NYC COUNCIL, FREE CHOICE, AND CONVERSION THERAPY

In the name of “freedom of choice,” the New York City Council has banned choice:

·       [On] 11/30/17, the New York City Council voted on legislation prohibiting conversion therapy in New York. Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito, who sponsored the bill, explained:

·       “Our great country is land of the free meaning ALL individuals should be able to live without fear of coercion into change into someone they are not. Conversion therapy is barbaric and inhumane, and right here in New York City, we will continue to be the model for acceptance across the nation as we ban conversion therapy once and for all.”  (The New York City Council newsletter)

What does this ban entail?

·       “Conversion therapy” is defined as any services offered or provided to consumers for a fee that aims to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity “to conform to the sex of such individual that was recorded at birth,” according to the bill, which is sponsored by City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito. http://observer.com/2017/12/new-york-city-council-passes-conversion-therapy-ban/

In view of this, it is “barbaric and inhumane” to prevent people who want out from finding resources to help them out.

Instead of opening the doors to choice, the City Council is only providing a one-way street. While the counseling doors are wide open to any who want to transition from straight to gay, they are barred to any who want to make the return trip:

·       …the ban does not apply to services that offer assistance to an individual undergoing gender transition or counseling that provides “acceptance, support and understanding” of an individual’s sexual orientation or eases an individual’s “coping, social support and identity exploration and development.”

This sounds a bit like Islam. It is easy to transition into Islam, but converts are faced with possible death if they choose to transition out:

·       “They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.” (Quran 4:89; 9:66; 16:106)

Of course, this is a double-standard. What is good for the goose is not good for the gander – those who desire to return. This law is all about promoting conversion but just in the politically approved direction.

It would be one thing if the scientific evidence favored this ban – if conversion to the homosexual or transgendered life proved salutary. However, the studies have proved otherwise, even for those who live in societies that celebrate “coming-out.” For example, statistics consistently reveal that life expectancy of homosexuals is 20 years less than the general public:

·       A new study which analyzed tens of thousands of gay obituaries and compared them with AIDS deaths data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), has shown that the life expectancy for homosexuals is about twenty years shorter than that of the general public. The study, entitled “Gay obituaries closely track officially reported deaths from AIDS”, has been published in Psychological Reports (2005;96:693-697).

For the transgendered, the statistics are even more dismal. It is commonly recognized that 40% attempt suicide. It was recently found that trans-people practice self-harm at an alarming rate – 96% according to a recent study. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/96-of-transgender-youth-engage-in-self-harm-study

Mark-Viverito justified her bill as a defense of individual choice: “ALL individuals should be able to live without fear of coercion into change into someone they are not.” Who is being coerced? It is those who are now deprived of resources to change and who had counselled them! What choice has Viverito left for them? In the name of “choice,” she and the City Council have deprived them of choice.

How can they justify this deprivation of choice? It seems that there had been a New Jersey finding against a group practicing “conversion therapy,” which made guarantees of removing unwanted sexual attractions. I haven’t studied the case and am willing to acknowledge the possibility that they might have gone too far. However, to ban all such counseling because of the abuse of one party is like banning all psychotherapy because of the abuse of one practitioner or like banning all CBT because it failed to work in one instance. Instead of banning the entire practice of CBT, we usually take a closer look to examine what is working and what isn’t. Why not when it pertains to this matter?

Meanwhile, there is a strong association between the use of psychotropic drugs and violence:

·       The overwhelming evidence points to the signal largest common factor in all of these incidents [of mass shootings] is the fact that all of the perpetrators were either actively taking powerful psychotropic drugs or had been at some point in the immediate past before they committed their crimes.

·       Multiple credible scientific studies going back more than a decade, as well as internal documents from certain pharmaceutical companies that suppressed the information show that SSRI drugs ( Selective Serotonin Re-Uptake Inhibitors ) have well known, but unreported side effects, including but not limited to suicide and other violent behavior. One need only Google relevant key words or phrases to see for themselves. www.ssristories.com is one popular site that has documented over 4500 " Mainstream Media " reported cases from around the World of aberrant or violent behavior by those taking these powerful drugs.

Why isn’t there any move by the City Council to ban these drugs? The answer is simple – politics! If the Council is really interested in choice, then they should open the doors to choice. However, they are closing them down like the Taliban.