By MIKE MANNO
We’ve written in these pages several times about the controversy over Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE). In case you’ve missed it, SOCE refers to efforts to help those with unwanted same-sex attractions to overcome them. This is usually done through professional or religious counseling and is sometimes referred to as conversion or reparative therapy.
SOCE has been controversial and has met with two objections from the LGBT community: It is ineffective, suggesting that sexual orientation is immutable and not subject to change; and it is harmful, causing depression and making people worse off than before.
It has been so worrisome to the homosexual community that activists there have succeeded in having it banned for minors in several states. The usual form of the law is that licensed therapists may not use conversion therapy, but in some states religious counselors, not licensed by the state, could still use the procedure.
Recently, the California legislature passed a bill that would effectively ban such therapy for adults who wished it by labeling the therapy method fraudulent under the state’s consumer protection laws. Thus, any therapist or religious counselor who accepted money for any type of conversion therapy would be guilty of a consumer fraud.
The sponsor of that bill, however, has withdrawn it from final legislative consideration after a flurry of complaints from Christian groups that the bill was so broadly drafted that it would criminalize religious instruction, Christian books and booksellers, and Christian speakers. It does not appear that the sponsors of the bill had any qualms about denying adults the right to SOCE therapy, or in banning it as a religious practice, just that the wording needed improvement.
The criticism, though, has not stopped.
Recently, the Family Research Council (FRC) released a report rebutting the criticisms of SOCE. The report, written by Peter Sprigg, FRC senior fellow for policy studies, “Are Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE) Effective? Are They Harmful? What the Evidence Shows,” was released the end of September and tries to make sense out of the conflicting arguments.
The ten-page report reviews prominent studies conducted between 2000 and 2018 “all of which show that SOCE can be effective for some clients in bringing about significant change in some components of sexual orientation. Few harms were reported. Older reports, including 600 studies and five meta-analyses, showed the same. . . . [T]here is an abundance of evidence that SOCE can be effective, while there is little but anecdotal evidence — some of it dubious or even fabricated — that it is harmful.”
Sprigg disputes the view held by opponents of conversion therapy that sexual orientation is an immutable “unitary characteristic” that cannot change, thus creating a “straw man” argument that counselors cannot guarantee that the therapy can change a client from homosexual to heterosexual. In fact, Sprigg reports, no therapist guarantees results for any client regardless of condition.
Sexual orientation, he writes, is a combination of an individual’s sexual attractions, behavior, and self-identification and that “‘sexual orientation change’ can refer to any degree of change in any of the three components. . . . If a client experiences any significant reduction in homosexual attractions or behaviors, or increase in heterosexual attractions, as a result of SOCE, then that process can be considered ‘effective,’ and many clients would consider it a success, even if some or occasional same-sex attractions remain.
“If SOCE is able to reduce the symptoms that cause distress to the client to the same extent as therapy for other conditions (such as depression) does, then it should be judged every bit as ‘effective’ as those standard therapies.”
The evidence of SOCE’s harm, as articulated by its detractors, consists of anecdotal testimonies of people who say they have undergone conversion therapy and it either did not work or they had a “negative life experience” from it, says the report.
As to the negative experiences, Sprigg argues, “a certain percentage of the general population (as well as a certain percentage of the LGBT-identifying population), will have such negative experiences whether they have undergone SOCE or not.”
The paper then highlights six recently published studies on the topic, the most recent was published in The Linacre Quarterly, July 23, 2018 and the earliest published in 2000 by Psychological Reports. In each report, all but one of which were peer reviewed, there was a significant, but not always total, positive benefit from the therapy. There also seemed to be a correlation between higher “success” rates when the therapy was religiously based than when it wasn’t; however, while there were some “failures,” there was no actual harm done to those participants who saw no or little benefit.
For example, in one study by Robert L. Spitzer, MD, in Archives of Sexual Behavior published in 2003, it was reported that after conversion therapy complete change — the absence of even mild feelings of homosexual thoughts — was the case for only 11 percent of the men but 37 percent of the females; 26 percent of the men and 49 percent of the women were not bothered at all by unwanted homosexual feelings; and that depression was not a side effect of change efforts, although many had reported major depression before the therapy.
Of Spitzer’s participants who saw themselves as exclusively homosexual before treatment, 17.6 percent they now view themselves as exclusively heterosexual; 16.7 percent view themselves as almost entirely heterosexual; and 11.1 percent see themselves as more heterosexual than homosexual.
Spitzer, who was instrumental in the 1973 decision by the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder, wrote this in his conclusion:
“This study indicates that some gay men and lesbians, following reparative therapy, report that they have made major changes from a predominantly homosexual orientation to a predominately heterosexual orientation. The changes following reparative therapy were not limited to sexual behavior and sexual orientation or self-identity. The changes encompassed sexual attraction, arousal, fantasy, yearning, and being bothered by homosexual feelings. The changes encompassed the core aspects of sexual orientation. Even participants who only made a limited change nevertheless regarded the therapy as extremely beneficial.”
FRC found that during the time period reviewed, there was only one article that claimed to document harm to SOCE clients. It was from a 2002 survey by two gay researchers that was sponsored by the National Lesbian and Gay Health Association and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. According to Sprigg, it contained reports on 202 recipients of conversion therapy which consisted of primarily anecdotal reports. Interestingly, Sprigg said, 25 participants reported a suicide attempt before the therapy, but only 11 reported an attempt after.
“This would seem to suggest that SOCE is less likely to provoke suicide attempts than living a ‘gay’ lifestyle is,” he said, concluding: “[T]he ‘recent studies’ reviewed in this paper make clear that the evidence for the effectiveness of SOCE far outweighs the evidence of harm.”
This FRC report suggests that recent legislative and judicial efforts to stop or limit the use of conversion therapy is based more on political action than scientific study. Remember that when your legislators are considering the adoption of a SOCE ban or limitation. And in those states where there is already a ban in place, you might want to join the effort to repeal it.
(Mike can be reached at: DeaconMike@q.com)
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress