The Irony of Michigan’s ‘Conversion Therapy’ Ban

L ast year, Michigan voters were presented with a state constitutional amendment that, in addition to expansive abortion provisions, could be understood as giving minors the right to undergo medicalized gender transitions without parental consent. That amendment passed. Last Wednesday, Governor Gretchen Whitmer handed another victory to trans activists, signing a bill into law that will outlaw therapies helping reconcile gender-distressed youth with their sexed bodies.

Once again, Democrats excel at branding. The state constitutional amendment, Prop 3, was sold in terms of “reproductive freedom.” This latest assault on child welfare is packaged as a ban on the sinister practice of “conversion therapy.”

As we have editorialized previously, users of this term seek to conflate several distinct issues in order to mislead the public.

The term “conversion therapy” was once used for coercive and even physically abusive practices (which are already illegal) aimed at changing a person’s sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. In that sense, “therapy” was a euphemism.

Democrats are now conflating the term with voluntary talk therapies aimed at redirecting a patient’s unwanted sexual desires (speech protected by the First Amendment).

Second, and more troubling, they are conflating the abusive practices of “conversion therapy” with time-tested therapies aimed at helping children with gender dysphoria.

Until recently, the standard therapy for minors distressed by their sexed bodies was “watchful waiting” combined with exploratory talk therapy to reveal any underlying causes for their distress. It was found that most children, when treated this way, grew out of their dysphoria by the end of adolescence. A significant portion grew up to be same-sex-attracted as adults.

By contrast, “gender affirmation” glosses over the reasons for a child’s distress and puts them on a pathway to irreversible harm. Its diagnostic process, such as it is, relies heavily on gender stereotypes — for instance, stories from parents who knew their son was really their daughter because he liked stereotypically girly things from a young age. Critics have warned that gay youth are particularly vulnerable to being put on the transition conveyor belt.

It’s important to note that no mainstream therapists in the United States offer “conversion therapy.” When bans such as Michigan’s are introduced, opponents aren’t advocating conversion therapy but defending religious freedom or, more commonly still, trying to preserve the safe and effective alternatives to social, medical, or surgical transition. These time-tested and noninvasive therapies are now the preferred treatment option in European countries, including England, France, Sweden, and Norway.

What’s ironic is that so-called gender-affirming care more closely fits the description of sinister, abusive conversion therapy than any other treatment in modern medicine. It is a practice that attempts the impossible — changing girls into boys, and boys into girls — by drastic and disfiguring means.

Take the example of Elliot (formerly Ellen) Page. In her memoir, Pageboy, Page describes a range of experiences she had as a young woman, from homophobic bullying, sexual abuse, eating disorders, and the psychological strain that came from her early fame as an actress. In the end, her solution was to abandon femaleness entirely and attempt to recreate herself as a man. To borrow some of the Left’s phraseology, Page’s account smacks of “internalized homophobia” and “internalized misogyny.”

Trans activists who talk about LGBT rights are keen to use the “LGB” as cover. Presumably supporters of the Michigan ban believe that gay youths deserve counseling designed to help them come to a healthy self-acceptance. Surely, they would not want to deprive youths with gender distress of this same opportunity.