Yesterday (October 7, 2025), I listened to the Supreme Court arguments in Chiles vs. Salazer, a case challenging Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors. Kaley Chiles is a Christian therapist in Colorado who is challenging the state law, claiming that it infringes on her First Amendment right to free speech. Under the law, engaging in “conversion therapy” can result in a $5,000 fine and possible loss of a counseling license.
First, let’s define conversion therapy.
According to the bill:
(5.5) (a) “CONVERSION THERAPY” MEANS ANY PRACTICE OR TREATMENT BY A LICENSED PHYSICIAN SPECIALIZING IN THE PRACTICE OF PSYCHIATRY THAT ATTEMPTS OR PURPORTS TO CHANGE AN INDIVIDUAL’S SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR GENDER IDENTITY, INCLUDING EFFORTS TO CHANGE BEHAVIORS OR GENDER EXPRESSIONS OR TO ELIMINATE OR REDUCE SEXUAL OR ROMANTIC ATTRACTION OR FEELINGS TOWARD INDIVIDUALS OF THE SAME SEX.[i]
If someone has unwanted desires toward someone of the same sex, you cannot encourage them against it. If someone thinks they are a different gender than their body shows, you cannot convince them that they are wrong, or you are trying to “convert” them from who they really are. In other words, if you have male parts but think you’re a female, then you really are a female and if I tell you that you are a male, I am trying to change you.
I’m not sure why the feelings win out. Feelings are more fickle than your body. But this is a liberal idea, so it’s accepted as correct.
As I listened to the arguments, I noticed three major underlying philosophies.
Underlying philosophy
Aside from all the legal jargon about whether the case has standing and other things, there are three primary philosophies that underlie it.
- Homosexual desires are natural
The term they use is “sexual orientation,” which describes the sex to which someone is attracted. The underlying premise is that if you are attracted to someone of your sex, that is to be affirmed.
- Gender is assigned
The underlying philosophy when you listen to the arguments is that if a child comes in and that child is obviously a boy but thinks he’s a girl, that he actually is a girl.
Under the Colorado law, the counselor must affirm the child’s perceived identity—that he is a girl. It is against the law to try to help them work through their feelings and accept the fact that he really is a boy.
It may seem like I’m making this up, but it’s reality. They call it “conversion therapy” because someone like Kaley Chiles is trying to convert the child from who he really is—a girl stuck in a boy’s body.
Kaley Chiles is arguing that this violates her right to free speech. She should be able to help a child come to terms with his or her sex. However, the argument on the other side is that free speech does not allow a therapist to say whatever they want. It’s not like a doctor can give bad health advice and not be held accountable because he can say whatever he wants under the First Amendment.
- The liberal understanding of gender is scientifically proven
The third underlying philosophy is that the modern liberal idea that your gender is what you want it to be is scientifically proven. Therefore, the state has the right to fine you and remove your license if you try to counsel your clients otherwise—because you are giving them obviously hurtful advice.
In 1898, Bayer introduced a cough and pain remedy: heroin. Later they found that it was more addictive than morphine and now it is banned. It used to be accepted and now it’s banned as harmful. That is how they see conversion therapy. In our advanced scientific age, we have found that it is harmful and causes these struggling children to struggle further, often resulting in suicide.
Major problems
- It’s stupid
I’m only half trying to be demeaning here. It really is stupid. People have always understood that your body indicates your gender. And sex and gender match.
When a child is born, the doctor takes one look at “observes” the gender. Now they use the term that a doctor “assigns” gender at birth. Notice the change in wording. A child can have physical parts that we either define as male or female, but that has nothing to do with what gender the child really is. If the felt gender of a person doesn’t match their outward sex, then the assumption is that the outward sex needs to change.
- It defies creation order
God made people male and female. You only have to read Genesis to see that. God made man and then made the woman as his counterpart. The purpose was companionship and procreation. While that doesn’t mean that all marriages will produce children, it’s the general course. Two men cannot naturally procreate, and neither can two women.
The idea of an internal gender is totally made up and now it’s becoming law. While I don’t expect that the justices will rule based on God’s creation order and the Bible, I do hope they at least exhibit a bit of common sense.
[i] https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2019a_1129_signed.pdf
