Bill C-4: Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis

UnWoke Essay Explores The Controversies Around LGBTQ Activism And The Science Of Homosexuality

This is a guest post by Zachary Strong.

Zachary Strong is a scholar, educator, and author dancing happily at the intersection of science, religion, history, and media ecology. Before pursuing talk therapy for unrelated reasons, Zachary was bisexual, somewhat gender non-conforming, and polyamorous. After these orientations faded away during the therapeutic process, he did some digging in the scientific literature and discovered some very uncomfortable truths about homosexuality that seem to have been systematically obfuscated for five decades.

Although North America’s attention has been focused on transgender issues as of late, the discussions around homosexuality were no less heated and divisive in their day. Indeed, as many activists like to remind their comrades each June, the first ever Pride Parade started as a riot.

The protests and riots at Stonewall Inn in 1969 catalyzed an uprising of LGBTQ people and their allies against egregious forms of government oppression and for societal acceptance of nonstandard forms of love. Five decades later, the high heels hurled at overstepping officers have blossomed into acceptance in the psychological sciences, law and public policy, early childhood education, and even in many Christian denominations.

Admittedly, this acceptance was hard-won. Homosexuals have had to fight for the right to exist publicly, to marry, to adopt children, and to obtain equal access to services and opportunities. Decades ago, doctors attempted to “cure” their condition with morphine and electroshock therapy. Still earlier than that, homosexuals were beat up, locked up, and even executed. In some places, this is still the case.

Although homosexuals are generally not facing violence for being queer in Canadian streets these days, one major thorn in the LGBTQ community’s side is “conversion therapy”, a catch-all term used for attempts to change the sexuality of a patient using therapy, pastoral care, or other methods. As alluded to previously, there have been a kaleidoscope of techniques employed by doctors, psychologists, pastors, and other “experts” to “cure” homosexuals of their “condition”. The existence of conversion therapy and its practitioners represents an existential threat to the integrity of LGBTQ identities, as it suggests that they are not “normal”, can be changed, and perhaps even “should” be changed. It has therefore been the target of fierce activism for many years.

The opposition to these practices is not without reason: to put it simply, the method used by practitioners of conversion therapy have ranged from benign to barbaric. Morphine-induced nausea therapy, electroshock therapy, self-mortification, and “praying the gay away” are just some examples. Unbelievably, some of these methods are still in use today, and up until very recently, this was even the case in Canada.

“In 2012, Harper Perrin was desperate. Parents and friends made it clear; being gay was sinful and unacceptable. Harper [said] they were instructed to pull their hair whenever they had a homosexual thought along with, ‘changing the way I walked, changing the way I talked, being very mindful of my body and making sure that I lived a masculine expression.’”

- “How religious organizations use conversion therapy…” (CTV News, 2020)

What is Bill C-4?

Originally entered into Parliament as Bill C-6 in the previous government, Bill C-4 was passed in 2021 to officially outlaw all forms of conversion therapy in the country. Although it may seem like an obvious response to the misguided and harmful forms of “therapy” offered by evangelical pastors, the legislation has wide-ranging impacts on religious practice, pedagogy, and the therapist-patient relationship. This stems from the way conversion therapy is defined in the legislation, which is exceedingly broad and has received criticism from several stakeholders, including the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops.

“any practice, service or treatment designed to change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual, gender identity to cisgender, or gender expression to match the sex assigned at birth, or designed to repress or reduce non‑heterosexual attraction or sexual behaviour, or gender expression that does not match the sex assigned at birth, or to repress non‑cisgender gender identity.” (Government of Canada)

Essentially, professionals – especially mental healthcare professionals, pastors, and teachers – are barred from saying or doing anything that might cause someone to be less queer. The potential nuances of this are explored in the below table and may be surprising, as praying with an LGBTQ teen about lust is deemed harmful enough to be illegal, whereas giving that same child sex hormones is perfectly fine under this legislation.

Demonstrable Justification & Expert Opinion

As with all legislation that overrides civil liberties, the government must demonstrate that it has “demonstrable justification” to conduct the overreach. In this case, the official opinions of psychological bodies – all of whom are against the practice – were cited as proof that this practice is harmful and represents a unique threat to LGBTQ Canadians. A rough genealogy of these ideas is provided below:

As can be seen, the Canadian Psychiatric Association and the Canadian Psychological Association both released their position papers on conversion therapy about five years after the APA’s original report on the issue and drew heavily upon it for their arguments. All of this was preceded by the decision made by the APA in 1973 to depathologize homosexuality by removing it from the list of mental disorders in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM).

In addition to the scientific evidence, experts estimate that about ten percent of LGBTQ youth have undergone conversion therapy as a result of parental pressure. The power dynamics that children face in this situation, combined with the inefficacy and harms of conversion therapy as enumerated by psychological experts, comprise the “demonstrable justification”.

A History of Homosexual Science

Despite the near-universal condemnation that conversion therapy now receives, there are many people who claim it has worked for them. Their testimonies can be found scattered on “ex-gay” websites and even on YouTube. There have also been many conversion therapy practitioners, such as Joseph Nicolosi and Charles Socarides, who have published literature documenting their success with various forms of the practice. These voices have been dismissed by the mainstream, which cites overwhelming scientific consensus against the viability of the treatment.

To be quite honest, the concept of conversion therapy was generally unknown to me for most of my life. I grew up in an LGBTQ-friendly household with a gay couple in our circle of family friends. In university I explored my sexuality freely (too much so), marched in World Pride, and catalyzed the founding of the McMaster EngiQueers, a student group dedicated to LGBTQ inclusion within McMaster’s Faculty of Engineering.

However, several years ago, I entered therapy for reasons related to extreme stress at work. Working with a therapist trained in Internal Family Systems, I explored issues in my relationships, childhood traumas, and other things one might typically expect to discuss in therapy. At no time did we discuss my bisexuality, polyamory, or other orientations. As the process progressed, I realized that my same-sex attractions had plummeted to the point where they were almost unnoticeable, and I no longer regarded polyamory as feasible or healthy for me.

Then, I stumbled upon a video by a controversial child psychologist who claimed that the original decision to depathologize in homosexuality had nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics. This sent me down a rabbit hole of research which spanned the last five decades of homosexual science, and revealed what seems to be systematic obfuscation of information that blows a giant hole in the modern LGBTQ narrative.

The Aftermath of Stonewall

As the Gay Pride movement collected itself after the original riots against police brutality and social prejudice, one of its primary goals was to gain general acceptance in society. At that time, homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder in the APA’s Diagnostic Statistical Manual, which meant that it was “on someone’s file”, so to speak. This affected their treatment in the medical system, their ability to work in many roles, and fueled hatred and dehumanizing activity.

In the late 1950s, some novel research had been done to show that homosexual activity was not only more prevalent in human society than once thought, but also that animals engaged in homosexual behavior. Although this certainly helped catalyze the “free love” movement and experimentative attitude in the 1960s, it was not proving to be compelling enough to change official opinion.

Thus, the Gay Pride activists embarked upon a campaign to bully the APA into depathologizing their demographic. They mobbed conferences, accused psychologists of all kinds of hatred, and caused enough of a disruption that the APA was forced to reexamine their stance on the issue.

The Man Who Revolutionized Psychiatry

Leading the APA’s response was Robert Spitzer, who had proven to be the key player in revising the Diagnostic Statistical Manual. As it turned out, although the APA had spent a great deal of time in listing out all the specifics of the mental disorders in their Manual, they had not yet provided a definition for what a mental disorder was.

Spitzer’s solution was, effectively, an elegant language game. He proposed that “mental disorder” be defined as something that has deleterious effects on a person’s life and/or is unwanted. Given that many homosexuals are, as Spitzer said, “quite satisfied with their sexual orientation”, this meant that they were not suffering from a disorder. This proposal carried, although not without significant dissent.

In the decades moving forward, the next step for the LGBTQ activists was to “normalize” homosexuality within the general society. A now-rare book called After the Ball served as the manual for high-level activists during this time, and emphasized the importance of highlighting professional-looking gays and downplaying the orgies, drag queens, leather dog suits, and even the idea of anal sex.

The Modern LGBTQ Movement

Although this is still within memory for most of us, it must be noted that the gay marriage issue only really picked up steam after the turn of the millennium. It then took a decade or two after that milestone for us to devolve into drag shows for children, questionable literature in school libraries, and suggestions that children should be exposed to nudity and kink at Pride celebrations.

How, precisely, did this happen? If there is absolutely nothing “wrong” with LGBTQ people, as suggested by “expert opinion”, why on Earth would queer folks want to dance around in lingerie in front of children? Why would teachers want to share their sexuality with their classrooms instead of teaching math, English, and science? Is there a psychological issue here that is connected to homosexuality? How can this best be addressed without starting another riot?

These are all very uncomfortable questions, but many of them have quite reasonable answers. However, first, we must understand the totality of LGBTQ-related science – not just what is being taught to children in schools as fact.

The Quest for the Gay Gene

The research of Alfred Kinsey, which helped normalize the idea of homosexuality in humans, as well as the biologists who discovered homosexuality in the animal kingdom, gave rise to the idea that homosexuality must be inborn, natural, or otherwise genetic. The memories of many LGBTQ people include feelings and predispositions that extend back into childhood, further solidifying this perspective with a wealth of anecdotal evidence.

Indeed, as far as anyone – even Lady Gaga – can tell, LGBTQ people are “born this way”. This is now the prevailing opinion in society, partially due to Gaga’s iconic song, although the official bodies like the APA couch their view on the causes of homosexuality in some degree of uncertainty:

“… no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles…” (APA)

Why would the APA waffle like this, despite the activism that has only intensified over the years? Why do they not just say people are “born this way”?

As it turns out, there is very little evidence to demonstrate that homosexuality – in men, at least – is genetically determined. Studies conducted on twins, although they do suggest some genetic influence, have limited sample sizes (in genetic terms) and large confidence intervals. Dean Hamer’s attempt to link homosexuality to the Xq28 region of the X chromosome are inconclusive and do not demonstrate the presence of a singular “gay gene”. Studies on intrauterine factors, like hormone exposure during pregnancy, have proven to be similarly inconclusive.

Furthermore, the advent of widespread genetic testing services like 23andMe have allowed scientists to conduct studies using extremely large sample sizes. The most recent – and the largest – used over half a million residents of the United Kingdom to determine that genetics contributes to only a quarter of homosexual behavior. For comparison, addiction is estimated to be driven equally by genetics and life circumstances, and “bona fide” mental disorders like bipolar are up to eighty percent genetic.

This leaves us with a major problem. If genetics do not drive homosexuality, what does?

If Not Nature, Nurture…?

“Every single gay person I know has some sort of drama going on, back in childhood. Something was happening that we’re not allowed to ask about anymore… I can see patterns that are similar in my background to that of other women I know who are lesbians, but the biggest patterns are in gay men. Every single gay man I know had a particular pattern where for whatever reason, he was closer to his mother than to his father, and there was some sort of distance between the mother and the father, so that she looked to her son as her real equal or friend, as the real companion of her soul. Sometimes these women were discreet and dignified. Other times, they were very theatrical and in a sense they drafted their son into their own drama. But now, you are not allowed to ask any questions about the childhood of gay people anymore. It’s called ‘homophobic’. The entire psychology establishment has shut itself down, politically…”

- Camille Paglia, on the Dennis Prager Show

The failure of scientists to find a “gay gene”, or anything resembling a significant genetic contribution to the development of homosexual orientations, means that the “born this way” mantra currently held by activists and society at large is simply not true – at least not universally true. It seems like these proclamations were made partially on the genuine assumption that they would turn out to be true, and partially out of a desperate need for social acceptance.

However, these noble lies have come at a great cost, as a closer look at the scientific literature on homosexuality reveals. For example, one study published in 2012 found that homosexuals were significantly more likely to have been sexually abused as children when compared to their heterosexual counterparts, and that this likely plays a role in the development of the orientation. These findings have been corroborated by a 2010 study. Note that the comparative rates of child abuse in these studies is similar to the rates of maternal deaths that led to Semmelweis’ discovery of germ theory.

Furthermore, Canadian-led research on over one thousand male homosexuals in the 1960s and 70s found a pervasive trend in the male homosexual’s family dynamic, where the father is disrespectful and emotionally unavailable to both his wife and his children. Like Camille Paglia suggested, this creates a dynamic where the mother seeks emotional closeness with her son, and ends up becoming inappropriately close, controlling, and smothering. This is now known as emotional incest, and in this case can be seen as a coping mechanism of the mother. However, not only does the homosexual son have to provide a support system for his mother, he must contend with a father who is cold, abusive, competitive, and rejecting. This, for various reasons, leads to a homosexual identity.

That’s not all that has been buried. A Danish study with over two million participants found that an absent father was a significant factor in determining whether or not someone would be homosexual. These findings, too, have been corroborated by studies of homosexual clergy members in Canada, and even the life stories of famous LGBTQ people from Hans Christian Andersen to Lil Nas X, yet they have been flatly and aggressively denied by LGBTQ activists.

Invisible Pain

Combined with the absolute failure of scientists to conclusively link homosexuality to genetics, these findings are extremely troubling and suggest that there is a tremendous amount of unrecognized and unresolved pain in the homosexual community. This hypothesis is supported by a significant amount of oblique literature, including studies that find homosexual and bisexual men are nearly three times as promiscuous as heterosexual men, are more likely to have been paid for sex, and engage in extreme sexual acts such as “fisting” much more often. Non-heterosexuals are much more likely to be dependent on drugs and are more likely to have a diagnosed disorder such as bipolar, panic disorder, borderline personality disorder, or obsessive-compulsive disorder. Regarding the quality of monogamous romantic relationships, which are rarer than admitted, homosexual relationships are more unstable and likely to be plagued by infidelity as well as more violent: male-male partners are just as likely to be violent as heterosexual couples, if not more, and lesbian pairings are even more likely to abuse each other.

Pain Compounded

Imagine this situation: you are a male child born to an evangelical Christian family, who was either sexually abused or subjected to wonky family dynamics. You start experiencing homosexual attractions in late childhood, which you know are “sinful”. This troubles you greatly.

Eventually you come out to a sibling. They break your confidence and tell your parents out of naïve concern, who freak out and tell you you’re damned forever. They take you to a pastor, who tells you the same. They send you to a retreat or facility where you’re doing all sorts of stupid stuff that only makes you feel more ashamed. You eventually “break free” and “discover your true self” in high school and university, only to “learn” that the source of much of your frustration is society’s un-acceptance of your identity. You never get the opportunity to examine the core dynamics at the source of your own frustration – the relationship between your father and mother, your father and you, and your mother and you. You live your entire life not knowing that you have therapeutic options that could affect your sexuality – and therefore your ability to have a biological family and participate meaningfully in some faith communities.

As this relates to my own life, I can share that I was considering therapy for much of my early and mid-twenties, and had I known that my orientations were a signal that I was carrying trauma, it would have saved me a lot of trouble. It would have also steered me away from many situations and parties that were a lot of fun, but unfortunately the wrong kind of fun. Put simply, hiding this information from people can hurt them, and although there was a burning need for LGBTQ people to gain acceptance in the past, this is no longer the case in North America and we should be able to face all of these facts confidently and compassionately.

Revisiting Conversion Therapy

Given the fact that this information will be a surprise to most people, it should be no further surprise that the official position on conversion therapy is just as sketchy as the foundational science. Indeed, the APA’s 2009 report, which I have read in significant depth, claimed to find “no credible evidence” for the efficacy of such practices. It then neglected the research trends discussed above, concluded that people do not face a choice about their sexual orientation, and furthermore concluded that “affirmative treatments” are the only responsible option.

However, this task force seems to have been comprised of six activists in gay rights causes, with not a single actual practitioner of conversion therapy accepted to the committee, nor even a neutral party[i]. Psychology is also well-known for leaning liberal, creating the perfect situation for an ideological echo chamber.

Furthermore, this report conveniently dismissed every single paper documenting conversion therapy success as being “methodologically flawed”, allowing them to say there is no credible evidence while avoiding the inconvenient truth that evidence happens to exist. Paradoxically, the APA’s report also cited papers documenting successful “conversions” as evidence against the practice.

The truth of the matter is that there are many papers and studies that document the efficacy of conversion therapy, and they seem more reputable than the APA would like to admit. The Canadian psychiatrists who discovered the homosexual family pattern we have discussed also found that cognitive psychoanalysis had a 30-50% success rate. Another researcher found that a similar proportion of surveyed homosexuals accessing therapy or pastoral care experienced a change from predominantly homosexual to predominantly heterosexual, and also experienced positive changes in their psychological, interpersonal, and spiritual well-being.

Infamously and notably, Robert Spitzer, the very man responsible for the revolution of the DSM and the depathologization of homosexuality, published a study with two hundred former homosexuals who claimed to have been cured through therapy, which he later retracted after intense criticism from the ideologically-captured scientific mainstream.

More Conflicts of Interest

Aside from the scientific evidence that has emerged which suggests that there is more to the story regarding homosexuality, Robert Spitzer’s biography reveals potential conflicts of interest in this matter. His family dynamic growing up was reported to be similar to the homosexual pattern, with a “professional patient” for a mother and a “cold, remote” father. He attended therapy as a teenager for these issues, as well as an outlet to talk about his fascination with women. Although it cannot be concluded from this that Spitzer experienced same-sex attractions, it is certainly curious that he would take a professional interest in both the depathologization of homosexuality as well as its possible cure.

Why the Children?

If I had to bet money on why LGBTQ activists are targeting children with their ideology so aggressively, it is possible to steelman the activists’ position as follows. Essentially, many LGBTQ people – especially the activists – have experienced trauma in their lives. At some point or another, they were rejected for having feelings they could not control, and they are passionate about making sure that no child goes through what they went through. Thus, they want to “normalize” homosexuality and LGBTQ ideologies as much as possible, to make it as easy as possible for young people to step outside of demonstrably abusive family dynamics.

Attempting A Synthesis

Obviously, this research is extremely controversial and very troubling. Hopefully it helps that I am (was?) LGBTQ myself, and obviously do not stand to gain by engendering hatred against my own demographic. Below are some of the key implications of this information, along with things that we cannot reasonably determine yet.

It is important to remember that we cannot determine the childhood history of someone based on their sexuality alone, as it is still possible that some people – notably women – are genetically predisposed to bisexuality or homosexuality. Although we cannot jump to conclusions about LGBTQ people as a whole, we can certainly determine that the “demonstrable justification” of Bill C-4 is more fraudulent than fact-based and therefore a target for focused opposition.

What We Can’t Conclude

• Whether a homosexual person was abused based on their orientation alone

• Whether “born this way” is false for ALL homosexuals or just a subset of the demographic

• Whether conversion therapy will work for all LGBTQ people, or even a specific person

• That conversion therapies being offered by various organizations are efficacious

What We Can Conclude

• There is significant public misunderstanding about the science of homosexuality

• What is being taught in schools as fact is either erroneous or incomplete

• Conversion therapy has worked for some people, and can work for more

• Bill C-4 lacks the “demonstrable justification” that the government claims it has

• Something must be done

“Should” Someone Undergo Therapy?

The short answer is “if they want to”. Therapy of any kind is a personal decision that is based on many factors, including religious status and family aspirations. The problem with the term “conversion therapy” is that it implies hair-pulling, electroshock therapy, and praying the gay away, when really what LGBTQ people should be considering is talk therapy such as Internal Family Systems, or even a “new” technique called EMDR.

Opposing Unscientific Legislature

Despite the clear and present danger that Bill C-4 poses to gender dysphoric youth, I think the strongest line of attack on Bill C-4 does not lie in the transgender issue. It seems clear, to me at least, that the “demonstrable justification” for a nationwide ban on conversion therapy simply has no scientific basis. This cuts off the legislation off at the knees, and therefore a case brought to the courts by adults who are seeking conversion therapy has a higher chance of succeeding than opposition brought forth by trans-skeptics. However, this requires anti-woke activists to take an extremely risky position on LGBTQ science that contradicts what many of us have been taught from birth and may be indistinguishable from homophobia to many.

As I have learned, change is possible, although not guaranteed, and people in my situation deserve to have conversations with their therapists that can catalyze positive lifestyle shifts. To interfere in therapist-patient and pastor-congregant relationships on the basis of wildly biased science is not something the Canadian government should be doing, and teaching children that they were “born this way” when that is not a demonstrable scientific fact is grievously poor pedagogy that must be corrected as soon as possible.

Happy Pride!

Useful Resources

• This archive of LGBTQ literature

• This documentary about conversion therapy

---

[i] Nicolosi, J., “APA Task Force Report -- a Mockery of Science”, National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (2009)