An end to the conversion therapy flat earth society

December 19, 2015 9:28 AM

The largest Jewish gay conversion therapy organization, JONAH, was effectively shut down by the SPLC this week. Southern Poverty Law Center attorneys helped establish legal precedent that can be used to successfully sue any conversion therapy practice or organization in the US: as the judge ruled in the case, “the theory that homosexuality is a disorder is not novel but—like the notion that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it—instead is outdated and refuted.” Thus, organizations that offer therapy for something that is not a disorder are visiting fraud upon the public.
posted by batbat (29 comments total)

oooooh, that's really clever and wonderful!
posted by rebent at 9:48 AM on December 19, 2015 [3 favorites]

This seems like it would have rather wide application. Dianetics? Homeopathy?
posted by straight at 9:53 AM on December 19, 2015 [18 favorites]

Every description of gay conversion therapy reads to me like it's run by a severe closet case who is looking to work out his jollies in the name of "helping". This one is no exception.
posted by hippybear at 9:55 AM on December 19, 2015 [3 favorites]

“Why is it that in our homoerotic culture we’ve...made it so any male touch is now sexual? It was really horrible to have something to me that is powerful and sacred and brotherly and nonsexual and beautiful be mocked and sexualized and eroticized. It was just criminal what they were trying to do,”

What? Homoerotic culture? That's a new one to me.

Incidentally, what he's talking about in that quote is frolicking around naked in a field with another guy. Nothing wrong with that at all, but yeah, that's pretty homoerotic by any measure of the word, if you ask me.
posted by el io at 9:59 AM on December 19, 2015

I really like the work that SPLC does.
posted by jessamyn at 10:10 AM on December 19, 2015 [32 favorites]

I always thought it was homophobia-- the fear of being mistaken for gay, and the belief that being gay is bad-- that led to platonic, affectionate touch between men becoming taboo. Obviously one of us is extremely wrong, and I'm damn certain it's not me.
posted by Faint of Butt at 10:11 AM on December 19, 2015 [22 favorites]

Thanks for the post! The SPLC is amazing.

The case sets a legal precedent: virtually any conversion therapy organization can now be sued on the same grounds. And there’s plenty to go after. There is no complete tally of conversion therapy outfits, but several institutions continue operation, like Joseph Nicolosi’s Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic in Encino, California, and Desert Stream, a Christian ex-gay ministry with chapters across the country. And many counselors practice conversion therapy independently of any ministry or clinic. They still have some political clout, too: in 2014, the Texas Republican Party adopted support for “reparative therapy” as an official party plank .

Oh Texas Republican Party, what outrages don't you support?
posted by Bella Donna at 10:14 AM on December 19, 2015 [5 favorites]

The simulated birth is the beginning of a psychodrama-packed weekend spent almost entirely naked. First, attendees of the retreat strip down, and tie on blindfolds. Naked and blind, they are led to mattresses laid out on the floor. Staffers swaddle the men in blankets, tight, to “simulate the womb.” The men then wriggle out of their plush blankets—meant to approximate a birth canal—and staffers “come and kind of nurture these new babies…you know, kind of wipe water on their face, and kind of clean them up, and it feels very real,” Hoffman said. Next, the men play out boyhood, with a “crazy, fun father who like bursts into the nursery and says ‘Come on, boys, let's have some fun together!’” (Downing sometimes played the role of “father.”) By this stage, both participants and staff members are nude. The men are lead out of the “nursery” and into a field, where a “wild party” begins. There’s a waterslide, fireworks and “brotherly dancing” around a campfire. The naked men fling mud and throw cake—laid out for just that purpose—at each other. They’re all “just expressing their little boyish energy” for about an hour, explained Hoffman, who now lives with his wife and child in Jerusalem, where he works as a conversion therapy life coach.

I... I had no idea that But I'm a Cheerleader was unrealistic because its reform camp wasn't weirdly homoerotic enough.
posted by sciatrix at 10:25 AM on December 19, 2015 [59 favorites]

And this is why the SPLC is on the very, very short list of national 501c3 orgs that I feel actually deserve my money.
posted by tobascodagama at 10:29 AM on December 19, 2015 [4 favorites]

Looked up the official docs:

Ferguson v. JONAH, L-5473-12, Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson County, Law Division
Trial documents
Transcripts
Jury instructions

… and from SPLC, which has more docs.
posted by saizai at 10:31 AM on December 19, 2015 [4 favorites]

All of these same "therapies" like "psychodrama" that includes "re-birthing" and re-enacting child abuse and basically attempting to break people down via large group activities as described here are still, unfortunately, used in "troubled teen" programs like "therapeutic" or "emotional growth" boarding schools and behavior modification programs. Supposedly, these same absurd and often abusive tactics also "treat" addiction, depression, defiance and anything else that's "wrong" with the kid— and many of these places do try to do it as gay conversion as well. It's all a weird holdover from 70s staples like Synanon, est and Lifespring.

I hope that some of those places can be taken down for fraud as well, but it's much harder with the teens because their accounts are not believed— and given how absurd what actually goes on is, it's not hard to see why. Also, if the kid is doing well, obviously the treatment worked— if not, they are a lying drug addict, etc.

I wrote about a program that seemed to use a lot of this crazy crap for TIME here. Follow ups are here and here.
posted by Maias at 10:46 AM on December 19, 2015 [34 favorites]

Not supposed to try to fix what ain't broken.

Good Job.

This clown's "therapy" procedures is bizarre. Some of it sounds like new-ager fun, until you remember that the naked frolicking is supposed to cure you of something. Other bits are truly scary--beating a pillow, screaming "mother" until your hands bleed.

Even granting good intentions, this kind of psycho babble do-goody stuff is damaging; I'm encouraged by the public attention other similar "seminars" are getting, and I hope they are shut down sooner than later. Every step helps.


One item in particular caught my mind ... "in 2014, the Texas Republican Party adopted support for “reparative therapy” as an official party plank ."

I didn't hear that topic come up at the debates.
posted by mule98J at 10:55 AM on December 19, 2015

Obligatory Mr. Show.
posted by symbioid at 11:05 AM on December 19, 2015 [1 favorite]

Non-paywalled links:

• Guardian
• SPLC

posted by rhizome at 11:51 AM on December 19, 2015 [2 favorites]

Given that a lot of these frauds are faith-based, I can see this ruling being used as another punching-bag in the "War Against Christianity" bs.
posted by Thorzdad at 12:23 PM on December 19, 2015 [1 favorite]

War Against Judaism, in this particular case. Or are we even allowed to make that joke? Too soon?
posted by hippybear at 12:30 PM on December 19, 2015 [1 favorite]

Trying to hang the Oppression of Jews on a desire to convert gays, even partially, would seem to risk a bit of "crying wolf."
posted by rhizome at 12:36 PM on December 19, 2015 [1 favorite]

Supposedly, these same absurd and often abusive tactics also "treat" addiction, depression, defiance and anything else that's "wrong" with the kid— and many of these places do try to do it as gay conversion as well. It's all a weird holdover from 70s staples like Synanon, est and Lifespring.

That's what I don't get. This seems really promising, but I'm struggling to understand the legal strategy. Gay conversion therapy is the most harmful of fake therapies I know of--but it's far from the only fake therapy. Does this precedent mean that consumer protection laws can be used against other pseudoscientific therapies? (I want to live in that world!)

Given that a lot of these frauds are faith-based, I can see this ruling being used as another punching-bag in the "War Against Christianity" bs.

Though the trial is over, the issue doesn't seem settled. Google suggests that some groups are going to try to attack this using a variation of the Hobby Lobby decision. If you think about the places where faith trumps evidence in public health, it seems like the court battles may not be over. In fact, because the precedent is so sweeping, it may create an alliance of irrational therapies. (Can we sue abstinence-only sex education providers? 12-steps addiction treatment? Exorcists? Fortune-tellers? Energy healers?) More importantly, will the Supreme Court now discover that there's some sort of first amendment right to engage in faith-based healing of faith-based maladies?

The old strategy of using outright bans and infliction of emotional distress torts was more difficult and piecemeal, but it had the advantage of making intuitive sense. I don't hate gay conversion therapy because it's somehow deceiving customers, I hate it because it's actively harming innocent LGBT folks. So it's always a little odd to realize that some orthogonal strategy where you pretend you have a different concern is actually the best one. But then too, sometimes that's what works--like going after Al Capone for tax evasion.
posted by anotherpanacea at 1:03 PM on December 19, 2015 [3 favorites]

I can also see someone trying to turn this around and challenge the efficacy of gender-reasignment treatments.
posted by straight at 2:04 PM on December 19, 2015

Does this precedent mean that consumer protection laws can be used against other pseudoscientific therapies? (I want to live in that world!)

I get the impression that what made/helped the court decide this was fraud wasn't the fact that this therapy was useless/ineffective/fraudulent, but the fact that what they aimed to cure wasn't actually an ailment.

ie: You can't cure the gay away, because the gay isn't actually a bad thing.
posted by el io at 2:24 PM on December 19, 2015 [1 favorite]

I welcome this ruling, but call me again in a couple of years when it's sure that a grinning Scalia won't declare "In a 5-4 decision..."
posted by delfin at 2:50 PM on December 19, 2015 [2 favorites]

OK

OK!

I'M GOING TO SUCK THE GAY RIIIIIIIIIIGHT OUT OF YOU NOW

VIA: YOUR COCK
posted by Sebmojo at 4:05 PM on December 19, 2015 [5 favorites]

This is a good opportunity to paste my fave joke right now:

[Jesus at Last Supper]
*breaks bread* This is my body 
*pours wine* This is my blood 
*opens jar of mayo* 
Judas: I'm gonna stop u right there

posted by rhizome at 4:14 PM on December 19, 2015 [13 favorites]

From a Mefite involved in the case who wishes to preserve anonymity:

A few things worth knowing about this case.

Fun fact: the defense offered up a few "success story" witnesses, including Jeff Bennion - watch the video. That is a good example of what the whole case was like - you had to laugh to keep from crying. The donuts thing is appallingly funny, but look at his wife's face.

Sad fact: how much conversion therapy is happening. When my firm took this case and I first started learning about the issue, I figured maybe this was something that affects a few hundred people in the US. I had this idea that it's such a backward and obviously ridiculous practice that it can't be that common. I have since learned how badly wrong I was. There are thousands and thousands of people going through these programs each year, many of them extremely vulnerable (because of their age, because of their very valid fear of being kicked out of their homes or communities if outed, because of their very real distress over feelings that are incompatible with their deeply-held religious beliefs, because of past abuse, because of isolation, and for many other reasons). As Dr. Janja Lalich testified, the way many of these programs work, including People Can Change (which is responsible for some of the saddest and some of the most hilarious facts) is that they manipulate people essentially in the same way that cults do.

Someone in the thread observed that this case really hinged on the fact that the defendants were telling people that homosexuality is a mental disorder. That is exactly right. We had them saying this very directly in emails, and the judge had already ruled on summary judgment that if they made that statement, they were in violation of New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act. That statute was really important to the legal strategy. It does not require proof of intent, or proof of reasonable reliance. So when we were able to prove that they made false statements and caused the plaintiffs to pay money, we had them.

The best part of the verdict for me was the unanimous finding that the defendants engaged in unconscionable business practices. And the best part of the final judgment is that JONAH shuts down. No more emails to Dr. Rabbi Arthur Goldberg, disbarred defrauder of Guam and Russian Jews, that say the writer is contemplating suicide but willing to give JONAH a chance.

I might have more to say later. Have to run now. Really really proud to see my case on metafilter.

posted by restless_nomad at 4:36 PM on December 19, 2015 [49 favorites]

Gay conversion therapy is the most harmful of fake therapies I know of--but it's far from the only fake therapy. Does this precedent mean that consumer protection laws can be used against other pseudoscientific therapies? (I want to live in that world!)


If you can't win on fraud, you could potentially win on malpractice: if someone is claiming to treat an actual condition— say addiction or depression— and they fail to provide the standard of care, you can sue for malpractice.

But it's very hard to get lawyers to take these cases unless the abuse is extremely egregious and/or the patient is dead, for several reasons. One, which I noted above, is that if the kid is doing well, then the treatment obviously worked— but if they are doing poorly, they are scummy drug addicts and who wants to give them money because they deserve to be abused?

The second is that since abusive treatment is so common in the addictions field, it's hard to prove that it is substandard. The data shows that it's crap— but major addiction programs like Phoenix House, Daytop, Delancey Street, Samaritan Village, basically anything that originally lasted a year or more residential— were all directly or indirectly based on Synanon. You can still get "experts" to say that harsh, humiliating nonsense is appropriate. The same is true for a lot of unproven therapies— the field hasn't policed itself to get rid of woo so it's hard to prove someone is violating the standard of care.

However, with the increasing move towards evidence based practice, standards of care are getting higher. These cases are probably more winnable now— but I know of only one attorney who has consistently won when the kid lived through the treatment. Most don't want to risk taking them because even if they do win, the settlements aren't likely to be large enough to be worth it, which is yet another problem. Legislation might fix that by allowing people what's called a "private right of action" where the loser has to pay the lawyer's fees even if the settlement isn't big, but right now, awful psychiatric, psychological and addiction care operates mainly with impunity.
posted by Maias at 8:52 AM on December 20, 2015 [3 favorites]

So the law is literally in flux and in tension with non-legal institutions that are trying to set their own standards? That's really depressing, but helpful for understanding the state of things. The great thing about the consumer fraud provisions is that it ruled out the "experts" from the other side. And really that's the problem: the development of evidence-free "expertise."
posted by anotherpanacea at 8:58 AM on December 20, 2015

If you can't win on fraud, you could potentially win on malpractice: if someone is claiming to treat an actual condition— say addiction or depression— and they fail to provide the standard of care, you can sue for malpractice.

Except a lot of people providing that sort of care aren't licensed doctors or therapists, and I'm not sure they're held to the same standard of care as licensed doctors or therapists.
posted by jaguar at 10:00 AM on December 20, 2015

rhizome: "This is a good opportunity to paste my fave joke right now:

[Jesus at Last Supper]
*breaks bread* This is my body 
*pours wine* This is my blood 
*opens jar of mayo* 
Judas: I'm gonna stop u right there

"

$1
posted by chavenet at 11:12 AM on December 20, 2015 [1 favorite]

Except a lot of people providing that sort of care aren't licensed doctors or therapists, and I'm not sure they're held to the same standard of care as licensed doctors or therapists.

If you are selling your service to treat a particular disorder that has a standard of care and you fail to meet that standard because you are not qualified, you are fraudulent. If you are selling a service to treatment a particular disorder and are qualified and fail to meet the standard of care, it is malpractice.

It's absolutely the case that lots of states allow people with zero qualifications to work as therapists— but it's also true that therapists can be sued successfully if they, for example, try to treat depression with talk therapy without success and fail to refer for medication consultation.

Or if they do something looney like "rebirthing" and kill someone by suffocation. (This has happened, to children— it's truly awful). Or if they claim to treat a virgin who never even dated for sex addiction by locking her up and abusing her for 13 years (this, too, really happened: it's in my book Help at Any Cost). The guy who ran that program had a mail order PhD and the "counselors" were other teenagers, who also supposedly had addictions (some did, some didn't).

It would be great if we could get someone to sue one of these abstinence programs for wrongful death for failing to meet the standard of care by not offering medication, when the person overdoses the day they get out of treatment. It should be winnable because everyone from the Institute of Medicine and the World Health Organization and the National Institute on Drug Abuse to the "drug czar's" office now state that maintenance with methadone or Suboxone is the best treatment (only thing that cuts death rate by 70% or more)— but I don't think anyone has tried.

Dr. Drew would be vulnerable if the statute of limitations hasn't been exceeded— Celebrity Rehab had a 13% mortality rate, overwhelmingly among opioid addicts who were told that they had to stop maintenance and it doesn't count as recovery.
posted by Maias at 12:28 PM on December 20, 2015 [10 favorites]