As occurs in other scientific disciplines, the development of psychology has not been free of biases and homophobic practices. Proof of this has been the long and until recently canceled presence of homosexuality as a clinical category in psychopathology; as well as the creation of their corresponding “conversion therapies”, “reparative correction therapies” or “sexual reorientation”.
Although in many contexts the latter It is not only discredited but legally penalized ; Elsewhere, the medieval and violent idea that homosexuality is a disease or disorder that can therefore be reversed remains in force.
With the intention of analyze why conversion therapies are harmful in this article we will begin by reviewing what these therapies are and where they come from, to finally see what some of their effects are.
The idea of “curing”, or rather of “correcting”, is a logic that runs through the entire production of psychopathology, sometimes explicitly and sometimes implicitly. This idea easily becomes a fantasy that fills the gaps of the most conservative Western ideology, and for the same reason, psychopathology has easily been offered as a powerful control strategy; in this case, homosexuality
As Foucault would say in the 70’s (cit. in Montoya, 2006), from its beginnings, psychiatry was proposed as an option that was not useful to “cure” in essence, because what it did was intervene in cases of fixed abnormality without a precise organic foundation. .
What could I do then? Correct said abnormality, or try to control it. Beyond reducing psychological discomfort, psychiatry acquires a function of social protection; that is, to seek order in the face of the danger represented by what is morally considered “abnormal.” In this context, sexuality, or rather non-heterosexuality, was not left out of the pathology’s gaze Initially it is controlled from the physical, and later from the psychic.
Thus an inseparable relationship arises between morality, which is read in statistical terms of normality; and medicine, which later results in psychopathology. As a result, heterosexuality has been understood in many contexts as normal and synonymous with health. And homosexuality as abnormal and synonymous with illness, or in the best of cases, as a disorder.
Sexuality always in the spotlight
Being a fundamental part of the human condition, Sexuality has remained very present in philosophical, scientific and political debates deeper. At times, such debates have taken the form of moral prescriptions about sexual behavior; which in turn has impacted desires, pleasures, practices, identities and, in general, visions about sexuality.
In fact, until not long ago, it was difficult to make public the doubt generated by the biological foundations of sexuality, under which the latter is reduced to the reproductive capacity of man and woman Not without having been absent in other times and societies, it was not until the middle of the last century that sexual dissidence took to the streets to demand the free exercise of sexuality as a human right.
With the so-called “Sexual Revolution”, a lot of lives, identities and pleasures that neither morality nor pathology had managed to capture become visible; this especially in the European and American context.
With this arise the struggles for equal rights and for eradicate forms of discrimination based on sexual orientation Not only that, but finally, in 1973, the APA removed homosexuality from its compendium of mental disorders. The WHO did the same until 1990, and in the first year of our century, the APA also publicly rejected the implementation of conversion therapies.
On the other hand, but also in the United States, a strong conservative current is emerging that fights in the opposite direction, that of denying sexual diversity, and advocates granting rights only if sexuality is experienced in a heteronormative way. Faced with the problem of how to make it heteronormative, conservative psychology and psychiatry offer the solution: a series of corrective therapies They can “reverse,” or some even “cure,” homosexuality.
Questions about the immutability of sexual orientation
For its part, and although in a minority way, another part of science has generated knowledge that has allowed us to firmly question the idea of homosexuality as a pathology.
Montoya (2006) tells us about some research that analyzes, for example, gonadal, cerebral and psychological development and diversity. The latter question the essentialist and immutable vision of heterosexuality in addition to making visible that no genes or anatomical or behavioral factors have been found that can fully account for sexual orientation.
Thus, sexual orientation is not something predetermined and immutable but a “process of continuous interaction between the biological and psychological structure of the person and the environment where they express their sexuality” (ibidem: 202).
Emergence and conversion therapies
We have seen from a Foucauldian perspective that, in its beginnings, psychiatry was presented as a technology of correction, where sexuality has a leading role. When the latter was believed to be overcome, the 21st century arrives to condense all of the above in the emergence of techniques that are offered as a corrective option for homosexuality.
Reparative therapy first emerged in 1991, a year after the WHO removed homosexuality from the compendium of diseases The term is attributed to the American clinical psychologist Joseph Nicolosi, who proposed it as a therapeutic model that would allow one to change from homosexuality to heterosexuality. Basically, the idea of the “therapeutic” generally assumes that homosexuality is, in reality, latent heterosexuality, and that it is a condition that generates unhappiness or significant psychological discomfort; Therefore, it must be corrected.
The therapist thus positions himself from a homophobic paternalism that suppresses the person’s autonomy. And part of the options available to him are from aversive conditioning with electroconvulsive therapy to practicing celibacy through reinforcing guilt
From there, correction therapies are not presented as options based on a comprehensive, comprehensive and respectful vision of diversity, which allows the exploration of discomfort beyond the subject himself (for example, as a consequence of the difficulties of socially expressing the sexuality), but as an attempt to correct the person because they live in a non-normative sexuality.
Damage and ethical questions
The APA (2000) says that “Psychotherapeutic modalities aimed at changing or repairing homosexuality are based on developmental theories whose scientific validity is questionable” and also recommends that ethical physicians refrain from attempts to change the orientation of individuals and consider possible damages.
These last may be psychological effects that include increasing internalized homophobia (with the consequent interruption of sexual freedom and rights), but also clinical manifestations of depression, anxiety and self-destructive behaviors.
In his bioethical analysis on the subject, Montoya (2006) tells us that the main ethical questions that can be raised about conversion therapies due to their harm are broadly the following:
