Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court made a controversial decision to reject a challenge to 26 state laws that are based on flawed studies claiming that “conversion therapy” \u200bincreases the risk of\u2062 suicide among LGBT Americans. However, recent research\u200b reviews have found\u2063 that all of \u2064these studies are seriously scientifically unsound.<\/p>\n

These studies not only rely on unscientific methods, but one highly cited study actually shows the opposite of\u2063 what its authors claim, according to a sociologist who reanalyzed the data. The study’s authors omitted\u2062 standard scientific controls, which led to misleading conclusions.<\/p>\n

Paul Sullins, a research professor at Catholic University and senior researcher for the Ruth Institute, \u200cstated in a press conference that “the evidence shows that \u2062SOCE [sexual orientation change efforts] is\u2064 fairly effective at preventing suicide attempts.”<\/p>\n

These flawed studies have had a significant \u200bimpact on efforts to ban therapists from helping distressed individuals in the United \u2062States and around the world. According to Sullins, approximately 20 states and the District of \u2062Columbia have banned therapists from assisting individuals struggling with\u2064 homosexual desires \u200bor \u200bgender dysphoria. In\u2063 six states, such therapy is partially banned, limiting therapists to only nudging children towards\u2064 transgender mutilation instead\u200c of providing help.<\/p>\n

Last week, three Republican-appointed Justices,\u200d John Roberts, Amy Coney \u200bBarrett, and Neil Gorsuch, joined the court’s \u2064leftists in refusing to address the issue of whether states can punish therapists who discuss unwanted sexual attractions and \u2062gender dysphoria with willing clients. Barrett also voted to uphold a \u200blower-court decision striking down laws against children\u200c attending transvestite shows.<\/p>\n

Since 2009, every study on therapy for individuals struggling with sexual orientation distress has shared a major scientific flaw identified by Sullins. These studies failed to control for\u200d suicidal thoughts and \u200bactions expressed \u2063by LGBT individuals before \u2063they underwent \u2063”conversion therapy.”<\/p>\n

Chart from\u2064 Rosik\u2019s review<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

By failing to account \u2063for preexisting suicidal distress among\u2062 LGBT individuals before therapy,\u2062 these studies falsely claimed that “conversion therapy causes suicide.”<\/p>\n

When Sullins reanalyzed the data with proper controls,\u200d he found that two-thirds of the\u2063 LGBT participants’ suicidal thoughts and \u200battempts in the 2020 study occurred before they sought\u200c therapy. This means that therapy could not have caused the majority of suicidal thoughts\u2062 or attempts among \u2062LGBT\u2064 individuals because they happened before therapy.<\/p>\n

In fact, Sullins’ analysis showed that “conversion\u200b therapy” actually reduced suicide attempts and intentions\u2063 by up to 80 percent when controlling for pre-therapy suicidal behavior. This\u2064 contradicts the claims made by the\u200c study authors using their own data. By banning \u2064talk therapy \u2063and refusing\u2064 to \u2063address the issue, the Supreme Court is enabling \u200chigher levels of distress and \u200dself-harm among LGBT Americans.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

These scientifically incompetent studies are being \u200bused by\u200d major queer organizations to advocate for therapy \u2063bans.\u200c The studies only \u200dinclude self-identified LGBT individuals, excluding those \u200cwith similar attractions who do not identify as\u2062 LGBT.<\/p>\n

<\/figure>\n

Sullins described the 2020 Blosnich study\u200b as an “elaborate falsehood” that intentionally\u200d ignored\u200d scientific standards of evidence to support the claim that “conversion therapy” is \u200bharmful.<\/p>\n

The social sciences have been heavily impacted \u200bby \u2063the replication crisis, which affects the credibility of scientific research. Many studies, \u2062including these ones,\u2063 seem to\u2063 serve political agendas rather than seeking the truth.<\/p>\n

In his review and replication\u2063 of the Blosnich study, Sullins noted that\u2062 the choice to ignore \u2064the time order in attributing causation was intentional. Despite being aware\u200b of \u200dthe difference between pre-therapy distress \u200cand post-therapy distress, the authors failed to distinguish between the \u2064two in their studies.<\/p>\n

Sullins also examined the\u2062 four\u2062 most recent \u200bstudies cited by the American \u2064Psychological Association and U.K. Government Equalities \u2063Office in support of therapy bans. All four studies\u200d made the\u200d same error as \u200cthe Blosnich study by not controlling for pre-therapy suicidal thoughts and attempts.<\/p>\n

These scientifically flawed\u2064 studies are being used by major\u2062 queer organizations to push for therapy bans. The \u2063false claim that\u200d “conversion therapy \u200dis \u2062unnecessary,\u2064 ineffective, and harmful” is being spread, despite the misleading nature of \u200cthese studies.<\/p>\n

If \u2062you or \u200dsomeone you know is in crisis, please reach out to the national suicide hotline at\u2062 1-800-273-8255. Additional resources can be found here<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n