> Not if it's voluntary and desired by the person undergoing conversion

Citation needed. LGBT+ people who seek conversion therapy can still be hurt by it.

> Otherwise there is no hope for pedophiles wishing to rid themselves of their attraction to children

Bringing up pedophelia in the context of LGBT+ people has a long history of being used to other and shame LGBT+ people. I'd encourage you to find a different example (or just stay on topic -- conversion therapy for LGBT+ people.)

> Citation needed. LGBT+ people who seek conversion therapy can still be hurt by it.

Yeah, but so can people who smoke, drink, or eat ice cream. At what point is it our job to tell people they can't choose to do things that are bad for them?

I was specifically pushing back on the idea that LGBT+ cannot be hurt by voluntary conversion therapy. I made no comment about the broader conversation, so I'm not sure how your comment is relevant.

> LGBT+ people who seek conversion therapy can still be hurt by it.

How exactly? And what about other people who seek "conversion therapy"?

An app is not a military, where you can literally sign away basic rights to not be hurt and abused.

> How exactly [can LGBT+ people be hurt by conversion therapy]?

Great question. I'm going to assume this is being asked in good faith.

If someone feels attraction to same sex people, and they are told by important people in their lives that this is shameful, they can internalize that shame. This can lead to thoughts like, "I feel bad about who I am", "I am disgusted by who I am", "Why can't I escape these feelings about who I am?!", "No one will ever love me if I am like this.", "I have to stop these feelings or I'll be evicted from my community.", etc.

Constant internal monologues like this can create stress, anxiety, and depression. Adding a religious element can increase these feelings. If someone is spending a significant amount of time wondering, "Am I going to be eternally punished if I can't shake these feelings?" I can imagine that could cause serious, significant, and lasting anxiety.

Conversion therapy, in my understanding, reinforces these feelings. Telling someone, "yes, it is shameful to feel this way. Yes, you are at risk of eternal damnation if you act on these feelings." It's important to differentiate between Conversion Therapy and Therapy.

Shame, anxiety, depression, and stress like this lead to all sorts of negative health outcomes -- depressed immune systems, negative social outcomes, self-harm, suicide, etc.

It's important to understand that I'm asserting just that this can cause harm. Not that it will always cause harm. I'm specifically pushing back on the idea that if Conversion Therapy doesn't involve physical abuse, it therefore cannot cause harm.

Well, in your explanation the shaming part still comes from other people, like parents, who pressure the person to go through with it. They are the ones harming the person, not the Conversion Therapy. It cannot harm anyone on its own at all. People are not that naive, they can understand when it doesn't work. But it also can give a way out to a person, pretend that everything is back to normal, ease the pressure to avoid anxiety. People are resilient like that.

The culture of shaming and the conversion therapy programs exist for the same reasons. They aren't independent phenomena.

This is 2 different problems you've coupled.

The first problem is people shaming people with conditions they can't control. The second, unrelated, problem is how to act on the effects of the condition.

For example:

Someone feels a strong desire to cut off their own limb[1]. They are told by important people in their lives that is shameful, they can internalize that shame. Conversion therapy reinforces these feelings, etc. leading to increased anxiety, suicide, etc.

This is how I perceive you have framed the issue.

If you decouple the two problems you can solve them one at a time.

Firstly, you need to solve the problem of people emotionally abusing those with conditions they can't control. Secondly you need to solve the problem of how to deal with the effects of the condition.

Now the narrative goes like this:

Someone feels a strong desire to cut off their own limb[1]. They are told by important people in their lives that things like this happen, and not to feel bad for something beyond their control, and that they are there to support them. The person with BIID now has a choice - they can act on their condition and get the limb amputated, or they can attempt therapy to try to mitigate the effects of the condition.

This same logic can and should be applied to any mental condition from pedophilia to BIID to gender dysphoria.

Therapy should be available to adults for any unwanted mental condition, even LGBT-related ones.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19132621

No one here is saying LGBT individuals shouldn't have access to therapy. After all, said individuals can be uncomfortable with their sexuality or otherwise feel like they have to hide who they are.

Conversion Therapy however, is not actually therapy by any stretch of the word. It's a wolf in sheep's clothing, a way of harassing, harming or attacking vulnerable individuals. This is why conversion therapy increases the rate of suicide in individuals and why so many conversion therapy clinics use abhorrent means of attempting to treat people. In this case the argument is correctly framed.

Everyone has to hide who they are to some extent. This is just the world we live in, societies are awful to people.

Again, the harassing, harming and attacking is done by other people, not by the "Conversion Therapy".

Yes, conversion therapy is composed of people. But so are governments, businesses, societies and everything else. Your argument would essentially argue that nothing can actually be harmful because it's due to the people behind the concept, not the concept itself.

We can measure things by the harm that they cause as a whole, and as a whole conversion therapy is harmful. Unless you would like to dispute the factual harms it had and does cause.

No, it's not like that. The decision to go through "Conversion Therapy" under pressure is like a manifestation of harm already done to a person, it's not necessarily harmful in itself. As I said in another comment, it's possibly even a way out of anxiety to go back to pretending.

Let me break it down:

An adult has a sexual attraction that they didn't choose to have and that they don't want to have.

Are they stuck for life? Or is it possible some form of therapy could help?

1. Yes.

2. No.

>Otherwise there is no hope for pedophiles wishing to rid themselves of their attraction to children.

What does that have to do with conversion therapy?

Are you connecting homosexuality to pedophilia?

They are both innate sexual preferences. However I disagree with the original statement because there is indeed no hope for pedophiles wishing to rid themselves of their attraction.

Pedophilia != LGBT identities

If someone is truly trying to rid themselves of an attraction to children, they should probably be in therapy.

It is hard to see how your logic would not also apply to people who wish to rid themselves of homosexual attractions, or even heterosexual ones for that matter.

But the data is pretty clear that "conversion therapy" doesn't work and causes harm. Applying it to pedophiles won't change that.

Yes, they should be in therapy for wanting to rid themselves of their attraction. Any sane pedophile would know that's not possible.

>Otherwise there is no hope for pedophiles wishing to rid themselves of their attraction to children

I'm not sure this is a helpful comparison to draw.

Why not? Being straight takes on the form of having a sexual desire to the opportunity sex. Being gay takes on the form of have sexual desires for the same sex. Why should pedophilia, or zoophilia, or any other the other niche sexual attractions be treated differently?