No Such Thing as Acceptable Sexual Orientation Change Efforts: An International Human Rights Analysis

Abstract

Sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) have received well-founded criticism from multiple fronts for their discriminatory effects and variegated harmful consequences on LGBTQ + people. International human rights institutions had voiced their concern over extreme forms and coercive SOCE, labeling them as torture. However, the legal status of “soft” non-coercive practices (i.e., psychological interventions willingly sought by consumers) is less clear. This article argues that a proper understanding of the prohibition on torture and other forms of ill-treatment, and of the positive obligations attached to the right to equality requires banning SOCE in all its forms, even when pursued by consenting consumers.

Keywords:

• Sexual orientation
• conversion therapy
• torture
• consent
• CIDT
• positive obligations
• nondiscrimination

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

No potential competing interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Other empirical studies are Ford and Beach (1951), Marmor (1965, 1980), Bell et al. (1981), and Gonsiorek (1991). Pierce (1973) researched the difference between active and situational homosexuality in a study among inmates whose homosexual behavior was present before incarceration or, occasionally, after it. On their part, DeCecco and Parker (1995) curated a collection of essays examining state of the art research at the time about whether homosexuality is determined by heredity, hormones or by the structure of the brain.

2 Other researchers have carried out reviews of particular studies, with similar conclusions (Cramer et al., 2008; Gonsiorek, 1981; Haldeman, 1991, 1994; Morrow & Beckstead, 2004; Sandfort, 2003; Tozer & McClanahan, 1999); a telling example is Spitzer (2012), who debunks his own 2003 study.

3 These prohibitions are found, inter-alia, in Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (COU, 1956); Article 5.2 of the American Convention on Human Rights (UN, 1969); and Article 5 of the African (Banjul) Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (OAU, 1981).

4 For example, the prohibition on CIDT was applied to racial discrimination (see, e.g. ECtHR, 2001a) and house demolitions (see CAT, 2002).

5 See e.g. Opuz v. Turkey (ECtHR, 2009), Talpis v. Italy (ECtHR, 2017), E.M. v. Romania  (ECtHR, 2012, §§ 41 and 43), Valiulienė v. Lithuania  (ECtHR, 2013).