Supreme Court Case on Conversion Therapy Laws
The debate surrounding conversion therapy has resurfaced in the Supreme Court, but this time it focuses on the legality of non-conversion therapy practices. A lawsuit has been initiated by Kayley Chiliz, described as a certified counselor who engages individuals in conversation. Chiliz is also identified as a practical Christian.
According to court documents, current Colorado law prevents counselors from discussing issues with minors that might encourage alterations in sexual orientation or gender identity. However, it does allow discussions centered on acceptance and support for identity exploration or those undergoing gender transition.
The court is questioning whether this law effectively censors specific conversations between counselors and their clients. They are exploring whether such regulations infringe upon free speech rights.
Your child’s gender confusion has many believing that encouraging a change is indeed a form of conversion therapy. Here are my thoughts on the arguments presented during today’s Supreme Court sessions.
One pressing issue is whether healthcare professionals have the right to express views that imply children cannot “convert” to the opposite sex. Critics argue that this legislation might force individuals to suppress their identities.
The Supreme Court seems skeptical about Colorado’s prohibition of conversion therapy for minors, as noted by various sources. NPR reported on similar cases, while the New York Times referred to conversion therapy as a practice aimed at altering young people’s sexual orientation and gender identity.
Essentially, both “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are viewed as fixed traits, a notion reinforced by Colorado laws. The prevailing belief is that these characteristics cannot change.
A prayer was offered outside the Supreme Court as arguments getting dug in between the case of Chiliz and Salazar started. This will determine whether counselors can be barred from discussing topics that might help children connect with their biological sex.
This belief in fixed traits can seem disconnected from reality. Interestingly, Colorado’s own laws acknowledge the shifting nature of “gender expression.” It appears that concerns exist regarding the fragility of transgender identity under conversational influence. Ultimately, expressions of sexuality and gender can be viewed as reflections of emotional states.
For instance, if a child claims to be a cat, the reaction might be one of dismissal. However, if the child attempts to pursue treatment to transform into a cat, that raises concerns. Similarly, when a therapist advises a child that they are not a cat, it doesn’t transform them; rather, it seeks to realign their perception with reality.
At present, Colorado therapists are barred from affirming such realities in their discussions.
