Supreme Court’s conversion therapy ruling erases gay, transgender identity
In its recent decision in Chiles v. Salazar, the Supreme Court invalidated Colorado’s law prohibiting licensed counselors from engaging in efforts to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of minors. The decision, which throws into question similar laws in 22 other states, relied on the First Amendment to hold that the law violates counselors’ free speech rights. But the decision also strikes a blow against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender dignity — a question the court’s opinion does not even address. The eight-member majority justified its reasoning by suggesting that the law was one-sided, permitting treatment that affirms gender identity or sexuality but barring treatments that seek to change it. But there is a reason the law is one-sided, as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s lone dissent pointed out: The medical evidence only supports one side. Reams of research show that “survivors of conversion therapy continue to suffer from [post-traumatic stress disorder], anxiety, and suicidal ideation.” And major medical associations all agree, no evidence demonstrates the efficacy of conversion efforts. But particularly concerning is the vision of sexuality and gender identity that undergirds the majority opinion. Jackson’s dissent explains lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender identity as simply “a part of the normal spectrum of human diversity” — not something to be “cured.” In contrast, for the majority, it is “a subject of fierce public debate” how best to help minors with their sexuality and identity. That can hardly be the case if gay or transgender identity stands on equal ground with straight or cisgender identity — nor is it consistent with them being equal in terms of safety, rights and dignity.