An Extreme Definition: Why Canada’s “conversion therapy” ban maybe the most discriminatory in the world
By Jose Ruba
August 3rd, 2021
The Canadian government intends to criminalize a practice called “conversion therapy.” However, the definition of “conversion therapy” they use is unlike any definition used by governmental bodies and professional organizations anywhere in the world. Their definition is so broad, their bill, Bill C-6, ends up banning legitimate counseling consenting adults and minors would freely choose.
Medical bodies define “conversion therapy” as counseling, among other things, that attempts to change someone’s orientation from gay to straight. In fact, another term for “conversion therapy” is “sexual orientation change effort.” LGBTQ organizations and their allies like the United Church, use such a definition. Municipal, state and federal governments around the world that have banned conversion therapy, also use similar definitions.
For example, the Canadian Psychological Association defines conversion therapy as,
Conversion therapy, or reparative therapy, refers to any formal therapeutic attempt to change the sexual orientation of bisexual, gay and lesbian individuals to heterosexual […] It can include prayer or religious rites, modification of behaviours, and individual or group counselling […]
CPA Policy Statement on Conversion/Reparative Therapy for Sexual Orientation
Countries like Germany, which is one of the first in the world to define conversion therapy this way, uses this definition:
Medical interventions aimed at deliberately changing or suppressing the sexual orientation or self- perceived gender identity of a person (so-called conversion therapies) shall in future be banned...The ban will only apply if the conversation partner deliberately attempts to influence someone’s sexual orientation or their self-perceived gender identity.
Act to Protect against Conversion Treatments, May 7, 2020
It should be noted that Germany only bans conversion therapy for minors. Consenting adults can still receive the therapy they choose.
Even Vancouver, the first city in Canada to define conversion therapy, defines it this way:
The practice of “conversion therapy” or “reparative therapy”, pseudo-scientific techniques that attempt to persuade persons to change their sexual orientation or gender identity, is seriously harmful to persons and is opposed by the Canadian Psychological Association, the World Health Organization, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Medical Association and others.
LGBTQ leaders in Canada also define conversion therapy as counseling to change orientation. The Community Based Research Centre, one of the chief researchers in this area, defines conversion therapy as
The more commonly used term of “conversion therapy” (also known as “reparative therapy”) is any form of treatment which attempts to actively change someone’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. This involves organized, sustained efforts.
What’s critical to understand is that all of the studies and reports cited by political groups that claim conversion therapy is harmful, use this definition of conversion therapy. They all agree that what is harmful is orientation change counseling, not behavioral change counseling. Even Dr. Kris Wells, one of the biggest proponents of conversion therapy bans, uses this definition in his handbook in order to advocate for the practice being criminalized.
Conversion “therapy” (also known as “reparative therapy,” “reintegrative therapy,” or “sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts”) is any form of treatment, including individual talk therapy, behavioural or aversion therapy, group therapy treatments, spiritual prayer, exorcism, and/or medical or drug-induced treatments, which attempt to actively change someone’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.
But Bill C-6 bans much more than orientation change counseling. Bill C-6 defines conversion therapy as both orientation change counseling AND counseling to reduce or repress non-heterosexual behaviour or non-cisgender gender identity, even if that reduction is not part of a sexual orientation change effort. But as stated in previous articles, sexual behaviour and sexual orientation are two different things, and they are not always congruent with each other. One can desire to change his behavior or attraction to align them with the sexual orientation he identifies with. But the bill conflates the two and would criminalize counseling that try to change one or the other. The Bill states:
Conversion therapy means a practice, treatment or service designed to change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual, to change a person’s gender identity or gender expression to cisgender or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour or non-cisgender gender expression.
Other than the Canadian government, only ten Canadian municipal governments and the government of Quebec, use this same definition. Of the 180 other governments around the world that have dealt with conversion therapy, none use a similar definition.[1] In fact, governments around the world go out of their way to distinguish between orientation change counseling and behaviour change counseling. Oregon’s conversion therapy ban defines the practice this way
(A) “Conversion therapy” means providing professional services for the purpose of attempting to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including attempting to change behaviors or expressions of self or to reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same gender.
(B)“Conversion therapy” does not mean:
(i)Counseling that assists a client who is seeking to undergo a gender transition
or who is in the process of undergoing a gender transition; or
(ii)Counseling that provides a client with acceptance, support and understanding, or counseling that facilitates a client’s coping, social support and identity exploration or development, including counseling in the form of sexual orientation-neutral or gender identity-neutral interventions provided for the purpose of preventing or addressing unlawful conduct or unsafe sexual practices, as long as the counseling is not provided for the purpose of attempting to change the client’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
Oregon’s wording makes it clear that LGBTQ persons in their community can receive behavioural change counseling as long as they are not trying to change their orientation. The way they worded the definition, means behavioural counseling will only be banned as part of an orientation change effort not independent of it. That is why, just like the CPA, they define conversion therapy to mean orientation change counseling that could “include” behaviour counseling. Bill C-6 does not use the word “including.” Rather, it uses the word “or.” Grammatically this means both orientation change efforts and a reduction of non-heterosexual behaviour, independent of orientation change, would be defined as conversion therapy.
Oregon is not the only US state to include such a distinction. All the US states, including the most pro-LGBTQ ones use such a distinction. This includes Vermont, California and Massachusetts.
Proponents of Bill C-6 claim there is a clause which protects supportive counseling. It allows for the “exploration” of one’s sexual identity in the Canadian definition. It states
For greater certainty, this definition does not include a practice, treatment or service that relates to the exploration and development of an integrated personal identity without favouring any particular sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.
However, the clause also says that the exploration cannot be directional. It must not “favour” one sexual identity or another. In practice, this means a child who is experiencing gender dysphoria could not get counseling to reduce that dysphoria and embrace her biological sex, even if the child wants that support. In fact, Bill C-6 could jail a parent for five years simply for bringing an underage child to a counselor to help him reduce this undesired behaviour or attraction.
Even consenting adults would not be protected by this clause. For example, a person who may want to reduce their unwanted attractions to a co-worker because they are already happily married at home, could only seek help to reduce that attraction if their co-worker is of the opposite sex. If the co-worker is of the same sex, they could not receive support to reduce that attraction. Worse, heterosexual Canadians would still be able to access counseling to reduce their unwanted sexual behaviours with no one assuming that they are trying to change their orientation. LGBTQ Canadians seeking such help under this Bill would always be under suspicion that if they want to reduce an unwanted attraction to someone or an unwanted sexual behaviour, they are trying to change their orientation. Clearly, this would violate the rights of LGBTQ Canadians to get equal access to the services available to heterosexual Canadians.
Bill C-6’s extreme definition is borne out of a desire by many to rectify past injustices against LGBTQ Canadians and to prevent further harm. This is an admiral goal that Free to Care and our allies agree with. But other governments around the world have managed to pass a “conversion therapy” ban without going to such an extreme definition that actually harms LGBTQ Canadians. Clearly the Canadian government can also pass a similar law and still achieve its goal of protecting LGBTQ Canadians. Instead, by using such a broad definition of conversion therapy, Bill C-6 ends up discriminating against the very people it was created to help.
August 3rd, 2021
The Canadian government intends to criminalize a practice called “conversion therapy.” However, the definition of “conversion therapy” they use is unlike any definition used by governmental bodies and professional organizations anywhere in the world. Their definition is so broad, their bill, Bill C-6, ends up banning legitimate counseling consenting adults and minors would freely choose.
Medical bodies define “conversion therapy” as counseling, among other things, that attempts to change someone’s orientation from gay to straight. In fact, another term for “conversion therapy” is “sexual orientation change effort.” LGBTQ organizations and their allies like the United Church, use such a definition. Municipal, state and federal governments around the world that have banned conversion therapy, also use similar definitions.
For example, the Canadian Psychological Association defines conversion therapy as,
Conversion therapy, or reparative therapy, refers to any formal therapeutic attempt to change the sexual orientation of bisexual, gay and lesbian individuals to heterosexual […] It can include prayer or religious rites, modification of behaviours, and individual or group counselling […]
CPA Policy Statement on Conversion/Reparative Therapy for Sexual Orientation
Countries like Germany, which is one of the first in the world to define conversion therapy this way, uses this definition:
Medical interventions aimed at deliberately changing or suppressing the sexual orientation or self- perceived gender identity of a person (so-called conversion therapies) shall in future be banned...The ban will only apply if the conversation partner deliberately attempts to influence someone’s sexual orientation or their self-perceived gender identity.
Act to Protect against Conversion Treatments, May 7, 2020
It should be noted that Germany only bans conversion therapy for minors. Consenting adults can still receive the therapy they choose.
Even Vancouver, the first city in Canada to define conversion therapy, defines it this way:
The practice of “conversion therapy” or “reparative therapy”, pseudo-scientific techniques that attempt to persuade persons to change their sexual orientation or gender identity, is seriously harmful to persons and is opposed by the Canadian Psychological Association, the World Health Organization, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Medical Association and others.
LGBTQ leaders in Canada also define conversion therapy as counseling to change orientation. The Community Based Research Centre, one of the chief researchers in this area, defines conversion therapy as
The more commonly used term of “conversion therapy” (also known as “reparative therapy”) is any form of treatment which attempts to actively change someone’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. This involves organized, sustained efforts.
What’s critical to understand is that all of the studies and reports cited by political groups that claim conversion therapy is harmful, use this definition of conversion therapy. They all agree that what is harmful is orientation change counseling, not behavioral change counseling. Even Dr. Kris Wells, one of the biggest proponents of conversion therapy bans, uses this definition in his handbook in order to advocate for the practice being criminalized.
Conversion “therapy” (also known as “reparative therapy,” “reintegrative therapy,” or “sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts”) is any form of treatment, including individual talk therapy, behavioural or aversion therapy, group therapy treatments, spiritual prayer, exorcism, and/or medical or drug-induced treatments, which attempt to actively change someone’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression.
But Bill C-6 bans much more than orientation change counseling. Bill C-6 defines conversion therapy as both orientation change counseling AND counseling to reduce or repress non-heterosexual behaviour or non-cisgender gender identity, even if that reduction is not part of a sexual orientation change effort. But as stated in previous articles, sexual behaviour and sexual orientation are two different things, and they are not always congruent with each other. One can desire to change his behavior or attraction to align them with the sexual orientation he identifies with. But the bill conflates the two and would criminalize counseling that try to change one or the other. The Bill states:
Conversion therapy means a practice, treatment or service designed to change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual, to change a person’s gender identity or gender expression to cisgender or to repress or reduce non-heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour or non-cisgender gender expression.
Other than the Canadian government, only ten Canadian municipal governments and the government of Quebec, use this same definition. Of the 180 other governments around the world that have dealt with conversion therapy, none use a similar definition.[1] In fact, governments around the world go out of their way to distinguish between orientation change counseling and behaviour change counseling. Oregon’s conversion therapy ban defines the practice this way
(A) “Conversion therapy” means providing professional services for the purpose of attempting to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, including attempting to change behaviors or expressions of self or to reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same gender.
(B)“Conversion therapy” does not mean:
(i)Counseling that assists a client who is seeking to undergo a gender transition
or who is in the process of undergoing a gender transition; or
(ii)Counseling that provides a client with acceptance, support and understanding, or counseling that facilitates a client’s coping, social support and identity exploration or development, including counseling in the form of sexual orientation-neutral or gender identity-neutral interventions provided for the purpose of preventing or addressing unlawful conduct or unsafe sexual practices, as long as the counseling is not provided for the purpose of attempting to change the client’s sexual orientation or gender identity.
Oregon’s wording makes it clear that LGBTQ persons in their community can receive behavioural change counseling as long as they are not trying to change their orientation. The way they worded the definition, means behavioural counseling will only be banned as part of an orientation change effort not independent of it. That is why, just like the CPA, they define conversion therapy to mean orientation change counseling that could “include” behaviour counseling. Bill C-6 does not use the word “including.” Rather, it uses the word “or.” Grammatically this means both orientation change efforts and a reduction of non-heterosexual behaviour, independent of orientation change, would be defined as conversion therapy.
Oregon is not the only US state to include such a distinction. All the US states, including the most pro-LGBTQ ones use such a distinction. This includes Vermont, California and Massachusetts.
Proponents of Bill C-6 claim there is a clause which protects supportive counseling. It allows for the “exploration” of one’s sexual identity in the Canadian definition. It states
For greater certainty, this definition does not include a practice, treatment or service that relates to the exploration and development of an integrated personal identity without favouring any particular sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.
However, the clause also says that the exploration cannot be directional. It must not “favour” one sexual identity or another. In practice, this means a child who is experiencing gender dysphoria could not get counseling to reduce that dysphoria and embrace her biological sex, even if the child wants that support. In fact, Bill C-6 could jail a parent for five years simply for bringing an underage child to a counselor to help him reduce this undesired behaviour or attraction.
Even consenting adults would not be protected by this clause. For example, a person who may want to reduce their unwanted attractions to a co-worker because they are already happily married at home, could only seek help to reduce that attraction if their co-worker is of the opposite sex. If the co-worker is of the same sex, they could not receive support to reduce that attraction. Worse, heterosexual Canadians would still be able to access counseling to reduce their unwanted sexual behaviours with no one assuming that they are trying to change their orientation. LGBTQ Canadians seeking such help under this Bill would always be under suspicion that if they want to reduce an unwanted attraction to someone or an unwanted sexual behaviour, they are trying to change their orientation. Clearly, this would violate the rights of LGBTQ Canadians to get equal access to the services available to heterosexual Canadians.
Bill C-6’s extreme definition is borne out of a desire by many to rectify past injustices against LGBTQ Canadians and to prevent further harm. This is an admiral goal that Free to Care and our allies agree with. But other governments around the world have managed to pass a “conversion therapy” ban without going to such an extreme definition that actually harms LGBTQ Canadians. Clearly the Canadian government can also pass a similar law and still achieve its goal of protecting LGBTQ Canadians. Instead, by using such a broad definition of conversion therapy, Bill C-6 ends up discriminating against the very people it was created to help.
Free to Care
https://www.freetocare.ca/blog/an-extreme-definition-why-canadas-conversion-therapy-ban-maybe-the-most-discriminatory-in-the-world
https://www.freetocare.ca/blog/an-extreme-definition-why-canadas-conversion-therapy-ban-maybe-the-most-discriminatory-in-the-world