Reflecting on Choice, Care, and the Colorado Ruling
I’ve been reflecting deeply on the recent Supreme Court decision regarding Colorado’s conversion therapy ban, and I find myself returning to a fundamental question: What does it actually mean to be a "professional" in the room with another human being?
As a counselor and an educator, I feel a responsibility to name what is happening here, not just as a legal shift, but as a fundamental challenge to the ethics of our profession. I value nuance. I believe in engaging with opposing arguments in a real effort to understand perspective. I can see how, by stretching the language of the law, one might frame these bans as a limitation on a therapist’s speech. But that interpretation fundamentally misrepresents what these protections were designed to do. The intent was never to "push" a particular gender outcome; it was to protect clients, especially minors, from coercive "change efforts" that attempt to override their lived experience and sense of self.
Ethical counseling is about creating a sanctuary for exploration. When a young person expresses uncertainty or distress, our role is to provide a space for affirmation and self-discovery, not to impose a predetermined direction based on our own personal or religious beliefs. To frame "change efforts" as mere "viewpoints" ignores the decades of peer-reviewed research showing that these practices do not work and, more importantly, lead to significantly higher rates of depression, anxiety, and suicidality.
The Distinction Between Personal Belief and Clinical Framework
There is a common misconception (one often weaponized by those celebrating this ruling) that the "ideal" therapist is a blank slate who checks their values at the door. But the higher levels of clinical practice are much more complex than that. When we accept a license, we do surrender a portion of our "personal speech," but we do so to step into a professional framework built on something sturdier than personal opinion: evidence, humanity, and science.
What I find most troubling is the argument that therapists should have unrestricted freedom to bring their personal views into the counseling chair, even when those views contradict a massive body of clinical evidence. We agree to be bound by a code of ethics that prioritizes client autonomy over provider ego. I often wonder: why is it so hard to make humanity a legal standard? Why are we seeing a surge of laws that justify restriction and control under the banner of "protecting children," while simultaneously dismantling the very protections that keep LGBTQ+ children safe from documented harm?
Those who frame gender-affirming care as "pushing an ideology" are missing a critical distinction. Theories like Feminist Therapy, Liberation Psychology, and Humanistic practice are not "liberal hobbies." They are research-supported frameworks that recognize a simple truth: Human beings do not exist in a vacuum. Individual wellness is inextricably tied to the health of the community and the environment. When we challenge dominant narratives like racism or cis-heteronormativity, we aren't "indoctrinating" clients; we are using proven clinical tools to help them navigate a world that often denies their lived experience.
The "Neighborhood" vs. Hyper-Individualism
Growing up in Pittsburgh, I can't help but think of Fred Rogers (or for those younger than me, Daniel Tiger). He had a way of addressing profound truths with a quiet, persistent humanity. He understood that being a "neighbor" means caring for the person next to you, regardless of whether their life looks like yours.
In the United States, maybe we have become so entrenched in hyper-individualism that we’ve lost the collectivist aspect of community care. We’ve replaced "loving your neighbor" with "protecting my privilege." When a therapist insists on their "right" to use the counseling room to "change" a client’s identity, they are placing their own ego above the collective safety of the vulnerable. We must be especially vigilant against those who use the language of "liberation" to promote personal agendas that have been proven dangerous. This isn't advocacy; it is weaponized privilege, and that is exactly what we saw centered in the Colorado case.
The Tragedy of Talking Past Each Other
To engage in good faith, we have to name the "other side’s" perspective. In many of our most polarized debates, from reproductive rights to gender-affirming care, we aren't even talking about the same things.
In the abortion debate, one side centers bodily autonomy, while the other centers the protection of what they define as innocent life. Both believe they are "pro-life" in their own definitions, but are speaking different languages. Think about your own perspective: Are you saying one life matters more than another? Or are you advocating that one life matters, simply? This is an important distinction; if we don’t understand it, we cannot even begin a conversation.
The same "two-side" disconnect is happening with gender. There are those who refuse to acknowledge the scientific and psychological distinction between biological sex and gender identity (a construct shaped by culture, society, and lived experience). When people mockingly ask, "Define a woman," they think they are winning an argument. In reality, they are rejecting the very medical and psychological nuances that allow us to understand human complexity. If your belief system rejects the science of social constructs and the reality of experiences that exist outside of physiological makeup, then we aren't having a conversation. We are shouting at shadows.
The “High Horse” of Ignorance
It is exhausting to watch people stand on a "high horse" of certainty, acting as though they’ve solved a puzzle they haven't even finished reading. It is infuriating because their "certainty" has real-world consequences for the clients I see every day.
Ethical practice requires us to listen to the lived experiences of others, especially those whose lives differ from our own. As a counselor educator, my goal isn't to create "blank slates." It is to train clinicians who understand that their liberation is tied up in the liberation of their clients. Advocacy isn't a political choice; it is a professional mandate.
I am open to the dialogue, to complexity, and to the developmental change this moment demands of all of us. But I will not remain silent while "personal freedom" is used as a shield for practices that cost lives. We owe it to our neighbors to do better.
Want to Read More?
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. (2018). Conversion therapy. https://www.aacap.org/aacap/Policy_Statements/2018/Conversion_Therapy.aspx
American Psychological Association. (2026). The evidence against “conversion therapy”: Insights from psychological research. https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/evidence-against-conversion-therapy
Lee, J. Y., & Rosenthal, S. M. (2023). Gender-affirming care of transgender and gender diverse youth: Current concepts. Annual Review of Medicine, 74, 107–116. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11045042/