Indeed, "The deeper tragedy of this case is that it exists at all. In a world where medical institutions remained grounded in evidence instead of ideology, courts wouldn’t need to intervene. But because the gatekeepers of science and medicine have surrendered their authority to politics, the judiciary is now left to vindicate basic freedoms that should never have been imperiled."
And the tragedies within families that have imploded by this ideology is beyond most people's ability to comprehend. Parents such as myself and thousands of others will never be the same from this unchecked ideology invading our homes and lives and swallowing one or more of our kids. We live in a nightmarish state every day.
The travesty that noone recognizes is that government schools indoctrinate the LGBT identification in the first place. It is this conversion therapy which must be banned!!!
I went to high school in the 80s, and a GSA back then would have been supremely helpful. It's hard to learn about sexuality when there's nobody like you around, at least that you can see.
Let me see whether I've got this right: a therapist must "affirm", that is, encourage a child sufferimg from the delusion that he belongs to the opposite sex but is prohibited from seeking to help the child recover from that delusion and get back in touch with material reality. Is that what's at stake here?
I do wonder what the people involved in this lawsuit would have to say about a therapist's responsibility when presented with one of the rare cases of, say, lycanthropy or some equally dysfunctional thought process.
How on earth did we get to the point of accepting the notion that it was compassionate and good medicine to mutilate a delusional patient's body to convert it to (a poor imitation of) the opposite sex and convert his undesirable same-sex attraction to a supposedly more acceptable opposite sex was orientation.
This has been a tough issue for me personally, because I really hated it when therapists were trying to talk gay kids out of being gay. It's mean and a little cruel. That said, Mooppan's argument is well taken; there was a time when a law like Colorado's would have *required* therapists to talk gay kids out of being gay.
So I guess what I am saying is that I learned something today, which is not bad for a Wednesday.
Very clean representation of pro and con. The argument that speech in this case constitutes treatment is pretty good, actually. It is of course also the case that there is agreement that the patient accepts a context of speech, which they can leave at any time. And I wonder if there are any cases where treatment based solely on speech has been actively prohibited.
If the court accepts the free speech argument, it also turns the argument about the validity of certain kinds of treatment into a free speech issue, which it should be. If speech based treatment is not suppressed, there is no reason why it should not be submitted to all kinds of review and standards, like doing no harm, as surely many therapeutic disciplines already are. But if suppressed, it is not allowed to gather and express evidence at all, and this is surely the case in any context where there is a law against the practice.
If the court finds that ultimately this should be resolved by internal challenges, it leaves the problem of how to change course if the establishment as a whole has gone off course. What kind of legal problem it is when there is an unprecedented suppression of a least invasive approach and any evidence it can provide? A whole lot of this is about speech other than the speech occurring in session. To what degree the speech rights of the individual therapist can shoulder this whole problem legally, might be a thorny issue.
Kinda scary how Colorado has become a true gestapo state on anything that doesn’t toe the line on accepted left orthodoxy. From cake baking to gender dysphoria, speak up at your own risk.
Dr. Wright is exactly correct in saying that when professions do not resolve disputes within their own networks and organizations, judges will be handed the responsibility for resolving them. The same is true across U.S. culture now. Legislatures have to pass laws to maintain morality and order on our streets because state and local governments in many cases can't or won't. Most of our society functioned via our shared respect for each others' civil rights, and our preservation of sufficient good will to work out compromises when policy decisions need to be made. Now the respect for each others' rights and our willingness to work together to resolve problems are mostly gone.
I will be biting my nails until SCOTUS delivers a decision on Chiles v. Salazar. No matter how it goes, my professional life will be deeply affected.
Indeed, "The deeper tragedy of this case is that it exists at all. In a world where medical institutions remained grounded in evidence instead of ideology, courts wouldn’t need to intervene. But because the gatekeepers of science and medicine have surrendered their authority to politics, the judiciary is now left to vindicate basic freedoms that should never have been imperiled."
And the tragedies within families that have imploded by this ideology is beyond most people's ability to comprehend. Parents such as myself and thousands of others will never be the same from this unchecked ideology invading our homes and lives and swallowing one or more of our kids. We live in a nightmarish state every day.
The travesty that noone recognizes is that government schools indoctrinate the LGBT identification in the first place. It is this conversion therapy which must be banned!!!
We gotta get rid of all GSA clubs. Teens can learn about sexuality by falling in love, no creepy adult-led clubs are needed.
I went to high school in the 80s, and a GSA back then would have been supremely helpful. It's hard to learn about sexuality when there's nobody like you around, at least that you can see.
Let me see whether I've got this right: a therapist must "affirm", that is, encourage a child sufferimg from the delusion that he belongs to the opposite sex but is prohibited from seeking to help the child recover from that delusion and get back in touch with material reality. Is that what's at stake here?
I do wonder what the people involved in this lawsuit would have to say about a therapist's responsibility when presented with one of the rare cases of, say, lycanthropy or some equally dysfunctional thought process.
How on earth did we get to the point of accepting the notion that it was compassionate and good medicine to mutilate a delusional patient's body to convert it to (a poor imitation of) the opposite sex and convert his undesirable same-sex attraction to a supposedly more acceptable opposite sex was orientation.
Yes, you have it right.
A good analysis, thanks.
This has been a tough issue for me personally, because I really hated it when therapists were trying to talk gay kids out of being gay. It's mean and a little cruel. That said, Mooppan's argument is well taken; there was a time when a law like Colorado's would have *required* therapists to talk gay kids out of being gay.
So I guess what I am saying is that I learned something today, which is not bad for a Wednesday.
Very clean representation of pro and con. The argument that speech in this case constitutes treatment is pretty good, actually. It is of course also the case that there is agreement that the patient accepts a context of speech, which they can leave at any time. And I wonder if there are any cases where treatment based solely on speech has been actively prohibited.
If the court accepts the free speech argument, it also turns the argument about the validity of certain kinds of treatment into a free speech issue, which it should be. If speech based treatment is not suppressed, there is no reason why it should not be submitted to all kinds of review and standards, like doing no harm, as surely many therapeutic disciplines already are. But if suppressed, it is not allowed to gather and express evidence at all, and this is surely the case in any context where there is a law against the practice.
If the court finds that ultimately this should be resolved by internal challenges, it leaves the problem of how to change course if the establishment as a whole has gone off course. What kind of legal problem it is when there is an unprecedented suppression of a least invasive approach and any evidence it can provide? A whole lot of this is about speech other than the speech occurring in session. To what degree the speech rights of the individual therapist can shoulder this whole problem legally, might be a thorny issue.
Thank you for writing this.
Kinda scary how Colorado has become a true gestapo state on anything that doesn’t toe the line on accepted left orthodoxy. From cake baking to gender dysphoria, speak up at your own risk.
Dr. Wright is exactly correct in saying that when professions do not resolve disputes within their own networks and organizations, judges will be handed the responsibility for resolving them. The same is true across U.S. culture now. Legislatures have to pass laws to maintain morality and order on our streets because state and local governments in many cases can't or won't. Most of our society functioned via our shared respect for each others' civil rights, and our preservation of sufficient good will to work out compromises when policy decisions need to be made. Now the respect for each others' rights and our willingness to work together to resolve problems are mostly gone.
I will be biting my nails until SCOTUS delivers a decision on Chiles v. Salazar. No matter how it goes, my professional life will be deeply affected.