California Governor signs landmark legislation to ban reparative therapy for minors


Staff Reports | Filed: Sunday, September 30, 2012


http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2012/09/california-governor-signs-landmark-legislation-to-ban-reparative-therapy-for-minors/


SAN FRANCISCO — California Governor Jerry Brown on Saturday made history by signing a landmark legislation banning psychological therapy aimed at turning gay and lesbian youth straight — often referred to as reparative therapy.

With Brown's signature, California becomes the first state in the nation prohibit licensed mental health professionals from engaging in sexual orientation change efforts of any kind for a minor patient, regardless of a parent's willingness or desire to authorize participation in such programs.
Authored by State Sen. Ted Lieu (D-Torrence), Senate Bill 1172 was co-sponsored by the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Equality California, Gaylesta, Courage Campaign, Lambda Legal, and Mental Health America of Northern California, and supported by dozens of organizations.

Good to see.  Child abuse is child abuse, and about as wrong as anything can be.

wish I didn't have to go through something like this... it really messes up your mind and personality.

I've not heard too much about it.  What's the basic rundown on reparative therapy?

"pray the gay away" or "reprogramming camps"

Not good in the least bit!!!!

Quote from: Michelle G on September 30, 2012, 08:13:09 PM
"pray the gay away" or "reprogramming camps"

Not good in the least bit!!!!

Reprogramming camps sounds a bit harsh, I would agree.  But if someone honestly wanted help getting rid of feelings that are completely incongruous with their desired lifestyle, shouldn't every avenue to available to be explored?  I mean, what some activists push for goes beyond acceptance and becomes hate speech against those who call themselves ex-gays and ex-transgender. 

If a minor knows enough to question his/her/its sexuality or gender, shouldn't they also have the option to pursue therapy that would attempt to get rid of something they decide they do not want?

Yes on a voluntary basis that makes more sense, but what happens sometimes in the kids are wisked away against their will...I can just picture the awful "prayer circles" with the poor dear in the middle of it all scared to death and being pulled apart at the seams with what he/she feels and what the "therapists or religious people want him/her to be.

Yes but the methods used for reparative therapy is not always whats best.

it could range from "pray groups/meetings", "interventions", "training", "boot camps"

the usuall activities include making you more of a "Man" if your gay/MTF/trans/etc and a "Woman" if you are lesbian/FTM/trans/etc.

this could range from making you change the way you think, your body language, etc. and then having the new thing deeply embedded in your head.

if you have a really bad issue due with Gender identity then this could even make you suicidal and depressed like it did for me.

Not to mention the place I was made to go to was a group thing for all kids even straight ones so basically every kid at my school who's parents volunteered them - well nobody objected - got ingrained with the thinking that being gay/lesbian/trans/bisexual is bad.

This was done by a local pastor who volunteered and wanted to do it since it was his idea.

Now that I think about it - I was the only one who refused to go along with anything the pastor said even if it was a simple exercises/warm-up for your body or a discussion with who would win the Soccer World Cup 2002 - everyone agreed when the pastor said Brazil - again nobody objected - and I was like the only person screaming Germany! from the back.

to make matters worse I then got similar treatment from my "friend/s"

I'm really hoping this become illegal in 49 more states for ALL AGES! A person is who they are, and they shouldn't ever feel bad about it. I've been there with trying to change myself at the whim of other people because they were "uncomfortable" and/or "embarrassed". I have not yet talked to one doctor, social worker, or psychologist who believes this does anything more than harm, and harming people is against the first rule of medicine. No matter what age someone is, harm is just as grave as if it were done to someone who was younger.

End reparative therapy for all ages! Harm is harm, and do no harm means all ages!

Quote from: Dawn Heart on October 01, 2012, 04:01:24 AM
I'm really hoping this become illegal in 49 more states for ALL AGES! A person is who they are, and they shouldn't ever feel bad about it. I've been there with trying to change myself at the whim of other people because they were "uncomfortable" and/or "embarrassed". I have not yet talked to one doctor, social worker, or psychologist who believes this does anything more than harm, and harming people is against the first rule of medicine. No matter what age someone is, harm is just as grave as if it were done to someone who was younger.

End reparative therapy for all ages! Harm is harm, and do no harm means all ages!

I'm not trying to argue for the sake of arguing, but if a person feels that what they are is morally wrong, shouldn't they be allowed to change it?  If we're supposed to be able to choose our own religions or ways of thinking, shouldn't I be allowed to consider my brokenness something that needs to be expunged?  What if an individual has tendency towards violence or some other socially improper function?  Should we never do anything to help them change?

On the concern of the success or failure of RT, I'm not trying to disparage your experiences or your contacts, but in a precursory google search I've found people who've claimed to successfully counter feelings of homosexuality or trans* as a result of following through with reparative therapy.  If it works for some people, shouldn't it be available for those who want to try it?

I mean, if someone thinks that something like RT is so dangerous, yet the APA recommends in some cases something as barbaric as electrocution to "cure" severe depression - it honestly looks to me like there is a double standard here.  Something that has a hope of fixing what's broken (from some people's perspective) is rejected because some people don't like it, but let's put people to sleep and zap them to make them feel better!

  I'm not a fan of Jerry Brown, but this is the latest thing he's done right.  Minors, especially the younger ones, don't know any better.  All repairative therapy does to children is cause more confusion to them.  I did not like the 'deprogramming' that was done to cultists in the 1970's when I was a more fervent born-again Christian.  This is the same kind if therapy. 
  Funny, accounts of those "deprogrammers" came out around the time of the showing of the blockbuster "The Exorcist".

  Joelene

Quote from: Incarnadine on October 01, 2012, 08:49:05 AM
I'm not trying to argue for the sake of arguing, but if a person feels that what they are is morally wrong, shouldn't they be allowed to change it?  If we're supposed to be able to choose our own religions or ways of thinking, shouldn't I be allowed to consider my brokenness something that needs to be expunged?  What if an individual has tendency towards violence or some other socially improper function?  Should we never do anything to help them change?

On the concern of the success or failure of RT, I'm not trying to disparage your experiences or your contacts, but in a precursory google search I've found people who've claimed to successfully counter feelings of homosexuality or trans* as a result of following through with reparative therapy.  If it works for some people, shouldn't it be available for those who want to try it?

I mean, if someone thinks that something like RT is so dangerous, yet the APA recommends in some cases something as barbaric as electrocution to "cure" severe depression - it honestly looks to me like there is a double standard here.  Something that has a hope of fixing what's broken (from some people's perspective) is rejected because some people don't like it, but let's put people to sleep and zap them to make them feel better!

The bottom line to your question here in large and in conservative, narrow consideration (to be fair at both ends) is no. The reason for that is because when we talk about mental health care, or other types of legally recognized therapy, we are talking about treating an actual medical problem. Morals are not a subject to be "treated" in a medical fashion. Psychiatry, psychology, social work, and so on were founded on science, not morals.

If someone wants to "counter" what they see as unwanted homosexuality / bi / transgender, etc; they can simply rely upon moral / spiritual guidance from someone such as a member of the clergy or other spiritual guide in their community. We do not need clinical resources, funding, and manpower to be spent on treating what can only be described as a moral conflict vs. medical patient who is really suffering.

Also to be fair, if this sort of thing became a medical problem for the person who realized their gender identity or sexual orientation as a moral problem, and the person became depressed or is showing other real psych distress symptoms, then I say treat them. We have to be very careful here because we do not want heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, pansexuality, androgynes, or transgender people being labeled as a moral problem or as sick people, because they simply are not sick only based on things like gender identity or sexual orientation.

I hope I make sense here.

You make perfect sense Dawn, and well stated!

The explanation of science vs moral and there separate funding sources is simple enough for anyone to understand.

You made excellent sense and a very clear point.  I've purposefully waited a short time before responding because I wanted to digest your anwer first!

Perhaps the strength of my concern when I read the article and the responses of others in this post was that I'm not certain that my own internal transgender struggle is a moral one or not.  If it is, then I can "pray it away" so to speak.  If not, then I'm in trouble.  Choices, as my therapist says. 

From my own little corner of the religious world, all homosexuality and trans* activities are moral choices, whether influenced by trauma or physiology or not.  My own personal experiences and struggles are currently shaking up that perspective on a very personal level. 

I hope you'll understand my perspective of frustration when a working (though not as well as many would hope) method is banned.  Again, while many disagree with the moral connection, there are still many of us who view it as a strong possibility.  While many may view that perspective as bigoted and hateful, it is still a strongly held perspective, and at least in America ought to be allowed.

Psychology (and social work) itself cannot be separated from morality.  If it can be, then why help the individual who needs help?  If the only answer is to make them profitable to society, then psychology is indeed separated from morality.  If there is any other purpose to therapy or study, then morality is involved.  An attempt to remove a morality that one disagrees with is not the same thing as removing all morality.  The logical question becomes that if psychology is financed for moral reasons, such as helping the less fortunate or easing someone's suffering, then who gets to decide which moral reason is better than another? 

Quote from: Incarnadine on October 05, 2012, 12:59:45 PM
I hope you'll understand my perspective of frustration when a working (though not as well as many would hope) method is banned.  Again, while many disagree with the moral connection, there are still many of us who view it as a strong possibility.  While many may view that perspective as bigoted and hateful, it is still a strongly held perspective, and at least in America ought to be allowed.

Psychology (and social work) itself cannot be separated from morality.  If it can be, then why help the individual who needs help?  If the only answer is to make them profitable to society, then psychology is indeed separated from morality.  If there is any other purpose to therapy or study, then morality is involved.  An attempt to remove a morality that one disagrees with is not the same thing as removing all morality.  The logical question becomes that if psychology is financed for moral reasons, such as helping the less fortunate or easing someone's suffering, then who gets to decide which moral reason is better than another?

I absolutely understand your moral dilemma! I respect you for standing up for what you feel and think. I am at a place of standing up to be myself as a female. I have an update coming, and that will be in another forum here. The conflict of morality comes in for both the suffering person and the therapist (psych doc, psychologist, social worker, etc.) for the clinical professional, the conflict has to do with very strict licensing standards and medical care standards which tend to reflect the state standard, but even more strictly. State licensing / conduct laws state that no doctor or other clinical professional holding a state license can impose or use one moral standard over another, with the rule across the board being "do no harm".

The greatest question isn't "who gets to decide which moral reason is better than another" but, is instead, "which treatment will be most beneficial and is that benefit from treatment going to outweigh the risks that come with it?" As you can see, this puts medical treatment in the proper perspective.

These are the realities involved in all of this. In my mind, from my own point of view, no religion should tell someone that they are unwanted, or that their gender identity / sexual orientation is unwanted, unless the person themselves truly feel that way even with the removal of the religious teachings. If, minus the religious concerns, you feel it (your orientation or gender identity) is wrong...there are avenues to explore that and help you find out if your feeling of "wrong" comes from a bigoted social expectation, political bigotry, fear of safety being violated by phobic people, or if it comes from a deep and genuine place. My advice as a fellow forum user is to talk about this with a trained professional and see where it goes.

If you decide not to be who you know you are, or if you discover that it was just a passing moment in time due to factors such as trauma or other conditions that affect how a person sees themselves, you are at least doing it under clinical guidance. In the end it is YOU who has to make that call, and all a clinical pro can do is help guide you through it.

For the record, I don't respect you any less as a person for your thoughts because YOU have a right to your position and feelings just like anyone else. I wouldn't want anyone attacking my views, so I choose to treat you and others as I want to be treated. I am enjoying this conversation because I think it opens up what is really important for discussion, and we need that. Hearing each others thoughts and feelings is more helpful than we sometimes realize.