Towards the Global End to Conversion Practices

In his Pride Month Executive Order, President Biden declared that the U.S. government “must safeguard LGBTQI+ youth from dangerous practices like so-called ‘conversion therapy’,” both at home and overseas. To that end, the White House instructed U.S. foreign affairs agencies to “develop an action plan to promote an end to its use around the world,” through the use of foreign assistance programs, participation in multilateral development banks and international development institutions, and through other work by U.S. embassies and missions worldwide.

The Council for Global Equality has now submitted our recommendations on how to implement the provisions of President Biden’s Executive Order regarding conversion practices around the world. This policy brief — submitted to our U.S. government partners — draws on extensive research in conversion practices, as well as on consultations with CGE’s 32 member organizations, many of which possess substantial expertise on the issue.

We enthusiastically encourage you to read and share the full policy brief. The paper outlines the issue and surveys the broad range of legal and administrative approaches to combatting conversion practices, in the United States and in other members of the Equal Rights Coalition and like-minded democracies. Such approaches include criminalization, consumer fraud regulations, restrictions targeting medical professionals, and prohibitions on advertising and on government subsidies for conversion practices. Some national and state/federal laws single out minors for protection; others cover all individuals, regardless of age.

Our recommendations fall into ten buckets of engagement: bilateral relationships; multilateral relationships and institutions; the Treasury Department and international financial institutions; LGBTQI+ communities and other civil society partners; professional associations; funding opportunities; research and reporting; leadership development; sanctions; and immigration and consular responses.

Across these buckets, we emphasize that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to ending conversion practices globally, and all approaches need to be developed in consultation with local advocates and organizations on the ground in a given country. Such collaborations are absolutely essential for creating effective strategies, programs, and language.

To that end, we endorse the language adopted by USAID to guide its work promoting LGBTQI+ inclusive development, to “do no harm” and to “do nothing about them without them.” At the same time, we must emphasize that these cannot be interpreted to mean “do nothing.”

We further note that conversion practices violate the U.S. commitment to non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and sex characteristics in its foreign assistance.

We observe that bans are the most visible type of policy to combat conversion practices. However, in many countries, the rule of law is fragile, and laws on the books may not be enforced and/or are selectively enforced against marginalized populations. Additionally, we encourage consideration of how criminalization-based approaches can risk driving conversion practices underground.

In some cases and some contexts, especially but not limited to when conversion practices rise to the level of torture, criminalization may be the appropriate first response. In other situations, appropriate strategies may include civil remedies and regulatory prohibitions. In all contexts, however, the United States should promote the prevention of conversion practices, taking the lead from local LGBTQI+ communities on the best path forward in their local context.

We support bans where they make sense given local conditions, and we encourage U.S. representatives and their international counterparts to start from the principle that legal and cultural interventions go hand-in-hand. When pursuing legislative tools, we suggest that proponents approach such work from the perspective that legal campaigns can drive national conversations for culture change, thus decreasing the stigma and prejudice that give rise to conversion practices.

We also want to make particular note that nonconsensual surgeries and hormonal therapies aimed at erasing a minor’s intersex traits should be considered to fall under the umbrella term of conversion practices, as they are conducted in order to confirm children into binary, heteronormative notions of sex and gender.

Furthermore, this discussion must be understood as a manifestation of the rapid surge globally in anti-LGBTQI+ and especially anti-transgender activism, which links to a much broader and increasingly political anti-gender movement that seeks in many cases to deny LGBTQI+ identities and undermine democratic systems themselves.

Finally, it must be noted that some practitioners of conversion practices defend these practices as a matter of religious freedom, which is both a fundamental human right and a right that is further anchored by the rights to freedom of speech and freedom of association. The Council for Global Equality acknowledges and respects the vitality, hope, and meaning that religious practice brings to the lives of many, including many LGBTQI+ persons of faith. But as a matter of religious practice, a line must be drawn between freedom of speech and belief, which fully permits the articulation of any theological idea about human sexuality, and quasi-medical or psychological interventions that extend beyond theological speech and can be deeply harmful. It is one thing to posit and defend religious perspectives on permissible human conduct and sexuality. But it is another thing altogether to direct “spiritual or religious treatment” with the intent of converting LGBTQI+ expressions or identities, especially toward minors who are particularly vulnerable and may lack the opportunity or capacity to consent.

Conversations with religious proponents of conversion practices could benefit from a stronger recognition that many faith traditions affirm LGBTQI+ identities and reject conversion practices as an affront to the individuality and unique divinity of each human being. But ultimately, the absolute right to religious belief does not accommodate a corresponding right to religious practice that causes deep physical or psychological harm.