Oral arguments on Colorado's conversion therapy ban are today. Missed the 1st 30 minutes or arguments, focusing on scrutiny standard.

Quote:

---

The law at the center of the case is known as Minor Conversion Therapy Law. Passed in 2019, it prohibits mental health professions from providing clients under the age of 18 with conversion therapy, although that bar does not apply to someone who is "engaged in the practice of religious ministry."

---

Quote:

---

When Chiles counsels young people with gender dysphoria, Colorado allows her to speak if she helps them embrace a transgender identity. But if those clients choose to align their sense of identity with their sex by growing comfortable with their bodies, Chiles must remain silent or risk losing her license, her livelihood, and the career she loves.

---

Quote:

---

Chiles views her work as an outgrowth of her Christian faith. Pet.App.212a14a, 221a. Many of her clients are also Christians who seek her help because of their shared religious beliefs. Pet.App.214a. These clients often believe "that God determines their identity according to what He has revealed in the Bible rather than their attractions or perceptions determining their identity."...
When her clients seek it, Chiles provides faith-informed counseling.

---

The issue with the Minor Conversion Therapy Law is it is too broad in its definition of what Conversion Therapy is. I think most sane people would be opposed to the pseudoscientific practices that made conversion therapy infamous, like forcibly showing gay pornography while giving them nausea inducing drugs, or things that are already illegal for other reasons like "corrective rape". However, the law as it stands seems to prohibit a therapist even suggesting mental techniques for their client to try.

To be fair, no method of conversion therapy works and all organizations committed to the idea of going from gay to straight fail when the founders go back to tasting the rainbow, but prohibiting what therapists can or can't *say* is a bad precedent.

I'd argue that the purple haired "teachers" are already engaged in conversion therapy when they introduce and celebrate rainbow crap. A ban on promoting normality doesn't result in neutrality of developmental influence: it results in a lopsided environment that'll produce more suicidal and violent freaks.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

I'd argue that the purple haired "teachers" are already engaged in conversion therapy when they introduce and celebrate rainbow crap. A ban on promoting normality doesn't result in neutrality of developmental influence: it results in a lopsided environment that'll produce more suicidal and violent freaks.

---

I think there's definitely an issue with young children being exposed to things having an influence on their sexuality or causing them to develop deviant fetishes.

I guess in my head when I hear Minor Conversion Therapy I think of older teens being brought to a Christian therapist by their parents, and by that point the gay/straight cake is baked. Trying to force it back in the oven will only burn it.

This goes back to the law being too broad. It states:

"Conversion therapy" means efforts to change an individual's sexual orientation, including efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feelings towards individuals of the same sex."

The part about "gender expressions" is a separate issue from the parts of the sentence that come before or after it.

The bill seems to see no difference between the gay conversion therapy I mentioned above and someone counseling someone with gender identity confusion. It's just a bad bill.

Colorado permits and actively promotes letting teachers, doctors, school nurses, etc. etc. etc. groom these kids into thinking they're whatever in the alphabet soup crowd, convince them to start whacking off body parts, taking drugs which can and will cause permanent harm, and having numerous surgeries all to achieve something which is actually impossible. At the same time, they try to expressly prohibit any other options.

This isn't about the off the wall stuff that has occurred on occasion. Most of that would already be covered by existing laws and would fall under anything from assault to rape.

If someone under 18 wants to seek out a therapist/councilor/pastor/etc, for help and guidance because of thoughts and feelings they don't want to be having, then he or she should have ever right to do so.

This topic is born several layers into our current social degeneracy, but lets consider a young woman who may be predominately attracted to other females while also having maternal instincts. Is her life made better if she's encouraged to follow her attractions, or her nature? One leads to a lonely death and the other to a full family.

There are tons of ugly people who are married. Which results in many spouses having suboptimal attraction to the person they married. It's not ideal, but it's true. If you can made a happy productive biblical marriage happen; that's clearly a superior life than one of merely chasing after your lusts.

A law that slams the door on attempting normality is clearly detrimental.

Fitting this opinion dropped on the International Trans Day of Visibility LOL. https://t.co/Du0YpuZUsQ

— Jimmy Murphy (@_jimmymurphy) March 31, 2026

To be fair, "What's a Woman" didn't really understand the whole piston v cylinder distinction.

Mensa member in residence Jackson was the lone dissent? No way!