Dispelling the Myths of ‘Conversion Therapy’ and Kaley Chiles’s Counseling

Few terms in today’s cultural and legal debates carry as much emotional weight as “conversion therapy.” For many, the phrase immediately calls to mind troubling, long-abandoned, and extreme conduct to force someone against their will to change their identity, desires, or behavior. Because of that, the term has become a powerful label in public conversations about counseling, including on issues of gender and sexuality, that certain activists and governments disfavor.

It’s no surprise, then, that the Supreme Court’s decision in favor of Alliance Defending Freedom client Kaley Chiles has generated dozens of headlines all mentioning “conversion therapy.” It grabs the readers’ attention and evokes strong negative emotions.

This is why it is important to dispel the myths around Kaley’s case and “conversion therapy,” and why it is important to protect free speech in the counseling room.

What does Colorado’s “conversion therapy” law actually do?

In 2019, the Colorado legislature passed a ban on “conversion therapy” for minors. But the law defines this term very broadly. Specifically, the law bars Kaley and other counselors in Colorado from saying anything to clients under 18 that would encourage them to “change behaviors or gender expressions or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction” toward members of the same sex—even if that is what the client wants. Conversely, the law empowers counselors to push children toward a “gender transition.”

In other words, Colorado allows counselors to push clients toward the government’s view of sexual orientation and gender identity. But other viewpoints are censored by the state.

Does Kaley practice “conversion therapy”?

When someone hears the word “conversion therapy,” they’re likely to conjure images of electroshock therapy, ice baths, lobotomies, or other extreme and long-abandoned practices to try and eliminate someone’s feelings of unwanted gender dysphoria or same-sex attractions.

Most people aren’t thinking of what Kaley does, which is talking to her clients. That’s it—just a simple dialogue back and forth to help her clients achieve the goals that they set for themselves.

Yet, under Colorado’s law, because some of Kaley’s clients want to realign their lives with their convictions on matters of gender and sexuality, and because Kaley wants to help them achieve that goal through counseling conversations, Colorado labels Kaley’s conversations “conversion therapy.” There are numerous laws across the country that do this very same thing.

Kaley’s case is not about defending harmful conduct. It is about whether the government can decide which viewpoints counselors are allowed to express and which viewpoints families and children are allowed to hear in the counseling office.

Kaley helps clients voluntarily reach their goals

Another connotation often associated with “conversion therapy” is coercion. But this is far removed from anything Kaley ever does.

Clients voluntarily seek Kaley’s help, and in all of Kaley’s counseling sessions, it is the client who sets the goal, not Kaley. Together, they fully explore the issues, and she seeks to help them achieve their goals. So whether the goal is to seek freedom from pornography addiction or whether someone wishes to become more comfortable with their biological sex, that goal is determined by the client.

Kaley counsels from a Christian worldview

Kaley is a devout Christian, and her view of human nature is informed by her Christian beliefs. Kaley does not preach to her clients; she’s a counselor, not a pastor. But counseling doesn’t occur in a philosophical vacuum. Her counseling will inevitably be influenced by her Christian worldview. In fact, it’s why many of Kaley’s clients seek her out. Kaley’s clients often share her Christian faith, and those clients want counseling that is informed by and respects their common Christian convictions. They want their lives to align with their convictions, and Kaley works to help them achieve that goal.

But laws like Colorado’s create a dilemma for both Kaley and her clients.

• For counselors like Kaley, if a minor client wants a conversation to pursue a goal that the state has forbidden under the guise of regulating “conversion therapy,” then Kaley must either steer the conversation in a direction the law allows—or remain silent—or risk being fined thousands of dollars and losing her license. None of these options are acceptable for Kaley. Because of this, she has had to turn away numerous clients for fear of violating Colorado’s law.
• For clients, laws like Colorado’s prevent them from getting the help they need and from pursuing their goals.

In the end, Colorado’s law doesn’t just silence counselors like Kaley—it denies clients the freedom to hear counseling consistent with their own beliefs and goals.

Did the Supreme Court outlaw “conversion therapy” bans?

While much of the news coverage around this case has focused on “conversion therapy,” the legal question in Kaley’s case at the Supreme Court was about speech—nothing more. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the government can censor certain conversations between a licensed counselor and a client based on the viewpoint expressed.

Because Kaley uses words and only words in her counseling, her speech is protected by the First Amendment. So, in order to justify regulating Kaley’s speech, the state of Colorado labeled Kaley’s conversations with clients as “professional conduct,” and thus subject to state regulation.

But the Supreme court, in its 8-1 decision, flatly rejected this reasoning. Justice Gorsuch, writing for the majority, said,

“In many applications, the State’s law banning ‘conversion therapy’ may address conduct—such as aversive physical interventions. But here, Ms. Chiles seeks to engage only in speech, and as applied to her the law regulates what she may say. Her speech does not become conduct just because the State may call it that. Nor does her speech become conduct just because it can also be described as a ‘treatment,’ a ‘therapeutic modality,’ or anything else. The First Amendment is no word game. And the rights it protects cannot be renamed away or their protections nullified by ‘mere labels.’”

The Supreme Court has long recognized that the Constitution does not permit the government to impose that kind of viewpoint-based restriction on speech. As Justice Gorsuch concluded, “[T]he First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country.”

Is telling the truth “conversion therapy”?

In this debate, because the term “conversion therapy” has come to be associated with extreme conduct that has long been discredited and discontinued, it sadly persists as a useful boogeyman for activists and governments trying to censor commonsense counseling.

Under the guise of banning “conversion therapy” for minors, states are only allowing counselors to have conversations with clients affirming an LGBT identity, behavior, or feelings, while censoring conversations that would do the opposite, such as helping a child regain comfort with his or her body, even if that is what the child wants.

Such laws don’t protect children. In fact, it will often lock kids into a single track that can lead to taking puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and undergoing surgical procedures (like mastectomies) that remove healthy body parts. While laws like Colorado’s claim to be based in science, studies have shown that the vast majority of children experiencing gender dysphoria who are allowed to progress naturally through puberty will find peace with their sex. But when a child is pushed towards “transitioning,” more than 90 percent of children persist in their dysphoria, which often leads them to take harmful drugs and undergo life-altering procedures.

Above all, these laws prevent kids from hearing the truth:

• “You are fearfully and wonderfully made in God’s image.”
• “You can regain peace with your body.”
• “Your desires don’t have to define who you are or dictate the way you live.”

It makes one wonder: what is the real “conversion therapy” happening here? Telling a child he or she was born in the wrong body, or helping them live at peace with their bodies? Telling a child that their sexual desires define who they are, or tell them, as Scripture has long affirmed: “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” (Jeremiah 17:9).

I’ll let you be the judge of that.