Supreme Court Ruling on Colorado’s Conversion Therapy Ban

This week, the Supreme Court determined that Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy” infringed upon the First Amendment, particularly in how it restricts what counselors are allowed to express during therapy sessions. Interestingly, the therapist who initiated the lawsuit isn’t the only one benefiting from this decision—youth struggling with gender identity might also find themselves better off.

The law in Colorado wasn’t just an attempt to compel therapists to support a specific transgender viewpoint; it also restricted children from accessing potentially effective treatments for gender dysphoria, which involves a distressing disconnect between one’s assigned gender and personal identity.

Proponents of a “gender-affirming” approach advocate for a position that could be seen as quite harsh. When a boy insists he feels like a girl, they argue that society should validate that identity and encourage him to undergo experimental treatments to transform his body. The narrative presented suggests that without such affirmation, the consequences for these children could be dire, including suicidal thoughts.

However, some research indicates that suicidal tendencies might actually rise when minors begin hormone blockers. Hormonal changes and permanent surgeries demand long-term medical dependence, and if someone later chooses to transition back, the process can become enormously complex.

On the flip side, studies indicate that when children are allowed to mature naturally without being pressured into a transgender identity, a significant percentage—between 65% and 94%—manage to reconcile their gender dysphoria and find contentment with their physical bodies.

This reality suggests that these children might not only experience clarity regarding their gender but also avoid the invasive medical procedures that can lead to lifelong challenges, including infertility.

Instead of “gender-affirming care,” what boys and girls genuinely need is reassurance about their biological sex. If a boy expresses a belief that he is a girl, he should receive guidance to help him understand that being a boy is natural, and there’s no need to feel otherwise. With appropriate counseling, he might work through the deeper psychological issues contributing to his feelings.

Colorado aimed to restrict this type of supportive counseling, which might have cut off kids from essential, life-affirming resources.

The Supreme Court’s decision could pave the way for what could be labeled “sex-reaffirming therapy,” offering an avenue for individuals grappling with gender confusion to build a sense of harmony with their bodies. This represents a more genuine resolution for gender dysphoria compared to the often-rejected “gender-affirming care.”

But how did activists convince Colorado to impose this ban in the first place?

In the past, some therapists employed dubious techniques to “cure” patients of same-sex attraction, including severe methods like electroshock therapy aimed at altering sexual feelings. These efforts were often promoted under a traditional Christian moral framework, giving rise to the term “conversion therapy.” While most therapists today disavow these methods, the proposed ban on therapy was overreaching, extending to traditional talk therapy that aims to facilitate understanding and resolution through conversation.

Interestingly, some feminists have pointed out that “gender-affirming care” parallels the idea of “conversion therapy” as many individuals who identify as transgender might otherwise categorize themselves as gay or lesbian.

Transgender activists, however, maintain that a transgender identity is inherent and immovable, thus deeming any therapeutic attempts to resolve this identity as unnatural and ultimately unsuccessful. Consequently, many of them categorize sex-reaffirming therapy alongside electroshock methods as forms of “conversion therapy.”

Colorado’s regulations would have permitted talk therapy that affirmed same-sex attraction or a transgender identity but prohibited any approaches that might steer patients away from those identities.

This legal interference in the realm of therapy seems unjustified, as the ultimate objective of effective therapy should be to assist individuals in addressing their underlying emotional struggles, rather than molding them into specific identities.

Evidence suggests that the best approach to dealing with gender dysphoria is not through radical treatments but rather through conversations that delve into the root causes of these feelings.

It’s undeniably harsh, and arguably unethical, to use invasive drugs and surgeries as a solution for psychological challenges. With the Supreme Court’s ruling, there is now a chance for children in Colorado to explore a positive path. It’s to be hoped that therapists will be courageous enough to follow in the footsteps of those challenging these laws and offer the essential reaffirmation these kids truly need.