Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What peer-reviewed evidence do opponents of conversion therapy cite, and how credible are those studies?
Executive summary
Opponents of conversion therapy most often cite peer‑reviewed studies that report links between sexual‑orientation/gender‑identity change efforts (SOGIECE) and worse mental‑health outcomes — for example, large surveys finding higher rates of suicidal ideation or attempts among people who experienced conversion practices and qualitative work documenting long‑term harm [1] [2]. Reviews from respected institutions conclude the evidence does not show credible effectiveness and shows associations with harm, while a small number of papers cited by advocates of conversion‑style approaches have been sharply critiqued by other scholars [3] [4] [5].
1. What studies opponents point to: large surveys and systematic reviews
Critics and public‑health advocates frequently point to population‑level studies and systematic reviews. The Williams Institute and related work found LGB people who underwent conversion efforts were nearly twice as likely to report suicidal ideation or attempts [6]. Recent large surveys and peer‑reviewed reports — including Trevor Project and Stanford Medicine analyses referenced in media coverage — are cited for showing higher rates of depression, PTSD and suicidality among those exposed to conversion practices [1] [7]. State and public‑health reviews compiling that literature conclude that most peer‑reviewed primary studies find conversion interventions ineffective or harmful [5] [8].
2. What kinds of methods underlie those findings — strengths and limits
The body of evidence opponents cite is dominated by observational survey research, retrospective self‑reports, and qualitative studies. Systematic reviews note the field’s limits: most studies rely on self‑report, lack randomized controls, and often cannot disentangle whether harms stem from the therapy itself or from preexisting adverse experiences [5] [8]. That caveat does not erase consistent associations — reviews emphasize a pattern of links to depression, anxiety and suicidality even while flagging methodological constraints [3] [8].
3. Credibility: why public‑health bodies treat this literature as persuasive
Major medical and mental‑health organizations have synthesized these peer‑reviewed studies and concluded conversion therapy lacks credible evidence of benefit and is associated with harm; that consensus underpins bans and clinical guidance [9] [10]. Government and state reviews similarly rely on aggregated peer‑reviewed results to recommend protections for minors, signaling institutional confidence in the pattern of harms reported in the literature [8] [3].
4. The minority literature that opponents of bans invoke — and critiques of it
A small subset of papers has been cited by those defending permissive practice or questioning bans. Reporting around the Supreme Court litigation shows that one author’s work (Sullins) was the lone recent paper found to report positive effects and was singled out by other researchers and the Williams Institute as an outlier and criticized as invalid or misrepresented in legal briefing [4] [11]. Coverage of the Court’s oral argument notes that plaintiffs’ lawyers argued the science is debated and that “no studies” indicate harm — a position that other peer‑reviewed syntheses and professional statements directly contradict [11] [10].
5. Alternative interpretations opponents raise and how peers respond
Some clinicians argue for a distinction between exploratory, noncoercive therapy and coercive conversion practices and contend the research has not tested ethical, exploratory psychotherapeutic approaches for gender‑dysphoric youth [12]. Reviewers and major associations respond that renaming harmful practices as “exploratory” is a rebranding of conversion efforts and that the evidence base for safe, effective approaches that try to change identity is lacking; they stress protections because minors are vulnerable [9] [13].
6. Bottom line for readers: what the peer‑reviewed record supports and what remains unsettled
Peer‑reviewed studies and institutional reviews consistently report no credible evidence conversion therapy reliably changes sexual orientation or gender identity and instead show an association with harms such as depression and suicidality; that pattern underlies clinical and policy opposition [5] [3]. Limitations exist — much of the literature is observational and self‑reported — and debate persists only around interpretation of a few outlier studies and how to define permissible therapeutic exploration [4] [12]. Available sources do not mention randomized clinical trials demonstrating safe, effective conversion outcomes; reviews emphasize absence of credible evidence of benefit [5] [8].