Similarly, I saw liberals posting yesterday how overturning these bans will bring back shock and aversion therapies. That is *not* true. What's at stake is *exclusively* talk therapy. These liberals are engaging in fearmongering and making us look ignorant. It doesn't help.

They say that the harms may be due primarily due to things like aversion or shock therapies, and that if we separated out *just* talk therapy, we'd see different results.

We need to recognize that they are right in that characterization of the research. It's just true.

Those who oppose CT also need to get smarter in how we discuss the research. To my knowledge, Nicolosi and ADF are right, that research against CT tends to lump together things like shock therapy with talk therapy. They argue that the research has limited value...

But because the services are exclusively talking, this paradoxically bolsters the argument that it's professional conduct. To argue otherwise, would be to say that she never engages in professional conduct."

Because what her services are are exclusively talking, that's a stronger indication that this is professional conduct and not First Amendment 'speech.' There would be a stronger argument that her talking is speech, if there were other forms of conduct involved...

There were also so may arguments that could have been made. I wish they would have made an argument along the lines of, "What the therapist does is exclusively talking. There is no non-talking 'conduct.' And that gives us an interesting paradox...

I do think the CO solicitor general misstated some things. I say this as someone who supports MCTL. But this is the hard look we need to take at ourselves. Are we so insular that we're just convinced of the rightness of our positions that we become blind to their weaknesses?