Mexico’s Palacio De Bellas Artes (Palace of Fine Arts)

via National Geographic

To be honest, I would not know that Mexico City banned conversion therapy were it not for the complaints of right wing media. For that, we go to Calvin Freiburger at LifeSiteNews:

Under the legislation, which was first introduced two years ago, healthcare practitioners could spend up to five years in prison for conducting “practices consisting of psychological, psychiatric sessions, methods or treatments that are intended to nullify, hinder, modify or impair the expression of gender identity, as well as the sexual orientation of people,” Mexico News Daily reported. Such treatments are commonly known as reparative or “conversion” therapy.

I give Freiburger credit for including the following:

“There is nothing to cure. Homosexuality is not a disease, we are not sick,” declared the bill’s author, Morena party lawmaker Temístocles Villanueva.

“I totally agree. It seems to me that these measures belong to the era of the Inquisition,” added Mexico City Mayor Claudia Sheinbaum. “It does not correspond to the health systems of the 21st century, it does not correspond to the liberty of this city, because this is a city of rights.”

They always claim that we claim something that we rarely claim:

Across the world, opponents of reparative therapy commonly elicit opposition to the practice by invoking fringe, abusive practices such as electric shock and other forms of physically-harmful junk science.

I consider myself to be a robust critic of conversion therapy and I have never written anything like that. Regardless of the methodology, conversion therapy is ineffective and harmful. It doesn’t work yet it is used as a pretext for anti-LGBTQ prejudice and discrimination. It is harmful without torturing people — in its most benign form.

Junk science? Converversion therapy has no scientific basis whatsoever.

Rinse — repeat:

Despite common left-wing insistence that conversion therapy is junk science (based largely on associating professional counselors with examples of fringe, outdated practices such as electric shock), there are studies that indicate, and former homosexuals who attest to, reparative therapy’s success in improving their lives.

Mr. Freiburger doesn’t cite or link to a study because one does not exist. At least not one that is published to reputable, peer-reviewed academic journal. The American Psychological Association concluded some years ago that, at best, conversion therapy helps gay people pretend to be straight. What is the point of that?

Again, conversion therapy is pseudoscience even without aversive practices.

In 2017, the University of Cambridge’s Stonewall report found that 96 percent of trans students in Scotland attempted self-harm through actions such as cutting themselves, and 40 percent attempted suicide. Forty percent in the United States have attempted suicide, as well, according to a 2016 survey from the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE). According to a 2011 study out of Sweden, trans people remain 19 times more likely to commit suicide than the general population, even after surgery to reconstruct their bodies.

There is a link in there to another story in LifeSiteNews which links to a page that does not exist. Stonewall Scotland (to which the bad link points) in not part of the University of Cambridge.

Yes, transgender people are at increased risk for self-harm. Gender identity conversion efforts increase those risks. Self-harm would be reduced considerably were trans people not subjected to oppression. Just a sample from NIH:

Study One (2019):

Current studies indicate that quality of life improves after sex reassignment surgery. The available studies are heterogeneous in design. In the future, prospective studies with standardized methods of assessing quality of life and with longer follow-up times would be desirable.

Study Two (2018):

Medical GAI [gender-affirming interventions] are associated with better mental wellbeing but even after successful medical transition, trans people remain a population at risk for low QoL and mental health, and the nonbinary group shows the greatest vulnerability.

In other words, gender-affirming care definitely helps. However, transgender people still have a lower quality of life than the general population. The reason for the lower quality of life is minority stress which is more prominent in transgender people than gay people.

Study Three (2017):

Our results show that transgender women generally have a lower QoL compared to the general population. GRS [gender reassignment surgery] leads to an improvement in general well-being as a trend but over the long-term, QoL decreases slightly in line with that of the comparison group [the general population].

Add to the above the clinical practice standards of the American Academy of Pediatrics for the “gender-affirming care model.”

Freiburger has also mentioned that Swedish study (they all do). “They” always fail to notice, or appreciate, the fact that the subjects of that 2011 study had surgery between 1973 and 2003. Yeah, people who had gender confirmation surgery 47 years ago were probably pretty miserable.

Motives matter. Calvin Freiburger has little interest in the wellbeing of gender diverse people. Mr. Freiburger is defending the teachings of the Catholic Church no matter how unscientific and idiotic those teachings are.

Related content: