On October 7, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Chiles v. Salazar, the case challenging Colorado’s ban on counseling for gender dysphoria that does not seek to affirm gender transition as the best path forward for the patient. Much of the legal debate concerns whether psychotherapy is medical treatment (conduct that can be state-regulated) or merely speech (which has First Amendment protection). While some liken non-affirming counseling to gay “conversion therapy,” which has been proven to be ineffective and harmful, others sharply differentiate the two, pointing out that many gender dysphoric adolescents do not in fact go on to transition socially or medically, but become reconciled with their natal gender and come out as lesbian or gay instead; state over-regulation of what therapists can say could hinder full exploration of the depth, persistence, and origins of gender issues and the best path forward for each individual. However, some worry that a ruling in favor of the Christian therapist who is the plaintiff in this case could pave the way for a return of gay conversion therapy as well.
Read the oral arguments and the questions posed by the justices and judge for yourself.
For a summary of the case, watch this video clip from PBS:
