Dangerous Medical Experimentation on Teens

Rob Tisinai

February 12th, 2015

Laurie Higgins is the “Cultural Analyst” for the Illinois Family Institute, and she’s quite agitated about the state’s attempt to ban conversion therapy for teens.

…they want minors to be prohibited from even hearing any ideas that may be linked to their unchosen same-sex attraction, because such ideas undermine the unproven, non-factual, self-serving assumptions of homosexual activists and their highly politicized, Leftist mental health community allies.

Such a tizzy. Though I’m not sure exactly what it means. But Laurie clearly thinks it’s a bad idea.

The sponsors of this bill have marshalled an unimpressive array of claims from mental “health” organizations, all of which are loaded with biased and ambiguous language in support of an astoundingly totalitarian bill. If we have any really good critical thinkers and debaters in Springfield, they should be able to shred this bill in a floor debate.

Not just regular totalitarian, like in North Korea or the Soviet Union, but astoundingly so.

Now you might think Laurie is about to shred the bill with facts and careful analysis. But that’s not her style. Laurie would rather just ask questions of the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Kelly Cassidy. I’ve seen this just askin’ strategy before. It’s lazy and dishonest. Lazy, because it doesn’t require any evidence or even decent reasoning just to ask a question. Dishonest, because it leaves a gullible reader thinking a point’s been made even though nothing’s actually been said. The reader just fills in the missing answers with whatever the author insinuates.

The danger with this strategy, though, is that we can demolish simply by answering the questions. So let’s give that a try. Before we begin, though, let’s establish one thing. There is no evidence conversion therapy works, and a good bit of evidence that it can be harmful, so let’s call it what it is: dangerous medical experimentation on teens. That’s what it is, and that’s what we should always call it. Now, with that out of the way, first question:

What specifically constitutes “sexual orientation change efforts”?

Attempts to change one’s sexual orientation from gay, straight, or bisexual to a different one of those categories, or to alter the patient’s gender-related identity. That’s actually explained in the bill and its references; I’d have thought you would read the law before opposing it.

The bill cites the AMA’s criticism of one type of therapy (i.e., aversion therapy). Is that the only form of therapy that would be prohibited by this bill?

No, the bill would prohibit all sexual orientation change efforts. Again,that’s in the bill. And you know, this question would make sense if the AMA were the only group cited. But it’s not.

Would a 17-year-old who experiences homoerotic feelings but wants to construct an identity that does not include affirming those feelings be allowed to get help from a mental health provider for such an endeavor?

I suppose it depends on what you mean by “affirming.” Obviously the therapist is going to affirm the existence of those feelings if they do in fact exist. Perhaps by “affirm” you mean calling them “good.” But no worries there; therapists often aren’t concerned with labeling feelings “good” or “bad.” They just want to help the patient deal with what’s there in a constructive way. So to answer your question: Sure! — as long as the therapist is not performing dangerous medical experimentation on teens.

Would a 14-year-old who experiences homoerotic feelings and admits to having been sexually molested be allowed to explore the connection between sexual molestation and homoerotic feelings with a mental health provider?

Of course. What makes you worry otherwise? The therapist would likely want to explore all impacts of molestation on the patient’s sexuality — on any  aspect of the patient’s psychology, in fact. And along the way, the patient would learn there is no evidence supporting the notion that molestation causes homosexuality.

The bill claims that homosexuality is not a “disorder, deficiency, or shortcoming,” stating that “The major professional associations of mental health practitioners and researchers in the United States have recognized this fact for nearly 40 years.” What specifically does this mean? Are the bill’s sponsors asserting as fact that engaging in homoerotic activity is not morally disordered, morally deficient, or a moral shortcoming? If so, where is their conclusive scientific proof for such a claim about the moral status of freely chosen activity?

What are you talking about? These professional organizations don’t have names like the “American Moralist Association.” It ought to be clear to anyone exploring this in good will that a group like the American Psychological Association is saying homosexuality is not a psychological disorder, deficiency, or shortcoming. This whole question is odd, akin to wondering if a member of the Plumber’s Union will come to your house and discuss whether your clogged drain is immoral.

One of the “expert” organizations cited refers to “bias” and “societal prejudice,” neither term of which is defined. Is the belief that voluntary homoerotic activity is immoral proof of bias and prejudice? So, for example, since Pope Francis, Oxford University law professor John Finnis, Princeton University law professor Robert George, and New Testament scholar N.T. Wright believe that homoerotic activity is immoral, are they—in Cassidy’s view—biased and prejudiced? If the bill’s sponsors think such moral beliefs about homoerotic activity are inherently biased and prejudiced then they must include their definitions of “bias” and “prejudice” in the bill.

I can’t read Cassidy’s mind, of course, but Robert George’s writing shows clear indication of bias and prejudice. And, frankly, anyone who is so committed to their religious views that they automatically dismiss any dissenting view is clearly biased. As for the definitions, that’s not hard:

Biasa particular tendency, trend, inclination, feeling, or opinion, especially one that is preconceived or unreasoned; unreasonably hostile feelings or opinions about a social group

Prejudicean unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason

The bill cites the American Psychological Association’s (APA) claim “that sexual orientation change efforts can pose critical health risks to lesbian, gay, and bisexual people.” Note that the APA did not claim that such efforts do pose risks but rather that they can. Additionally, the claim does not identify if all “sexual orientation change efforts” pose such risks. Nor does the bill provide conclusive, incontrovertible proof for this nebulous claim. The bill’s sponsors should be asked which specific “sexual orientation change efforts” have been unequivocally proven to cause serious health risks and asked to provide their incontravertible proof.

You’re playing a semantic game, and you’re losing. A “risk” is something that can happen but may not. Thus, saying something can pose a risk is nearly synonymous with saying it does pose a risk — at least to some people or under some circumstances. The problem is we can’t know in advance which adolescents might be harmed.

As for whether all sexual orientation change efforts pose such risks, the situation is this: if a therapy is not effective (and none of these are), then demanding change when none is possible is inherently harmful, especially for teens who are already struggling with issues of identity and self-acceptance, no matter what their sexual orientation. But your whole wish for “incontravertible [sic] proof” is pretty strange. We tend to err on the side of caution with kids. Adults are one thing, but when it comes to minors, the burden of proof is on your side.

The bill cites the APA’s admission that there exists “anecdotal reports of ‘cures'” which are “counterbalanced by anecdotal reports of psychological harm.” Someone should ask Cassidy, why she believes there are quotation marks around the word “‘cures'” while no such marks surround “harm.” Then someone should ask if she believes anecdotal reports of “harm” should be treated the same as anecdotal reports of cures.

Seriously? Are we really going back to middle-school punctuation lessons? Okay, for those who are having trouble, it makes no sense to speak of curing something that is not a disease or affliction, and since these groups don’t view homosexuality as a disease or affliction, the authors put “cure” in quotation marks, signifying that they are quoting someone else’s characterization of these efforts. That’s what quotation marks do. That’s why they’re called quotation marks (quot-ation, get it?). On that other hand, the authors do believe there’s a risk of harm, and are not merely quoting a view they disagree with, so no quotation marks are needed.

The bill cites the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry’s claim that “there is no medically valid basis for attempting to prevent homosexuality.” Might this statement hold true for other conditions for which people seek counseling, like “minor-attraction,” paraphilias, and relationship problems? Couldn’t an argument be made that “there is no medically valid basis for attempting to change” minor attraction, or paraphilias, or relationship dysfunction? In addition,  aren’t there reasons other than medical reasons for which people seek counseling?

No.

Really? You need more? Minor-attraction is dangerous to minors, physically and psychologically, so there is a medically valid basis for changing such feelings. Relationship problems? Well, sure, there’s a valid basis for preventing problems, or at least addressing them. If there weren’t we wouldn’t call them problems. (Come on, it’s not like “problem” is a heavy duty SAT word only understood by the sharpest minds; this is pretty basic). As for paraphilias – which ones do you have in mind?

The bill claims that “Minors who experience family rejection based on their sexual orientation face especially serious health risks.” First, what does this have to do with prohibiting certain therapeutic modalities? And second, not all parents who believe homoerotic activity is immoral reject their children. Merely holding the belief that homoerotic activity is immoral no more constitutes rejection of minor children who experience unchosen homoerotic attraction or engage in homoerotic activity than does disapproval of polyamorous activity constitute rejection of minors who experience polyamorous feelings or engage in polyamorous activity.

Okay: “not all parents who believe homoerotic activity is immoral reject their children.” I hope not. But of course someone of them do kick their kids out the house, and the problem doesn’t go away just because it’s not universal.

On the other hand, it also depends on the meaning of “reject.” If the family is saying, “This is unacceptable and must change,” but the only strategies for change are not just ineffective but harmful, then that puts the youth in a quandary that feels a lot like rejection. In fact, it is rejection, and every therapy session is little more than a useless hour of intense familial rejection in action.

The bill cites the National Association of Social Workers’ claim that “sexual orientation conversion therapies assume that homosexual orientation is…freely chosen.” This claim could mean two different things. It could mean that some therapies assume homoerotic feelings are freely chosen, or it could mean that some therapies assume a “gay identity” is freely chosen—which, of course, is true. Cassidy should explain which of these two interpretations is correct. More important, if the justification for banning “sexual orientation conversion therapies” is related to the claim that homosexuality is freely chosen, shouldn’t Cassidy identify which specific therapeutic modalities make that claim?

The fact that you are inexplicably confused does not impose a “need to explain” on Cassidy, but let me give you a hand. “Sexual orientation” refers to “a person’s romantic, emotional or sexual attraction to another person,” so it’s the first alternative you listed. This is not especially difficult. Here’s a tool that may help in the future.

As for the rest of your question, since Cassidy is not relying solely on the NASW claim, Cassidy doesn’t need to identify which therapies rely on the notion of “choice.” As long as we’re dealing with dangerous medical experimentation on teens, we know it’s bad policy

The bill cites the National Association of Social Workers’ claim that “no data demonstrates that reparative or conversion therapies are effective.” But what about, for example, the study conducted by Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse and published in the book Ex-gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Medicated Change in Sexual Orientation that suggests that some therapeutic modalities can result in “sexual orientation” change in some people?

Oh, I love the Jones & Yarhouse study and have never understood why your side touts it so highly. Do you know what those authors actually said? Their single-sentence summary:

In short, the results do not prove that categorical change in sexual orientation is possible for everyone or anyone, but rather that meaningful shifts along a continuum that constitute real changes appear possible for some. [emphasis added]

So it appears possible that some folks who are bi may become a bit more so. That’s all. And they can’t even say that small change is possible — only that it appears so — because some of the “successes” are, in the authors own words, “likely overly optimistic projections of anticipated success for persons.”

If this is your flagship research, Laurie, you’re in trouble.

The bill cites the American Counseling Association Governing Council’s statement that they “oppose the promotion of ‘reparative therapy’ as a ‘cure’ for individuals who are homosexual,” which is a very specific and limited claim. So, would therapeutic models that do not promote therapy as a “cure” but instead allow for the possibility of change or allow for the construction of an identity that does not affirm homoerotic feelings, activity, and relationships be permissible?

As you’ve described it, I can see the possibility. But do you have any examples? Because your side has a way of misrepresenting this sort of thing. Also, this is just a repeat of your earlier “affirm” question, and we dealt with it there.

The bill cites the American Psychoanalytic Association’s claim that “Psychoanalytic technique does not encompass purposeful attempts to ‘convert,’ ‘repair,’ change or shift an individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.” If passed would this bill allow for discussions that are not initiated by mental health providers but rather are initiated by minors who desire to purposefully pursue shifts in their sexuality identity?

Yes, of course, it’s okay to for a therapist to discuss a patient’s questions. This bill merely prohibits dangerous medical experimentation on teens.

What is the goal of mental health practice?

Goals of therapy and mental health practice are set by the patient and the therapist. But it would be unethical for the therapist to make unrealistic promises like, I can make you psychic, or I can make you a kitten, or I can make you straight.

Is the goal of mental health practice to eliminate all guilt?

I’ve never heard of such a thing. Why do you ask? The question seems to be built on a mountain of unstated assumption and misconceptions. You should look into that. Maybe therapy would help.

Is the goal to affirm all feelings, desires, or attractions? If not, how do the bill’s sponsors determine which feelings must be affirmed?

Again, I’ve never heard of such a thing, though once again I suppose it depends on what you mean by “affirm.” Certainly a person’s actual feelings or desires, wanted or unwanted, must be acknowledged and accepted before they can be dealt with. Also, the bill isn’t about which feelings to “affirm” but is concerned with preventing dangerous medical experimentation on teens.

Is the goal to prevent or alleviate depression by any and all means (including even affirming non-factual, subjective assumptions as unassailable, incontrovertible facts)?

I’d say no. For instance, it would unethical for a therapist to counsel depressed patients to murder their parents, even if their parents are at the root of the depression. What’s with this “any and all means” anyway? Are you building up straw men here?

Might a healthy identity ever entail rejection of or resistance to feelings, desires, attractions, or volitional acts?

Sure. Remember what I just said about a desire to murder one’s parents. The therapist would probably counsel resisting that.

Can sound mental health practice include helping people of faith—including minors—to incorporate their religious beliefs—including orthodox religious beliefs—into their construction of identity or their choice of life path?

Yep. As long as it doesn’t turn into dangerous medical experimentation on teens.

Is our contemporary mental health community capable of responsibly and ethically treating those whose faith is central to their identity?

Yes.

Is the rejection of or hostility to the existence of God corrupting social science research and counseling?

No. Or at least, I have no reason to believe so. If you disagree, how about you make a case for it — because just asking a question lets your reader’s imagination run amok with way in which this might be true, and shields you from the responsibility of establishing that it is true. Crafty strategy on your part, in a lazy, disingenuous kind of way.

Has society elevated unstable social science research to an omniscient, godlike epistemological status it does not warrant?

No, that’s more the prerogative of the religious community.

What if the Left’s assumptions about guilt, shame, depression, homosexuality, gender confusion, morality, and identity are in reality false?

Let’s clear up this italicized “assumptions.” These aren’t assumptions you’re talking about. They’re rooted in scientific research and personal experience. Actually, that’s not fair. I’m letting you off the hook too easily. Can you name the “assumptions” you have in mind?

Ultimately, though, this is not about the “Left’s assumptions.” This is about whether its ethical to charge someone for conducting dangerous medical experimentation on teens. And the answer to that is easy.

So there you go: Laurie Higgins questions, asked and answered. I doubt Laurie reads this blog, so it would a lovely gesture, perhaps, if we alleviated her confusion by sending her a link. Here’s the twitter account for her organization, should the spirit of generosity move you.

Bose in St. Peter MN

February 12th, 2015

Notably, Ms. Higgins’ long-standing experience as a writer (per her bio, she “worked full-time in the writing center of a suburban Chicago high school” before joining the IFI) inspired her to do NO research for this piece.

There is no reason she couldn’t have scheduled a phone or face-to-face interview with clinical psych professor — someone who could have easily, expertly answered her basic questions.

Insinuating that competent therapy exists only to promote selfishness, anti-Christian biases and hedonism turns out to be much easier.

Eric Payne

February 12th, 2015

I’m in my mid-50s.

As a teenager, in my early teens, no less, I was subjected to “conversion” at the Philhaven Mental Institute, in Lebanon, PA.

Forty years in my past… events that happened four decades ago and are as far removed from my life, today, as Alpha Centauri is from our sun.

And the latest nightmare I had about it was last night.

Regan DuCasse

February 12th, 2015

I wonder if Higgins would submit her gynecological needs to a doctor who only learned from the techniques of Hippocrates’s time.
Would she consider a school, that only taught human and world history that stopped at `1892, a school competent in teaching anything?

Even Freud and Jung became outdated and outmoded.
And certainly, were she to read the psychiatric studies on women’s psychological structure from the late 1800’s, she might balk at the treatments for women, employed back then and call them barbaric.
So, why then, are the modes, attitudes and information from THOUSANDS of years ago, fair game in the response to the LGT?
As if no progress should be or has been made that’s credible on LGT to date?
Doctors are ALL obligated to update their information, research base, test subjects, techniques and approaches because people have only benefited from this obligation and NONE from what’s been left behind for more discovery.
The Hippocratic Oath is first to do no harm.
There is a similar one for those in the psychiatric establishment.

If you want to break that oath, to advance religious doctrine, that does in fact do harm, then you’re unfit for that profession.
Evidently, for Higgins, the benefits (especially to women) of 21st century social justice and healing arts care, is just for her ilk and nobody else.
Her insinuations are nasty. And considering how many young people have died because of the conflict that’s inevitable from being abused, her lying is just evil.

Richard Rush

February 12th, 2015

Regan, since BTB doesn’t have an up-vote button, the best I can do here is ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

Neil

February 12th, 2015

Has society elevated unstable social science research to an omniscient, godlike epistemological status it does not warrant?

No, that’s more the prerogative of the religious community.

Oh, snap!

TomTallis

February 12th, 2015

Hypocrisy and Hyperbole are the two sides of the conservative Christian coin.

Lord_Byron

February 13th, 2015

“their unchosen same-sex attraction”

Well, at least she admits that people don’t have a choice when it comes to their sexuality. So… progress?

CPT_Doom

February 13th, 2015

Laurie shouldn’t be too upset, these bills are only aimed at licensed counselors & professionals. All the ministers and priests out there are still going to be able to tell the vulnerable LGBT youth in their churches that they are despicable, evil and morally corrupt. Parents of those youth will still be able to force them into “counseling” by those priests and ministers that reaffirms their parents’ hate and they’ll still be able to destroy the piece of mind of those youths with these hateful lessons.

Hunter

February 13th, 2015

Bose: Keep in mind that Higgins is not interested in a substantive discussion of the bill. Keep in mind also that the IFI is one of the few — perhaps the only — state-level organizations designated as a hate group by the SPLC. She’s a propagandist, no more, and she’s one of the more unhinged in the bunch. As for “lazy and dishonest” — I don’t know about the first — she seems to have a lot of energy, although misdirected; “dishonest” fits like a glove — although, oddly enough, she actually linked to the text of the bill in her post.

She gives the game away with the question about “moral” shortcoming — she’s not interested in science, and certainly not interested in the welfare of young people. She’s interested in enforcing her own rudimentary and perverted “morality” on everyone else.

Side note: Kelly Cassidy is my former state rep (I moved); she also was a lead sponsor on the marriage equality bill in the General Assembly; my new rep is Greg Harris, who shepherded the marriage bill through the House, and I’m sure will sign onto Cassidy’s bill. (Both are openly gay. You gotta love the North Side of Chicago — we have two of the three openly gay state reps and a couple of gay aldermen. There are times I feel almost pampered.)

Hunter

February 13th, 2015

Oops — almost forgot: Excellent take-down. I’m going to link to it from my blog as today’s “Must Read.”

Ben in oakland

February 13th, 2015

Is the rejection of or hostility to the existence of God corrupting social science research and counseling?

Well, given our experiences with Regnerus, one might wish to question how acceptance of religion or postive enthusiasm for it has corrupted socieal science research.

Priya Lynn

February 13th, 2015

Way to go Regan! Great analysis.

And great statement from you too Ben!

Calpete

February 13th, 2015

If she wants to sniff at the APA’s statement that this sort of abuse “can pose . . . risks” by pointing out that it doesn’t always pose a risk, perhaps she’d like to move out here to earthquake country and stand under an unsecured parapet ornament on an older building and see whether it falls on her head in the next temblor. Asking questions like this, asking this kind of question repeatedly, is a childish way to advocate for your own contrary opinion. Sophistry seems to be about as far as these arch-conservatives seem to be able to reach, however.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

The Things You Learn from the Internet

"The Intel On This Wasn't 100 Percent"

From Fake News To Real Bullets: This Is The New Normal

NC Gov McCrory Throws In The Towel

Colorado Store Manager Verbally Attacks "Faggot That Voted For Hillary" In Front of 4-Year-Old Son

Associated Press Updates "Alt-Right" Usage Guide

A Challenge for Blue Bubble Democrats

Baptist Churches in Dallas, Austin Expelled Over LGBT-Affirming Stance

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.