Edinburgh Napier University

  In this article, I situate the practice of sexual orientation conversion efforts (SOCE), sometimes known as conversion or reparative therapy, within historical, cultural, religious and political attitudes to non-heterosexuality. Using documentary analysis, I investigate the contemporary resistance of two socially conservative organizations: National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) (US) and Core Issues Trust (UK), to legal and professional regulation of the sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) which they advocate. A number of themes emerged from the various documentation. The most convincing of these themes is a claim that to provide SOCE is to respect client’s autonomy rights to diminish unwanted sexual attraction, and to live in accordance with the moral principles that they value. I demonstrate that neither NARTH nor Core Issues Trust are consistent in their regard for client autonomy. I suggest that the most plausible reason for these organizations’ emphasis on autonomy and other secular tropes, such as scientific proof and progressive language, is that they provide a smokescreen for conservative Christian values. If we value a world of LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans) rights and recognition, we must counter this backlash against sexual and social justice.