Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

There was a Supreme Court hearing yesterday about whether conversion therapy would be permitted in Colorado. Currently, the state legally forbids practitioners from using talk therapy for gender dysphoria cases.

Over 20 states have similar bans, and the decision could have a ripple effect nationally.

It appears that the court was quite skeptical of Colorado’s arguments, which seem to violate the First Amendment right to free speech.

While the case will nominally be about free speech, we believe it will delve into the assertions and contradictions of the LGBTQ movement.

Progressives say gender is a social construct, and not biological. If so, why can’t there be different social constructs from the one they advocate? Are some “constructs” more beneficial to both individuals and society? Do the historical record and tradition supply us with helpful information?

And suppose there can be different social constructs. In that case, people should be able to discuss alternatives and share information so that both individual and public policy decisions can be informed by science, information, and debate.

Colorado takes the position that any debate is dangerous because only “gender affirming care” is the professional standard. However, that seems to be not gender-affirming care, but rather gender-denying care.

Progressives describe gender (roles, expressions, identities) as a social construct—shaped by culture, history, and power dynamics—while treating sex (chromosomes, anatomy) as more biologically fixed. This distinction comes from thinkers like Judith Butler, who argue that gender isn’t innate but performed through societal norms. The idea is that rigid binaries (e.g., “boys wear blue, girls pink”) oppress people, so we should dismantle them for fluidity.

This is essentially what you will be taught at the university, and the result is a surprising number of younger people who no longer see themselves in traditional male and female roles. In 2023, a poll showed that 65% of the population believed there are two gender identities, and 34% believed there are many.

Those who believed sex was “fluid” tended to be concentrated in the young and in females.

But here’s where the tension creeps in: If gender is so constructed and changeable, why oppose therapies that help someone deconstruct a non-traditional identity back toward the binary? 

Progressives reject biological essentialism (e.g., “you’re a man because of your body”) but then essentialize gender identity as an unchangeable inner truth that miraculously overrides biology. This “inner truth” is entirely subjective and can’t be verified except through words and feelings.  This is not a “scientific diagnosis, but a self diagnosis, from often an unstable person. The medical professional must “affirm” the self diagnosis of the afflicted, something that is rarely done with any other medical condition. And if you don’t “affirm” the self diagnosis, it can create “harm”, but no “harm” is assigned if the self diagnosis is faulty.

Critics suggest that this converts the medical profession from seeking scientific answers to merely following the patient’s self-diagnosis. Is that a standard of care?

They rely on stereotypes (e.g., “if you like dolls, you’re a girl”) to validate transitions, which undercuts the anti-stereotype ethos. In the conversion therapy context, bans focus on minors because the state sees these practices as coercing kids away from their “authentic” identity—treating identity as fixed, not fluid.  So in a sense, your identity is fixed, but your sex organs are fluid?

However, if identity is fixed, it can’t be changed by talking, and there is no “change” in outcome as a result of talking.  If it is not fixed, then it can be altered by conversation.  What is wrong with having a conversation?

If everything’s “constructed”, why not let people freely remix it, including toward traditional norms? 

The contradictions of the Progressive view of gender and sex don’t stop there. For example, the concept that individuals are “born this way”, a slogan popularized by Lady Gaga and activists, aims to normalize homosexuality by framing it as immutable—like eye color—not a choice or lifestyle. But massive genome-wide studies (e.g., a 2019 analysis of nearly 500,000 people) found no single “gay gene”—genetics explain only 8-25% of same-sex behavior variance, with environment (prenatal hormones, upbringing) playing a huge role. No credible evidence supports the existence of a deterministic biological switch.

However, if it’s biological primarily and fixed at birth, as they argue, why invoke social constructs at all? Progressives often pivot: “Born this way” isn’t a literal genetic term; it’s about orientation emerging early and resisting change, countering claims that it’s “curable” through therapy. But critics argue this cherry-picks science—early emergence doesn’t prove biology over nurture, and it dodges how culture shapes what we call “gay” (e.g., ancient societies had fluid homoerotic norms without modern labels). If no gay gene exists, it bolsters the view that sexuality is partly constructed, making conversion therapy a debatable tool for those distressed by it, not pseudoscience.

In short, Progressives are arguing out of both sides of their mouth at the same time. 

Moreover, if sexuality is innate, why the “recruitment” vibe from Pride events or queer representation in films? There is more than just hypocrisy here. Why celebrate and amplify if it’s not contagious?

That is why there are no “straight” parades. Most people accept what they are and would hardly think it is worth advertising.

Pride parades supposedly originated as protests against discrimination (following the Stonewall riots in 1969), evolving into visibility campaigns for acceptance. They say it is not converting straights but fostering acceptance.  But if that is true, why the emphasis on getting their story to young children who have not yet formed solid views of sexuality?  When does public relations for acceptance morph into grooming? Why are Disney and Netflix putting it in cartoons for children?  And why are the numbers of people identifying as non-binary growing so fast if it is not really a recruiting campaign dressed up as a cry for acceptance?

And, if you are trying to gain acceptance, why make the parades outlandish displays of nakedness and fetishes?  Why does getting naked in front of others advance the idea that homosexuality is just as normal and valid as heterosexuality?

Rather than promoting acceptance, parents legitimately feel that a perverse movement is recruiting their children, and that is causing blowback against the LGBTQ community.  And the more political violence we see from the TQ portion of the spectrum, the more public anger is building against the LGB portion of the community.

The more transgender individuals attempt to force themselves into our daughters’ locker rooms, the more the public gets fed up with all the sectors of the LGBTQ coalition.  It is a dangerous and creepy behavior.

We suggest that, for the sake of the LGB, they should divorce themselves from the TQ. There are contradictions galore within the coalition.  A lesbian woman, for example, knows she is a woman who is attracted to other women.  She does not feel “fluid”, and she knows she is a woman and likes being one.  She is not interested in transitioning. The same can be said for gay men.  They know they are men. They are not one sex on one day and another sex the following day.

What we think this case is really about is that one side has been free to proselytize society, and the other side is forbidden from objecting. In contrast, attempts by the other side to enter the discussion are called hate speech or get stifled by laws that are unconstitutional and completely unscientific.

Even if you accept the nonsense that people “choose” their gender, then should they not be able to make an informed choice and hear at least both sides of the issue?  And at what age should this discussion be had?  It surely can’t be among kindergartners at the local library.  But in fact, this is precisely where they want to proselytize our kids.

*****

Image Credit: Shutterstock