For the introduction to this series click here.
In this series dealing with homosexuality and the LGBTQ+ community, one of the first things that must be talked about are therapies that are often promoted by the Christian community while hugely opposed by the LGBTQ+ community. In fact, in the LGBTQ+ these sort of conversion therapies are often thought of as inhuman and a version of abuse.
Note that this article is not making a statement on whether LGBTQ+ orientation is Biblical, ethically good, or should be promoted (That will be later in the series). This article is looking at whether self-proclaimed conversion therapies are either effective, hurtful or harmful.
If you believe LGBTQ+ is wrong it does not automatically mean that you should support conversion therapy any more than believing depression is bad means you should support shock therapy. If LGBTQ+ orientations are wrong it does mean something should be done but it doesn’t mean conversion therapy is that thing.
On the flip side, if you believe there is nothing wrong with LGBTQ+ orientation it also doesn’t mean conversion therapy is wrong. Someone with an LGBTQ+ orientation could by their own choice wish to change their orientation and you would have no reason to tell them they are wrong to seek such a change.
All of that being said is conversion therapy good?
Some statistics seem to point that only about 1/3 of those who enter conversion therapy see any significant change in their orientation, but even among that group, it is not always a complete change in orientation. Someone with same-sex attraction may finish therapy no longer having an attraction to the same-sex, but still having no attraction to the opposite gender.
Other statistics (Spitzer Study) show a more successful rate in which 2% of those in the study showed heterosexual orientation while that number increased to 44% among women and 66% among men after the study.
As you can see studies vary as far as what is deemed ‘success’ and what the success rate is. This shows us that through conversion therapy is beneficial to those seeking to change orientation it is not guaranteed nor even those who experience change will even experience a complete change.
Furthermore, there are some rather sobering statistics that conversion therapy has harmful effects even increasing depression, suicide and, drug use. Expectations seem to be a huge factor in this in that depression rates can increase if a patient expects huge change but doesn’t experience them.
So, what should be our approach?
We must keep in mind that conversion therapy is not a silver bullet and be wary to make sure attempts at conversion are positive rather than negative especially in realistic expectations.
Those who support conversion therapy must be realistic that conversion does not happen 100% of the time, nor does it always bring a complete change in orientation. Any attempt at conversion therapy should keep the overall health of the patient at the forefront so that the patient doesn’t experience more positive than negative results from the therapy. We must be realistic that conversion therapy if not done correctly can and does have horribly negative effects.
Those who are against conversion therapy must not be dismissive that it is never effective and always has negative effects. This side can often demonize those who support conversion therapy as if people are always forced into conversion therapy against their will. We must remember there are also plenty who have chosen of their own will to seek conversion therapy and if expectations are realistic often patients experience some level of the conversion they freely chose to seek.
For more information, I suggest reading “Homosexuality and the Christian” by Mark A. Yarhouse the chapter titled ‘can someone change orientation’.
Also, check out Mike Winger’s series on this issue including his talk on being born Gay.
BEARDED DISCIPLE 
Hi there, just found your blog through The Real Rap with Reynolds live stream.
I am going to keep reading through the series, but I’m a bit confused as to why you didn’t address “why should LGBTQ+ issues be a point of discussion to begin with?” as your starting point.
It’s hard to take your arguments about conversation therapy seriously when you haven’t established why conversion is something desirable at all.
Hey Edward. So I took a bit a different tact with this going a little in the reverse on this topic choosing to demonstrate why an LGBTQ lifestyle is both wrong Biblically and even establish a secular case of why it’s not benificial. Unfortunately life has got the better of me and I haven’t got to that part yet.
I wanted to work from a standpoint of finding middle ground with people before moving into the issues we disagreed on. Which is why I didn’t start with why.
Well, just know you have someone from the other side reading your material. I hope you take into account the way this kind of conversation can invalidate people’s entire existence. I hope you approach writing about LGBTQ issues with the same respect and seriousness you’d hope others would use when writing about the problems of religion (and Christianity). Looking forward to seeing what you do next.
Thanks Edward, and I hope that what I write from my side can be tollerated even if it is disagreeing with what others believe. Sometimes I find when it comes to tolerance it seems we are supposed to simply agree with each other and if I disagree with someone on certain issues that is viewed as intolerant. This issue especially is an example of that.
I think the issue with this issue is arguing against it isn’t arguing whether circumcision is necessary or whether one should eat pork. One is gathering together a huge swath of people who aren’t (by any measurable means) hurting anyone and saying “a fundamental part of who you are is just wrong.” As I implied earlier, I don’t expect you’d take kindly to a conversation that suggested your religion was an active danger to people and society.
I actually hear that regularly but I respect and tolerate people being able to think that. Can I expect the same from people who disagree with Christians on this issue?
I mean, I don’t think you can expect one reaction from any group of people. You can expect basic respect and decency from me, though. 🙂
I’m interested to know if you’ll be revising your stance on conversion therapy, given the AMA’s recent move to ban it (declaring it has “no foundation as scientifically valid medical care,” according to Reuters – https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-lgbt-therapy-trfn/american-medical-association-announces-support-for-u-s-ban-on-conversion-therapy-idUSKBN1XT2PJ )
I think it’s in interesting thing that I would need to look into further. From the article you linked it seems once again this is condemning conversion therapy partly because of what I would say is bad examples of what I would consider proper medically legitimate practices for any sort of therapy when it mentions “on extreme cases physical” with regard to it’s definition of what conversion therapy is. By that understanding I would condemn conversion therapy too. Any practice condemned in therapy of any kind should also not be done in conversion therapy.
I am also more curious on this line:
“The changes would allow transgender people to use their chosen names and also include relevant anatomy pertaining to the patient’s sex in medical documents.”
Does that mean you’re telling a woman who identifies as a man that they can write on their documents things which would mean they shouldn’t get checked for breast cancer? Talk to anyone in the medical field and they will explain quite clear why scientifically we must treat someone medically by their biological not identified gender. If we don’t do that we could have numerous transgender men who die of breast cancer because they don’t get the proper help they need in that. Would that be the application of this? Does that seem like the best thing for someone? I would say no.
I think it’s important to note the AMA didn’t say “some conversion therapy is bad, but other kinds are fine.” If you’re drawing a line they aren’t, it begs the question, “what makes you think you are more qualified to determine treatment – about a condition you’ve never had and a treatment you’ve never undergone – than a collection of America’s doctors?” (I’m assuming you have never undergone conversion therapy, primarily because if you had, that would have come up earlier as the best evidence for why it works)
On the line you’re curious about, I would draw your attention to the word “sex.” That refers to biological sex, meaning the patient could use their chosen name and still include medically relevant information (like the presence of ovaries, testicles, etc). The problem you’re describing (trans men ignoring their own breasts and dying of breast cancer) is not an issue in a society that allows them to acknowledge their biology would sacrificing their gender.
*without sacrificing
If you found that there is a group of people that found conversion therapy good for them or statistics embracing those ideas will you still say it’s bad across the board?
Given that, sixty percent of the time, we can find people who will *swear* a sugar pill cured their headaches – no, I wouldn’t accept that because it worked for one small group it must have some value. Again, especially in the case of conversion therapy, because so much of their “conversion” is tied to social acceptance and the perceived threat of God’s punishment.
It’s just as possible that these “successful converts” were bisexuals who thought “if I like people of my gender, I *must* be gay,” not realizing they liked both. Convincing a bisexual to cut their dating pool in half for the sake of God and family is a lot easier than asking a gay man to pretend he likes women for the rest of his life.
So, yes – especially because the AMA is a group of medical professionals with research on their side, and conversion therapy was started by a gay man who didn’t want to admit he was gay, and has since declared it doesn’t work – I would still say it’s bad across the board. Not because of personal preference, but because that’s where the evidence – and compassion – lead.
I realize this is changing the subject a bit but how do you respond to people who regret getting a gender transition in the transgender community and now advocate that gender transition is bad. Carey Callahan for instance.
I think it’s a complicated subject with no easy answer at the moment. Without knowing more, I think we should avoid making moral or ethical claims about how people should or shouldn’t pursue their own identity. Instead, we should meet them with compassion and understanding, and earnestly look to learn what is true, healthy, and helpful – according to the people dealing with the issue, not our personal or religious beliefs.