. It was already legal (and often abusive) in a church environment. This will mostly impact minors. Queer kids will suffer but they were already suffering.

I don’t like it but this is the demented world we live in I guess.

[Notatbm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I think an acknowledgement that the Church (through BYU) practiced conversion therapy and then stopped would make this seem more honest as opposed to ‘continuing’ to oppose conversion therapy suggesting it was always that way.

As to the ruling the net effect will probably be limited. The only shift is that conversion talk therapy can be offered by those operating in a professional setting. It was already legal (and often abusive) in a church environment. This will mostly impact minors. Queer kids will suffer but they were already suffering.

I don’t like it but this is the demented world we live in I guess.

Along with that acknowledgement a double down by oaks that it absolutely never happened while he was president at byu… well the shocking part of it. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

think an acknowledgement that the Church (through BYU) practiced conversion therapy and then stopped would make this seem more honest as opposed to ‘continuing’ to oppose conversion therapy suggesting it was always that way.

 

I was thinking the Church isn’t BYU and somethings that happen at BYU have nothing to do with the Church (you wouldn’t say the Church runs business competitions for students because they occur at BYU….or at least I wouldn’t), but I believe there were bishops that recommended or possibly even required students to undertake whatever happened (heard conflicting stories from those directly involved) as well as references from the BYU Counseling Center, so while I wouldn’t say “the Church practiced conversion therapy” because I don’t believe the individual doing it was hired for that purpose to the best of my knowledge, but maybe “allowed” or “condoned” or at the very least there was no active attempt to stop it from happening.  The caveat that what was done according to him was not a fringe treatment at the time, but standard practice can be added for context, but should not be used as an excuse.  

Though I am only aware of the claims and the defense for aversion therapy at BYU and assume that is what you are talking about.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/aversion-therapy-at-byu

https://mormonr.org/qnas/parwO/gay_conversion_therapy_and_byu (Includes a timeline for context, some events I was not aware of)

I would be shocked to find out there were not more than 2 LDS psychologists who used aversion therapy in their private practice as well as the semi subset conversion therapy (which involves more than just aversion therapy depending on how it’s defined) and some bishops, maybe many, who advised gay ward members to undergo it, but good to see it’s documented in these.

Edited March 31 by Calm

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

I was thinking the Church isn’t BYU and somethings that happen at BYU have nothing to do with the Church (you wouldn’t say the Church runs business competitions for students because they occur at BYU….or at least I wouldn’t), but I believe there were bishops that recommended or possibly even required students to undertake whatever happened (heard conflicting stories from those directly involved), so while I wouldn’t say “the Church practiced conversion therapy” because I don’t believe the individual doing it was hired for that purpose to the best of my knowledge, but maybe “allowed” or “condoned” or at the very least there was no active attempt to stop it from happening.  The caveat that what was done according to him was not a fringe treatment at the time, but standard practice can be added for context, but should not be used as an excuse.  

Though I am only aware of the claims and the defense for aversion therapy at BYU and assume that is what you are talking about.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/aversion-therapy-at-byu

https://mormonr.org/qnas/parwO/gay_conversion_therapy_and_byu (Includes a timeline for context)

 

 

Aversion therapy targeted at gay people is a form of conversion therapy. I doubt you meant to suggest otherwise but it is a subgroup and not something distinct from it.

While there is some distinction between the Church and BYU there is a difference between a school doing a normal school thing like a business competition and a church school doing studies to “cure” sinful desires. One is just normal operation and the other is clearly aligned with the Church’s goals specifically.

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Aversion therapy targeted at gay people is a form of conversion therapy. I doubt you meant to suggest otherwise but it is a subgroup and not something distinct from it.

Yes, I was using aversion therapy in the last paragraph as a broader term used for treatment in a variety of situations while I hope also acknowledging it was used specifically in attempts to decrease homosexual attraction which aspect I include under the larger umbrella of conversion therapy….though now you made me wonder if the sole purpose was to decrease or eliminate and not change to heterosexual attraction if that falls under conversion.  It is still change involved or hoped for, so seems likely.

Aversion (broad application) therapy has questionable results in almost all areas (short term gains perhaps, lacking in long term and not worth the nontrivial distress).  I think the only one there might be some success with is alcohol, but haven’t looked at the research for awhile and don’t remember.  Its lack of enduring success and significant harm for some would be a good reason for therapists not to advertised they once used it in their practice even if it was mainstream and quite popular for a time (it was everywhere for weight loss when I was in high school and college).

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

the other is clearly aligned with the Church’s goals specifically.

I agree, but other nonChurch schools were also doing the same sort of research as noted in the Mormonr timeline.  One study at BYU that lasted less than a year iirc does not show a pattern of behaviour imo.

Now there may have been other studies on changing homosexual attraction not involving aversion therapy, I likely know of one but I can’t remember the exact details, what the dissertation involved.  But I also know that particular dissertation referenced studies that were being down at mainstream universities.

So while such work aligned with the Church’s goals and that likely helped drive interest, not sure one should conclude the Church was the primary reason those studies (aversion and others) were going on at BYU since it was happening other universities, including aversion therapy studies at the universities of Pittsburgh, Harvard, and Wisconsin-Milwaukee and others iirc.

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

I agree, but other nonChurch schools were also doing the same sort of research as noted in the Mormonr timeline.  One study at BYU that lasted less than a year iirc does not show a pattern of behaviour imo.

From Mormonr:

Quote

Did other universities conduct studies like this at the time?

Yes. Harvard Medical School, the University of Pittsburgh, University of Wisconsin, and other schools, hospitals, and laboratories conducted aversion therapy research, many of them utilizing electroshock methods.[11]
...

If the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental illness in 1973, why did BYU approve the research?

The American Psychiatric Association ratified the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973[118] but the American Psychological Association did not endorse this change until 1975, and still considered "unwanted homosexuality" as a disorder until 1987.[119]

This research continued after the 1973 declassification by academic institutions such as Harvard Medical School, the University of Pittsburgh, and BYU.[120]
...

[11]↩︎

Many institutions in the 1960s and 1970s did research on gay aversion and conversion therapy, some of which used electric shocks or other physical and psychological aversion techniques.

For example, researchers at Crumpsall Hospital in Manchester, the University of Wisconsin, and Barnstead Hospital in Surrey, England utilized electric shocks in their gay aversion research.

Queens University in Ireland applied a "positive" aversion method by dehydrating subjects and later rewarding them with a lime drink.

The University of Pittsburgh used a variety of psychological aversion techniques.

Harvard Medical School also conducted gay aversion therapy using electric shocks.

• • British Medical Journal publishes successful gay aversion therapy using emetics.
• • Banstead Hospital utilization of electric shocks in gay aversion therapy.
• • BRT example of electric shocks in aversion therapy being used in research in Crumpsall Hospital, Manchester, UK.
• • 1969 British Journal of Psychiatry publication citing "a significant number of successes" in aversion therapy.
• • Queens University, Belfast, Ireland conversion therapy research with positive reinforcement.
• • University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee conversion therapy research.
• • University of Pittsburgh study utilizing shocks for aversion therapy.
• • Harvard research study utilizing electric shocks in treatment for homosexuality.

   

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

Twisted parents will see this as an opportunity. Good luck kids!  

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Twisted parents will see this as an opportunity. Good luck kids!  

Could you elaborate?

What sort of motives and objectives would you see as defining what makes parents "twisted?"

The SCOTUS decision addresses only "talk only" therapy.  From the article:

Quote

Colorado is one of more than 20 states that have enacted restrictions on conversion therapy. Its measure, called the Minor Conversion Therapy Law, was enacted in 2019 and prohibits mental health professionals from engaging in any practice or treatment, including talk therapy, that attempts to change an individual's sexual orientation or gender identity. Violators face fines of up to $5,000 and may be suspended from practicing or stripped of their license.

Several years after Colorado's law went into effect, Chiles, a licensed counselor who performs "faith-informed" counseling when sought, sued state officials. She argued that the ban violates her free-speech rights by censoring her conversations with patients based on viewpoint and the content of those discussions. 

She aims to engage in talk therapy with minors who want to "reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors or grow in the experience of harmony with [their] physical bodies." Chiles argued that under Colorado's ban, families and teens who want to address gender dysphoria by aligning identity and biological sex at birth cannot work with a licensed counselor to help reach that goal. But the measure does allow treatment that supports patients undergoing gender transition, Chiles' lawyers said.

Are you saying that talk therapy for youth who want to "reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors or grow in the experience of harmony with [their] physical bodies" is "twisted?"

More:

Quote

Jim Campbell, chief legal counsel at the Alliance Defending Freedom who argued on Chiles' behalf before the Supreme Court, cheered the ruling.

"Kids deserve real help affirming that their bodies are not a mistake and that they are wonderfully made. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision today is a significant win for free speech, common sense, and families desperate to help their children," he said in a statement. "States cannot silence voluntary conversations that help young people seeking to grow comfortable with their bodies."

Chiles called the ruling a "victory for counselors and, more importantly, kids and families everywhere."

I appreciate that we currently have a broad spectrum of viewpoints regarding fundamental elements of Gender Dysphoria and sexual orientation/behavior.  It just seems odd to me that "talk only" therapy geared based on one area of that spectrum is per se "twisted."  I think that area of the spectrum is entitled to the same sort of legal treatment as most other areas of the spectrum.  What are your thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

I personally know so many parents who, unlike you are legitimately homophobic. They are cruel.  If these type of parents have children who confess to “ same-sex attraction” , what has happened in the past is that these parents will search out conversion therapists.   Conversion therapists will try to therapize (not a word) the gay out of the child.  
We understand now, and the church acknowledges, that the gay cannot be analyzed away. Rather, the shame is drilled in through the therapeutic process.  It does significant damage to the individual, obviously. 

Edited April 1 by MustardSeed

[MustardSeed]

As a licensed therapist, I’ve had plenty of parents, all of them LDS bring their children into me in hopes that I will correct their religious non belief or their “same sex attraction” (their homosexuality is what I call it).   Sometimes I’ll sit with these kids. But of course I don’t do any conversion work.  I always make it clear to parents that I don’t do conversion work. They are always shocked.  Aren’t you a member of the church??? they ask.
  
The kids don’t last long with me because I was reported to the parents that there’s nothing wrong with the kid.  The kids often will come to me later as they have grown older and know that they can trust me, and that I understand their religious background.  
 

I’m neither a liberal nor conservative.  I’m just a person who is disgusted with the world for all sorts of reasons.  But I’m safe for anybody to talk to.  And I will never do conversion therapy. It’s really damaging.  
If somebody comes into me and says they’re trying to figure out what they’re attracted to, what they believe, what they value , I will help them come to know their own mind.  I think that’s what we all want need and deserve. 

[Calm]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

It just seems odd to me that "talk only" therapy geared based on one area of that spectrum is per se "twisted." 

It certainly can be and I say this as the sister-in-law of a psychologist who has specialized in adult clients who wish to change sexual behaviour they see as dysfunctional, disrupting their lives.  

I have been acquainted (mostly online) with a couple of his patients, some very positive and grateful for his work with them even decades later, one who thinks the therapy was highly damaging.

There are so many ways this kind of therapy can go wrong and with parents who view homosexuality as a sin, their kid has an uphill battle to come out without a lot of damage.  Just think of what it would be like for a kid constantly accused by their parents of being a liar even though they were very truthful, the parents just didn’t like some of what they said, so to protect their own feelings labeled their child a liar.  And then they got a therapist to help the child to learn how to be honest…and the therapist accepted the parents were right and when the kid protested, assumed that was just proof they were a liar. 

Parents are likely to seek out a therapist that agrees with their views. There is way too much negative baggage attached to homosexuality and homosexual behaviour in our culture.  Combining those two things means it is way too easy for therapy to help a child decrease homosexual behaviour to go wrong. 
 

I am not saying it should never be done, I think when it becomes truly dysfunctional therapy should be an option just as it should be when heterosexual behaviour is damaging.  I do believe therapists who do such work should be overseen to ensure their methods are actually helpful (backed by evidence and not just feel good ideas) and not inducing shame, etc.  But then I think the counseling field should be more regulated with stronger oversight, including “life coaches” and anyone who puts out themselves as qualified to counsel others for pay. 

In case anyone thinks I give bishops/clergy a complete free pass here, I do not. I think much more training should take place if we expect our bishops to be counselors given the amount of authority individuals give them.  Once a talk moves past a supportive friend helping you talk things through, once authority enters the picture, we should be careful.  This is probably the biggest reason I wish we had paid clergy, though it doesn’t weight more for me than the many reasons I appreciate we have unpaid clergy (big ones are more likely avoiding those who are not sincere in their desire to help others, less likely to get those looking for a great career to use for grooming purposes).

Edited April 1 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

And I will never do conversion therapy. It’s really damaging.  

The very name—converting a person from one thing to another—is wrong, imo. 

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Could you elaborate?

What sort of motives and objectives would you see as defining what makes parents "twisted?"

The desire for the child to not be queer. Being willing to scare the child into hiding their queerness. Being willing to abuse the child to make the “problem” go away. This isn’t rare. It is disturbingly common.

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

The SCOTUS decision addresses only "talk only" therapy.  From the article:

Are you saying that talk therapy for youth who want to "reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors or grow in the experience of harmony with [their] physical bodies" is "twisted?"

Yes, because this scenario you present is incredible naive and unrealistic. In your view the child decides they wants help dealing with their queerness and somehow voluntarily goes to a therapist and gets help on their own. No, the parents are paying for it. The parents are probably pressuring the child to get this “help” and choosing a therapist that will work to “fix” their child if that is what the parents want. The child isn’t an empowered independent part of the process. They are along for the ride.

Pretending it is always harmless because it is ‘just talk’ is ridiculous. Imagine someone hauling you into an office with a therapist who wants to “help” you stop being LDS and just being expected to continue doing that until you are “fixed”.

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

More:

I appreciate that we currently have a broad spectrum of viewpoints regarding fundamental elements of Gender Dysphoria and sexual orientation/behavior.  It just seems odd to me that "talk only" therapy geared based on one area of that spectrum is per se "twisted."  I think that area of the spectrum is entitled to the same sort of legal treatment as most other areas of the spectrum.  What are your thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

We don’t have a broad spectrum of equally valid viewpoints. We have a general professional consensus on these issues. We know that talk therapy and all other kinds of therapies DO NOT WORK in changing someone’s sexual orientation. Yet some people want to do it anyways. It is intrusive and creepy to do this to kids.

Unfortunately LDS have a continuing history of doing this to the queer kids in their midst. Look at the exciting new law in Idaho requiring that teachers and therapists and other mandatory reporters are now required by law to report to parents any ‘gender non-conforming behavior’ to the parents. No exceptions if it is suspected that will put the child in danger. No clear definition of what that behavior even is. It is a clear shot fired telling trans kids that they had better keep their heads down and they must TRUST NO ONE. This is what the church wants. They want queer kids to be afraid and ashamed and closeted. They want them to stop being disruptive by existing. And of course this will scoop up a lot of cis kids with no desire to transition and no dysphoria who just don’t neatly fit into their assigned gender box. They also need to be “fixed”.

If the Church leadership deeply cares about the health, emotional wellbeing, and safety of queer kids in the church they have done a terrible job of passing this message onto their membership because they are legislating those kids into the closet and creating a surveillance state to make sure no one steps out of line. This isn’t a mistake or unintended consequences. This is the goal.

[smac97]

On 4/1/2026 at 3:03 PM, The Nehor said:

Quote

Could you elaborate?

What sort of motives and objectives would you see as defining what makes parents "twisted?"

The desire for the child to not be queer.

Could you elaborate?  "Queer" being such a nebulous concept these days, I don't know what you are saying here.

Also, "for the child to be queer" seems somewhat opaque.  Can parents legitimately hope that their children will refrain from certain types of sexual behaviors, without being denigrated as "twisted"?

Can parents legitimately and reasonably encourage their minor children to abstain from underage sex?

Can parents legitimately and reasonably encourage their teen children to abstain from sexual relationships with someone with a significant age difference?

Can parents legitimately and reasonably encourage their minor children to abstain from sexual behaviors that fall outside a particular moral/religious framework (such as the one espoused by the Church)?

It seems like there should be a fairly broad spectrum of socially acceptable stances on matters of sexuality.

On 4/1/2026 at 3:03 PM, The Nehor said:

Being willing to scare the child into hiding their queerness.

What about subduing "their queerness" (still not sure what that means), at least as regarding sexual behaviors?

If the parents of non-"queer" children are justified in exhorting their children to stay within particularizes sexual boundaries, why can't they do the same for "queer" children?

I agree that "scaring" children about sex is, in the main, a bad idea.  But then, so are laissez-faire attitudes in this increasingly sexualized world.  I think sex is an important and sacred topic, and should be treated as such.

On 4/1/2026 at 3:03 PM, The Nehor said:

Being willing to abuse the child to make the “problem” go away.

Nobody is talking about or condoning "abuse."

Are you suggesting that "talk only" therapy calculated to dissuade a minor away from sexual behavior is wholly improper?

On 4/1/2026 at 3:03 PM, The Nehor said:

Quote

The SCOTUS decision addresses only "talk only" therapy.  From the article:

Are you saying that talk therapy for youth who want to "reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors or grow in the experience of harmony with [their] physical bodies" is "twisted?"

Yes, because this scenario you present is incredible naive and unrealistic.

I am not persuaded this is so.

Talk therapy for youth who want to "reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors or grow in the experience of harmony with [their] physical bodies" seems eminently doable.

On 4/1/2026 at 3:03 PM, The Nehor said:

In your view the child decides they wants help dealing with their queerness and somehow voluntarily goes to a therapist and gets help on their own. No, the parents are paying for it.

I would not be in favor of coercion.  That said, I think parents have parental authority precisely because minors are not yet situated to wholly govern themselves, particularly in relation to matters of sexual behavior and gender identity.

On 4/1/2026 at 3:03 PM, The Nehor said:

The parents are probably pressuring the child to get this “help” and choosing a therapist that will work to “fix” their child if that is what the parents want.

I have difficulty with this characterization.

On 4/1/2026 at 3:03 PM, The Nehor said:

The child isn’t an empowered independent part of the process. They are along for the ride.

Nothing new here.  The parameters of parental authority are fairly well-established in the law.  Yes, they have substantial, though not plenary, decision-making authority for their minor children.  

On 4/1/2026 at 3:03 PM, The Nehor said:

Pretending it is always harmless because it is ‘just talk’ is ridiculous.

I have difficulty with this characterization.

Talk therapy as per se harmful and unethical?  I think not.

For my part, I think therapists who are actively encouraging minors with Gender Dysphoria run a very real risk of doing harm, even if the therapy is "just talk."  We saw this play out just a few weeks ago:

This landmark ruling could change the future of gender-related treatments for minors

Quote

Lawyers for a plaintiff who sued her doctors after she detransitioned say they think her win in court last week is a harbinger of things to come.

At age 16, Fox Varian underwent a double mastectomy as she transitioned from a biological girl to identifying as a boy. The surgery occurred a year after she began meeting with a psychologist and started questioning her gender during sessions.

Nearly 3½ years after her surgery, she filed a medical malpractice lawsuit — the first of its kind — against her psychologist and the surgeon who performed the top surgery.

My sense is that you are, or might be, ideologically predisposed to, and in support of, therapists who are encouraging minors with Gender Dysphoria to undergo medical treatments such as hormone therapy, sex trait modification surgery, etc.  Is that accurate?

Quote

Now 22, Varian was awarded $2 million on Friday by a jury in response to her civil case.

“Shame and cognitive dissonance, Varian testified, kept her from openly confessing her remorse until three years following the mastectomy,” independent reporter Benjamin Ryan wrote in his court coverage. “At 19, she finally stopped identifying and presenting as male and has since considered herself a woman. But an incomplete one.”

The civil suit in Westchester County Supreme Court in White Plains, New York, is one of nearly 30 detransitioner lawsuits nationwide, according to Ryan. He added in a video posted by The Free Press, where his article was published, that Varian’s case and the ones that will follow could be “a reckoning over lax assessment standards by care providers when they consider whether irreversible medical interventions should be offered or given to minors with gender dysphoria.”

The jury’s decision was heavily influenced, Ryan said, by Varian and her mother, Claire Deacon’s testimonies. The mother and daughter said that Varian’s psychologist, Kenneth Einhorn, was an “enabler,” who assured Varian that the mastectomy would improve her mental health, and said that he “browbeat” Deacon into consenting to the irreversible surgery so Varian wouldn’t take her life.

"{The plaintiff and her mother testified that} Varian’s psychologist, Kenneth Einhorn, was an 'enabler,' who assured Varian that the mastectomy would improve her mental health, and said that he 'browbeat' Deacon into consenting to the irreversible surgery so Varian wouldn’t take her life."

To paraphrase a guy: "Pretending {so-called 'gender-affirming care'} is always harmless because it is ‘just talk’ is ridiculous."  This young woman had a doctor cut off her healthy breasts.  She will never be the same.

On 4/1/2026 at 3:03 PM, The Nehor said:

Imagine someone hauling you into an office with a therapist who wants to “help” you stop being LDS and just being expected to continue doing that until you are “fixed”.

Yes, that would be problematic.

That said, I see a world of difference between a A) therapist trying to lure a minor away from his/her religious beliefs and B) a therapist pressuring a young woman with Gender Dysphoria to have her healthy breasts cut off.

On 4/1/2026 at 3:03 PM, The Nehor said:

Quote

I appreciate that we currently have a broad spectrum of viewpoints regarding fundamental elements of Gender Dysphoria and sexual orientation/behavior.  It just seems odd to me that "talk only" therapy geared based on one area of that spectrum is per se "twisted."  I think that area of the spectrum is entitled to the same sort of legal treatment as most other areas of the spectrum.  What are your thoughts?

We don’t have a broad spectrum of equally valid viewpoints.

I didn't say they were "equally valid."  I think I would agree with you that the spectrum would entail a hierarchy, with some viewpoints more reasoned and principled than others.

For example, I think that viewpoints endorsing things like the sexualization of children, justifying hugely impactful medical treatments for minors based on "If we don't do it they'll kill themselves" rationale, alienating children from their parents, subverting parental authority, unelected persons using the power of the State to do these things, etc., are all problematic and less valid than viewpoints opposed to these things.

On 4/1/2026 at 3:03 PM, The Nehor said:

We have a general professional consensus on these issues.

No, I don't think we do.  In fact, I find this to be a substantially factually erroneous assertion.

The Tide Goes Out on Youth Gender Medicine
American doctors are no longer united on the wisdom of medicalizing gender dysphoria in minors.

Quote

As the shaky evidence base for youth gender medicine has become better known, activists have retreated to an argument from authority. Never mind the Cass Report, whose findings resulted in the closure of Britain’s leading youth gender clinic. Never mind the study by a leading American practitioner showing that the treatments she championed did not improve minors’ mental health. Never mind reports that some adolescents were being put on a medical pathway after only a single clinic visit. For advocates, the important thing to remember was that “gender-affirming care” for minors—puberty blockers and hormones, plus surgery in rare cases—was endorsed by all of the major American medical associations.

That second link goes to an October 2022 Reuters article with the following parts:

Quote

Part 1: A Dearth of Science ("Increasing numbers of adolescents are seeking to medically transition amid many unknowns about the risks and efficacy of treatment.")

Part 2: The Social Element ("Most adolescents receiving gender care were assigned female at birth, sparking debate about whether social media plays a part.")

Part 3: Lost in Limbo ("England's overhaul of gender care for trans minors has added to years-long delays in treatment, raising new barriers to care.")

Part 4: The Matter of Regret ("Understanding detransition and regret, long taboo subjects in gender care, could help improve treatment of trans youths, researchers say.") 

The Turning Tide on Medicalized Gender Interventions for Kids

Quote

In 2023, in the wake of a mental health crisis among America’s youth and an exponential rise in gender clinics pushing medical interventions to alter children’s bodies in response to gender dysphoria,[1] Idaho enacted the Vulnerable Child Protection Act.[2] As its name suggests, the law aims to protect children who feel uncomfortable with their sex from drugs and procedures that disrupt the body’s natural development  causing lifelong harm.

Since the law was passed, there have been significant changes in the world’s understanding of the science and medicine surrounding so-called “gender-affirming care.” As will be discussed below, countries that pioneered medicalized gender interventions have reversed course and the interest groups that vouched for its safety have been discredited.[3] It is now clear that the widely touted “Standards of Care” were infected by political pressure and conflicts of interest.[4]

"{W}idely touted 'Standards of Care' were infected by political pressure and conflicts of interest."

Quote

There have also been changes on the legal and policy front in the United States. The 2024 election ushered in a reversal of federal policy on gender issues.[5] And on June 18, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a Tennessee law protecting children from medicalized gender interventions.[6] Together, these changes reflect a turning of the tide on gender interventions for kids in the United States.

This article gives a brief description of Idaho’s law and the medical context. Next, it explains the politicization that drove the alleged medical consensus around treating children with gender dysphoria and the recent course reversal. Then it addresses the country’s changing political and popular culture. Finally, it explains the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Skrmetti, which upheld laws, like Idaho’s, as constitutional.

The entire article is worth a read.  The section entitled "The Discredited Standards of Care" is particularly good.

On 4/1/2026 at 3:03 PM, The Nehor said:

We know that talk therapy and all other kinds of therapies DO NOT WORK in changing someone’s sexual orientation.

Ah, okay.  I think this does seem to be largely beyond dispute (far less so for "gender affirming care" stuff).

That said, I found this interesting: What Sexual Orientation Change Efforts Change: Evidence From a United States Sample of 72 Exposed Men

Quote

Background: Voluntary non-coercive therapeutic interventions for adults are collectively known as sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE). Research on SOCE has reported global or average sexual orientation change, but not in more detail. This study addresses two questions: Does change consist primarily of reduced homosexual orientation or increased heterosexual orientation? Does change consist primarily of change in behavior or change in attraction? 

Method: A convenience sample of 72 men who had completed SOCE was examined for the decrease in homosexual attraction, increase in heterosexual attraction, and corresponding changes in sexual behavior among those experiencing a homosexual-to-heterosexual shift. All measures were self-reported.
...
Conclusion: Change consisted primarily of reduced homosexual orientation and change in behavior was much stronger than change in attraction. SOCE supported conformity to strong religious norms against homosexual behavior, but not attractions, for this group of extremely religious men. Implications for understanding SOCE-related sexual orientation change are discussed.

This topic is hugely politicized, so soberness and moderation should hold real sway.

On 4/1/2026 at 3:03 PM, The Nehor said:

Yet some people want to do it anyways. It is intrusive and creepy to do this to kids.

And others will say that much of gender-affirming care for minors is, or can be, "intrusive and creepy."

On 4/1/2026 at 3:03 PM, The Nehor said:

Unfortunately LDS have a continuing history of doing this to the queer kids in their midst. Look at the exciting new law in Idaho requiring that teachers and therapists and other mandatory reporters are now required by law to report to parents any ‘gender non-conforming behavior’ to the parents.

Not sure what that has to do with the Church.

And I find the notion that state actors subverting parental decision-making as to their minor children to be hugely creepy and wrong.  Indeed, it is stuff like this that I think has causes large swathes of the general public to turn against the "trans" movement.

On 4/1/2026 at 3:03 PM, The Nehor said:

No exceptions if it is suspected that will put the child in danger.

State actors keeping secrets from parents about the welfare of their minor children is about as creepy as you can get.

On 4/1/2026 at 3:03 PM, The Nehor said:

No clear definition of what that behavior even is. It is a clear shot fired telling trans kids that they had better keep their heads down and they must TRUST NO ONE.

Including their parents?

I think alienating trans kids from their parents, and subverting parental rights relative to their children, and using the organs of the State to do these things, is very problematic.

On 4/1/2026 at 3:03 PM, The Nehor said:

This is what the church wants.

If you have evidence of the Church weighing in on this law, I'd be happy to consider it. 

On 4/1/2026 at 3:03 PM, The Nehor said:

They want queer kids to be afraid and ashamed and closeted.

I think there are segments of the "trans" community that are targeting children for ideological purposes (rather than the welfare of the kids), with a primary vector being to scare and alienate this kids from their own parents.  Again, I think it stuff like this that is turning people away from "trans" ideology.  Sexualizing children.  Subverting parents.  Using the organs of the State to do this.  Creepy as all get-out.  Visceral.  I think trans ideologues are doing far more damage to their movement by doing this stuff than any outside opposition.  

Anyway, I have, for some time now, been trending toward a notion of "sexual fluidity," which per this article posits that "people’s sexual attractions, behaviors, and identities can shift over time," and that such shifting is or can be "bi-directional (i.e. toward and away from LGB+ identities)."

I frame this issue in as pertaining to sexual attraction/orientation, not "identity," and to behavior (not a state of being).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 13 by smac97

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

It just seems odd to me that "talk only" therapy geared based on one area of that spectrum is per se "twisted." 

It certainly can be and I say this as the sister-in-law of a psychologist who has specialized in adult clients who wish to change sexual behaviour they see as dysfunctional, disrupting their lives.  

Pretty much any human endeavor can be be distorted and misused.  Hence my comment about "per se 'twisted.'"

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I have been acquainted (mostly online) with a couple of his patients, some very positive and grateful for his work with them even decades later, one who thinks the therapy was highly damaging.

So the results have been . . . mixed?  Not "per se 'twisted'"?

3 hours ago, Calm said:

There are so many ways this kind of therapy can go wrong

Does that include "gender-affirming" therapy?

3 hours ago, Calm said:

and with parents who view homosexuality as a sin, their kid has an uphill battle to come out without a lot of damage.  

Is it also possible that therapists and parents (like Claire Deacon, see above) are doing damage by pushing children into medical treatments that end up being harmful?

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Just think of what it would be like for a kid constantly accused by their parents of being a liar even though they were very truthful, the parents just didn’t like some of what they said, so to protect their own feelings labeled their child a liar.  And then they got a therapist to help the child to learn how to be honest…and the therapist accepted the parents were right and when the kid protested, assumed that was just proof they were a liar.

That's an odd scenario.  

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Parents are likely to seek out a therapist that agrees with their views.

Do you think Claire Deacon did that?

3 hours ago, Calm said:

There is way too much negative baggage attached to homosexuality and homosexual behaviour in our culture.  

That may be so.

I think it is okay for people to find homosexual behavior sinful, unhealthy, wrong, etc.  Same goes for believing that sex should be limited to between a husband and wife.

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Combining those two things means it is way too easy for therapy to help a child decrease homosexual behaviour to go wrong. 

Is it also possible that "gender affirming care" as gone wrong in some instances?  Fox Varian, for example?

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I am not saying it should never be done, I think when it becomes truly dysfunctional therapy should be an option just as it should be when heterosexual behaviour is damaging.  I do believe therapists who do such work should be overseen to ensure their methods are actually helpful (backed by evidence and not just feel good ideas) and not inducing shame, etc.  

Would that reasoning also apply to therapists advancing "gender affirming care" techniques?

3 hours ago, Calm said:

But then I think the counseling field should be more regulated with stronger oversight, including “life coaches” and anyone who puts out themselves as qualified to counsel others for pay.

I think "talk only"-type jobs are hard to regulate without running afoul of the First Amendment.

3 hours ago, Calm said:

In case anyone thinks I give bishops/clergy a complete free pass here, I do not. I think much more training should take place if we expect our bishops to be counselors given the amount of authority individuals give them.  

What sort of training?  Should bishops receive training to encourage minors to obey the Law of Chastity?  Isn't that already part of the gig?

If a teen is encountering mental health difficulties, I think they should seek reputable therapy and medical options.  A bishop can be a part of the process, but he would need to stay in his lane.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

I am going to say this is all caps.

CONVERSION THERAPY NEVER CONVERTS SOMEONE WHO IS GAY TO BE STRAIGHT.  IT DOES HOWEVER CAUSE REAL HARMFUL BELIEFS THAT TAKE SOMETIMES YEARS TO OVERCOME.

And the church is right in the middle of encouraging this false and harmful belief.  Some are claiming that it is just talk and a teen can decide for themselves if what the therapist is telling them is true or not.   But that is not how it works.  You all know the lies church leaders told me to get me to marry a woman, telling me that being gay would just disappear.  Does those that think being gay can be fixed like these church leaders think because of their position of authority? They are severely harming the lives of not only the queer person, they are also causing havoc in the life of the spouse that also trusts their claims.  It causes harm to any children they may have.  It causes harm to the larger family.  There is a reason why conversion therapy was made illegal in the majority of states.  

Someone may have the constitutional right under free speech to say whatever they want to, but that doesn't mean that in doing so, they can cause horrific consequences.  According to this ruling, a therapist has the constitutional right to counsel a patient to believe suicide is a viable solution to solving their problems.  Free speech and all that.  

The destruction conversion therapy is so well known with countless lives both within and outside the church I don't need to repeat something that has been said so many other times.  Challenge me on this and I will be glad to regurgitate countless stories of peoples lives that have been wrecked by going down this path, including my own life.

I hate that there are still people defending and promoting this terrible harmful practice.  

[The Nehor]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Could you elaborate?  "Queer" being such a nebulous concept these days, I don't know what you are saying here.

It is not at all a nebulous concept.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Also, "for the child to be queer" seems somewhat opaque.  Can parents legitimately hope that their children will refrain from certain types of sexual behaviors, without being denigrated as "twisted"?

Can parents legitimately and reasonably encourage their minor children to abstain from underage sex?

Can parents legitimately and reasonably encourage their teen children to abstain from sexual relationships with someone with a significant age difference?

Can parents legitimately and reasonably encourage their minor children to abstain from sexual behaviors that fall outside a particular moral/religious framework (such as the one espoused by the Church)?

This is a stupid tangent. You are acting as if this is all about sexual conduct. As if the Church or your ideology teaches that queer kids and non-queer kids are being treated the same. They are not.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

It seems like there should be a fairly broad spectrum of socially acceptable stances on matters of sexuality.

Which leads to the question of why so many want government to enforce their standards for them. Sounds pretty authoritarian.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

What about subduing "their queerness" (still not sure what that means), at least as regarding sexual behaviors?

Which is not what the Church wants or teaches. At least not in the same way they seek to curtail sexual behavior in cishet kids. It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

Cishet kids generally aren’t afraid their parents will throw them out or disown them for having a crush on someone. Reducing everything to sex acts is weird and is just a rhetorical device you regularly use to pretend you are being evenhanded on some non-existent idealized equal playing field that never existed and you know it doesn’t actually exist.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

If the parents of non-"queer" children are justified in exhorting their children to stay within particularizes sexual boundaries, why can't they do the same for "queer" children?

LOL

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I agree that "scaring" children about sex is, in the main, a bad idea.  But then, so are laissez-faire attitudes in this increasingly sexualized world.  I think sex is an important and sacred topic, and should be treated as such.

Which is not what is being achieved. So if the methods don’t accomplish the goal.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Nobody is talking about or condoning "abuse."

They aren’t talking about it but it very much is being glossed over and ignored which is the same thing as condoning it.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Are you suggesting that "talk only" therapy calculated to dissuade a minor away from sexual behavior is wholly improper?

No, and you know I wasn’t and we aren’t talking about “talk therapy” about not having sex. We are talking about “talk therapy” to “fix” someone’s sexual orientation. Again you are obsessed with actual sexual behavior and not conversion therapy.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am not persuaded this is so.

Talk therapy for youth who want to "reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors or grow in the experience of harmony with [their] physical bodies" seems eminently doable.

Of course it is doable. It is just very often harmful.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I would not be in favor of coercion.  That said, I think parents have parental authority precisely because minors are not yet situated to wholly govern themselves, particularly in relation to matters of sexual behavior and gender identity.

Which is where the abuse happens which you dismiss. The abuse is a natural byproduct of what you want to do. Pretending that it doesn’t exist is just willful ignorance. Policies impact the real world, not your imagined ideal one where abuse wouldn’t happen for some reason.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have difficulty with this characterization.

Your feelings about it aren’t really a priimary concern.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Nothing new here.  The parameters of parental authority are fairly well-established in the law.  Yes, they have substantial, though not plenary, decision-making authority for their minor children.  

I have difficulty with this characterization.

Talk therapy as per se harmful and unethical?  I think not.

You keep pretending this isn’t what it is. Talk therapy for the purpose of conversion of someone’s sexual orientation. You are being your nebbish little self and pretending this is some idealized talk therapy that is intrinsically harmless by trying to make this about talk therapy in general being harmless. Some of what is called talk therapy is verbal abuse. Deal with it.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

For my part, I think therapists who are actively encouraging minors with Gender Dysphoria run a very real risk of doing harm, even if the therapy is "just talk."  We saw this play out just a few weeks ago:

This landmark ruling could change the future of gender-related treatments for minors

Ah, whataboutism. So now talk therapy is harmful but only if it isn’t conversion therapy. And some propaganda. How typical.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

My sense is that you are, or might be, ideologically predisposed to, and in support of, therapists who are encouraging minors with Gender Dysphoria to undergo medical treatments such as hormone therapy, sex trait modification surgery, etc.  Is that accurate?

No, the general consensus is to limit surgical interventions regarding minors until they are of age. Exceptions exist due to extreme distress but they are rare. Use of puberty blockers are sometimes used in cases where dysphoria is acute.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

"{The plaintiff and her mother testified that} Varian’s psychologist, Kenneth Einhorn, was an 'enabler,' who assured Varian that the mastectomy would improve her mental health, and said that he 'browbeat' Deacon into consenting to the irreversible surgery so Varian wouldn’t take her life."

He was convicted of medical malpractice for what he did. He didn’t follow approved practices. He wasn’t trained to treat transgender patients. This is akin to banning heart surgeries because one rogue doctor recommended a patient have unnecessary surgery. This kind of thing only works against transgender people because of transphobia. If you tried to make this argument about any other kind of medical care being too dangerous because the doctor might ignore medical standards you would be laughed out of the building. And on some level you know that but choose to believe this spurious argument anyways.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

To paraphrase a guy: "Pretending {so-called 'gender-affirming care'} is always harmless because it is ‘just talk’ is ridiculous."  This young woman had a doctor cut off her healthy breasts.  She will never be the same.

And the doctor was punished for it. Hopefully severely. You are pretending a criminal doctor is the norm.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, that would be problematic.

That said, I see a world of difference between a A) therapist trying to lure a minor away from his/her religious beliefs and B) a therapist pressuring a young woman with Gender Dysphoria to have her healthy breasts cut off.

And I see a world of difference between a doctor prescribing pain medication for a patient who is suffering and a doctor using their license to create opioid prescriptions that are intended for sale.

Also if telling a child their dysphoria is real and there are things they can do to alleviate is somehow luring them away from their religious beliefs maybe the religious beliefs ARE the problem.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I didn't say they were "equally valid."  I think I would agree with you that the spectrum would entail a hierarchy, with some viewpoints more reasoned and principled than others.

You’re assuming criminal medical personnel are the norm in gender-affirming healthcare. It is a giant strawman and you are lovingly stuffing it and propping it up.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

For example, I think that viewpoints endorsing things like the sexualization of children, justifying hugely impactful medical treatments for minors based on "If we don't do it they'll kill themselves" rationale, alienating children from their parents, subverting parental authority, unelected persons using the power of the State to do these things, etc., are all problematic and less valid than viewpoints opposed to these things.

Sexualizing children? So another assumption that it is always about sex acts and sexual desirabllity. And we are supposed to be the perverts? Really?

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

No, I don't think we do.  In fact, I find this to be a substantially factually erroneous assertion.

You’re wrong.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Tide Goes Out on Youth Gender Medicine

 

Nope.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

American doctors are no longer united on the wisdom of medicalizing gender dysphoria in minors.

 

Ah yes, and the human impact on climate change is a highly contested area of science. That the small percentage opposed to it (often funded by political groups) is very loud doesn’t mean there is no consensus.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

 

That second link goes to an October 2022 Reuters article with the following parts:

The Turning Tide on Medicalized Gender Interventions for Kids

"{W}idely touted 'Standards of Care' were infected by political pressure and conflicts of interest."

The entire article is worth a read.  The section entitled "The Discredited Standards of Care" is particularly good.

Ah, okay.  I think this does seem to be largely beyond dispute (far less so for "gender affirming care" stuff).

Enjoy your little bubble of copium.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

That said, I found this interesting: What Sexual Orientation Change Efforts Change: Evidence From a United States Sample of 72 Exposed Men

This topic is hugely politicized, so soberness and moderation should hold real sway.

And by soberness and moderation you mean banning everything and making sure trans kids are alone, afraid, and can’t access any help because there is a small chance the help might hurt them or a doctor might violate standards of care and give improper treatment. Again, no other field of medicine is held to this insane standard. Hardly soberness and moderation. You want it to be shut down. All of it. This isn’t a secret.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

And others will say that much of gender-affirming care for minors is, or can be, "intrusive and creepy."

Of course gender affirming care for minors that is invasive is rare. Very rare. Yet you and your propaganda fixate on it to the point you think it is a norm. You are unfamiliar with what you are talking about. You are ignorant of what gender affirming care involves.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Not sure what that has to do with the Church.

You don’t know what LDS views have to do with Idaho lawmaking. Uh-huh. You are being deliberately dense again.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

And I find the notion that state actors subverting parental decision-making as to their minor children to be hugely creepy and wrong.  Indeed, it is stuff like this that I think has causes large swathes of the general public to turn against the "trans" movement.

They were never “for” the “trans” movement whatever that is.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

State actors keeping secrets from parents about the welfare of minor children is about as creepy as you can get.

I love how not behaving in a ‘correctly gendered way’ is considered to be a crucial element of a child’s welfare. And it is so vague that it leads to the hysteria we already see of “transverstigation” where cis women are accused of being transgender because they don’t look female enough in the eyes of bigots.

No, wait, I meant I hate it.

Also again, this enables abusive parents. Most such laws have exceptions to reporting when there is a risk of danger to the child. These kinds of laws have been tried before. It results in suicide hotlines having to hang up on minors that call in unless they get parental approval.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Including their parents?

Definitely don’t trust their parents. I mean, if they could realistically trust their parents with their queer identity they should. Many try even when they shouldn’t.

I have a younger friend in their early 20s going to college and living with parents. They realized over several years they were non-binary and genderfluid. They don’t want any surgery or hormones. They shared this with parents. They were verbally and emotionally abused and physically threatened. They wisely walked it back and claimed they were depressed that day and didn’t mean it. Now they are cutting short their educational goals to get economic independence more quickly. So they are ducking their head down, lying like they have to in order to survive, and are planning to get out from under their parents asap. That is the same advice I would have given them.

This doesn’t always work. There is a reason a lot of queer kids are homeless. Many are physically abused by parents. 

That friend is relatively well off. He isn’t still a minor so they are unlikely to try to force my friend into some kind of program though his dad was reportedly looking for something in their local church. Some in evangelical homes get exorcisms or other ‘treatment’ options.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think alienating trans kids from their parents, and subverting parental rights relative to their children, and using the organs of the State to do these things, is very problematic.

Abusing kids is even more problematic and the idea that somehow it is the state alienating the parents is insane. The parents are alienating themselves. Their kids learn they can’t trust their parents early.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

If you have evidence of the Church weighing in on this law, I'd be happy to consider it. 

So we are going to pretend that the majority religion in Idaho is somehow not (directly or indirectly) leading politicians to vote this way. Okay, I am going to live in the real world. You enjoy your fantasy realm

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think there are segments of the "trans" community that are targeting children for ideological purposes (rather than the welfare of the kids), with a primary vector being to scare and alienate this kids from their own parents. 

You’re wrong. DEAD WRONG. Supportive parents are like crack to queer people who don’t have them. They love them. You’re just eating up propaganda and wanting to believe it is true.

Children love their parents. Even when they shouldn’t. I used to volunteer in child services. It is weird. It is counterintuitive but that is how it works.

What is the supposed point of this imagined ideology? Why do their want to alienate kids from their parents? What is the goal? Think your conspiracy theory through and work through human motivations that would lead people to act the way they do. Not conspiracy minded delusions that they are all depraved and are serving Satan or the liberal agenda or whatever is being called ultimate evil these days.

These are humans. People. With real motivations and desires. They aren’t doing this for some vague ideology or because they like being persecuted and marginalized.

I have been told I am attracted to men because I am mad at my parents or because I think it wins me clout or prestige or that I am lauded for it. None of that happened. I didn’t make out with other guys because I wanted to make a used jet-ski salesman in HogPiss Alabama angry that I exist.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, I think it stuff like this that is turning people away from "trans" ideology.

They were never for “trans” ideology whatever that means.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

  Sexualizing children. 

An unsubstantiated charge that is assumed to be true because all non cishet people are assumed to be child predators. This despite the evidence that in our society on a per capita basis pedophile predators are most likely to be cishet white men. And the people in power are the ones sexualizing children and who is in power?

Stop blaming marginalized communities with limited power for pervasive social problems. This is just blood libel style anti-semitism with a new coat of paint.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Subverting parents. 

Parents are not angels sent from heaven with a divine mandate.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Using the organs of the State to do this. 

Of course this is the opposite of what is happening. In what I pointed out the organs of the state are being used to “out” marginalized kids to their parents. Yet somehow the other side that thinks this is bad is somehow authoritarian and is subverting the state.

LDS can’t pretend to be a marginalized and persecuted minority in Idaho where this law passed with veto proof majorities in both houses of the state legislature. They have the power and the duty to use that power responsibly yet when I point out that this is government overreach you retreat to the idea that those in power are under supreme threat from literal children who aren’t being reported on for any kind of gender nonconforming behavior.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Creepy as all get-out.  Visceral.  I think trans ideologues are doing far more damage to their movement by doing this stuff than any outside opposition.

Thanks you for critiquing the children trying to get out of abusive situations and those worried about their safety for not being sufficiently virtuous examples to win you over. As if that were possible. It is not and we know it so why try?

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

  Anyway, I have, for some time now, been trending toward a notion of "sexual fluidity," which per this article posits that "people’s sexual attractions, behaviors, and identities can shift over time," and that such shifting is or can be "bi-directional (i.e. toward and away from LGB+ identities)."

I frame this issue in as pertaining to sexual attraction/orientation, not "identity," and to behavior (not a state of being).

This would be the one part of queer focused research you would accept and then completely misunderstand.

Did you miss the part where we know of no way to influence that sexual fluidity? That talk therapy and other more coercive methods have universally failed to force such fluidity in a desired direction?

Even when you hit on something true you misunderstand it and pervert it to match your goals.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I am going to say this is all caps.

CONVERSION THERAPY NEVER CONVERTS SOMEONE WHO IS GAY TO BE STRAIGHT.  IT DOES HOWEVER CAUSE REAL HARMFUL BELIEFS THAT TAKE SOMETIMES YEARS TO OVERCOME.

And the church is right in the middle of encouraging this false and harmful belief.  Some are claiming that it is just talk and a teen can decide for themselves if what the therapist is telling them is true or not.   But that is not how it works.  You all know the lies church leaders told me to get me to marry a woman, telling me that being gay would just disappear.  Does those that think being gay can be fixed like these church leaders think because of their position of authority? They are severely harming the lives of not only the queer person, they are also causing havoc in the life of the spouse that also trusts their claims.  It causes harm to any children they may have.  It causes harm to the larger family.  There is a reason why conversion therapy was made illegal in the majority of states.  

Someone may have the constitutional right under free speech to say whatever they want to, but that doesn't mean that in doing so, they can cause horrific consequences.  According to this ruling, a therapist has the constitutional right to counsel a patient to believe suicide is a viable solution to solving their problems.  Free speech and all that.  

The destruction conversion therapy is so well known with countless lives both within and outside the church I don't need to repeat something that has been said so many other times.  Challenge me on this and I will be glad to regurgitate countless stories of peoples lives that have been wrecked by going down this path, including my own life.

I hate that there are still people defending and promoting this terrible harmful practice.  

Is the church still promoting it then? (Sincere question)

[california boy]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Is the church still promoting it then? (Sincere question)

Unfortunately yes.  Not formally like in the past, but it seems to still be a tactic that is sometimes is still relied upon.  

According to David Archuleta in his 2026 memoir Devout and related interviews, the late Mormon Apostle M. Russell Ballard advised David Archeletia he just needed to find a "good girl" to marry, implying it would help or "cure" his same-sex attraction.  I have heard from others more recently that they are still getting that same counsel.  Probably a lot of that has to do with bishop roulette.  The good part is these days, a lot of members including queer people aren't automatically trusting what the church tells them to do anymore.

That is so harmful and leads to marriages that almost always end in disaster.  You aren't doing the spouse and the children of those marriages any favors either.

[bluebell]

33 minutes ago, california boy said:

Unfortunately yes.  Not formally like in the past, but it seems to still be a tactic that is sometimes is still relied upon.  

According to David Archuleta in his 2026 memoir Devout and related interviews, the late Mormon Apostle M. Russell Ballard advised David Archeletia he just needed to find a "good girl" to marry, implying it would help or "cure" his same-sex attraction.  I have heard from others more recently that they are still getting that same counsel.  Probably a lot of that has to do with bishop roulette.  The good part is these days, a lot of members including queer people aren't automatically trusting what the church tells them to do anymore.

That is so harmful and leads to marriages that almost always end in disaster.  You aren't doing the spouse and the children of those marriages any favors either.

I agree that is incredibly harmful. It’s strange to think that anyone in this day and age would still be giving such counsel but I would guess there are still a few out there who believe sexual orientation is a choice.  Even though the church has stopped teaching that.

From what you’ve said it sounds like this ruling by SCOTUS doesn’t impact the church or any of its practices or programs. Am I understanding that right?

[california boy]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree that is incredibly harmful. It’s strange to think that anyone in this day and age would still be giving such counsel but I would guess there are still a few out there who believe sexual orientation is a choice.  Even though the church has stopped teaching that.

From what you’ve said it sounds like this ruling by SCOTUS doesn’t impact the church or any of its practices or programs. Am I understanding that right?

I hope the church still isn't pushing people into conversion therapy.  

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

I agree that is incredibly harmful. It’s strange to think that anyone in this day and age would still be giving such counsel but I would guess there are still a few out there who believe sexual orientation is a choice.  Even though the church has stopped teaching that.

I strongly believed that it was a choice when I was a teen. It made perfect sense. I had good attractions and I had bad attractions and I was supposed to choose the right (i.e. the girl). I assumed all “straight” guys like me secretly had crushes on other guys and we were all just politely pretending we weren’t and the homophobic banter was a way to let off steam.

When I found out that straight people didn’t feel that way my mind was blown. I have a private theory that the whole ‘being gay is a choice’ thing was created by closeted bi/pan people who viewed the conflict as a kind of internal spiritual warfare the way I did. Now I am just baffled as to why so many straight people believed it.

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

From what you’ve said it sounds like this ruling by SCOTUS doesn’t impact the church or any of its practices or programs. Am I understanding that right?

Not directly. It does allow therapists to try to correct sexual orientation through therapy though it will probably not be a practice that is endorsed by agencies that license therapists. I am betting some members will use this for themselves or for their children if they feel desperate or scared or angry or whatever.

[MustardSeed]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I strongly believed that it was a choice when I was a teen. It made perfect sense. I had good attractions and I had bad attractions and I was supposed to choose the right (i.e. the girl). I assumed all “straight” guys like me secretly had crushes on other guys and we were all just politely pretending we weren’t and the homophobic banter was a way to let off steam.

When I found out that straight people didn’t feel that way my mind was blown. I have a private theory that the whole ‘being gay is a choice’ thing was created by closeted bi/pan people who viewed the conflict as a kind of internal spiritual warfare the way I did. Now I am just baffled as to why so many straight people believed it.

Not directly. It does allow therapists to try to correct sexual orientation through therapy though it will probably not be a practice that is endorsed by agencies that license therapists. I am betting some members will use this for themselves or for their children if they feel desperate or scared or angry or whatever.

LDS bishops refer to LDS therapists .  Private practice providers licensed or not will have freedom to try to push their own agendas .  There are PLENTY of LDS or other Christian’s who believe homosexual orientation is a choice and is a sin.  And there is a lot of unethical and yes twisted therapy out there .