Worlds Behind Words 1: Conversion Therapy, X Passports & Sports Bans

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/20

William Dempsey, LICSW, is a Boston-based clinical social worker and LGBTQ+ mental-health advocate. He founded Heads Held High Counselling, a virtual, gender-affirming group practice serving Massachusetts and Illinois, where he and his team support clients navigating anxiety, depression, trauma, ADHD, and gender dysphoria. Clinically, Dempsey integrates EMDR, CBT, IFS, and expressive modalities, with a focus on accessible, equity-minded care. Beyond the clinic, he serves on the board of Drag Story Hour, helping expand inclusive literacy programming and resisting censorship pressures. His public scholarship and media appearances foreground compassionate, evidence-based practice and the lived realities of queer communities across North America.

Worlds Behind Words with Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Dempsey opens with three flashpoints: Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors, now before the Supreme Court; Canada’s updated advisory warning “X”-passport holders about possible U.S. entry issues; and the Court’s pending review of Idaho and West Virginia transgender sports bans. Dempsey, a clinician, explains why conversion therapy is harmful and primarily practiced outside licensed care, and outlines mental-health impacts on queer communities amid policy whiplash. The conversation closes with Wyoming’s $700,000 settlement with former library director Terri Lesley and a defence of inclusive literature as developmental ballast against polarization. He urges stronger civics education and safer, evidence-based services. 

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with the inaugural session of Worlds Behind Words. Let’s go back in terms of timeline from the most recent. The U.S. Supreme Court has been skeptical of Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors. The case is framed around free speech grounds. The conservative justices appeared sympathetic toward the Christian licensed counsellor, Kaley Chiles.

Chiles challenged the law under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment protections against government abridgment of free speech. The Court currently has a 6–3 conservative majority, so in terms of sympathy and composition, it likely leans in favour of Chiles. I don’t know if this has been concluded yet—this is as of October 7th, from Reuters.

Colorado’s law prohibits licensed mental health care providers from attempting to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity toward a predetermined outcome. Each violation can be punished by up to $5,000. That’s not large, but not insignificant either. The law also applies to attempts to reduce or eliminate same-sex attraction or to change, quote, “behaviours or gender expressions,” unquote.

This is where conversion therapy comes in. The American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association have both reiterated the broad consensus among experts that conversion therapy is pseudoscientific and baseless. It was practiced historically, but neither organization endorses it. In fact, it is harmful, not simply unsupported by evidence.

Any thoughts on conversion therapy generally? 

William Dempsey: The main point, and I don’t have a statistic on this, though it’s easy to find one, is that most people who claim to be conversion therapists aren’t actually therapists. They’re not licensed clinicians. They’re usually people affiliated with a religious entity.

Without getting sidetracked, I have my own thoughts on the rise of “coaches.” While many are retired therapists, others aren’t regulated at all—no licensure, no oversight, no professional boards. These are just people allowed to work with anyone, often in mentally vulnerable spaces.

More importantly, the way conversion therapy is typically carried out has nothing to do with treatment. It involves behavioural conditioning—methods like inducing nausea or using electric shocks—which essentially traumatize people into suppressing their thoughts. So it’s not psychologically grounded at all—more Pavlovian than therapeutic.

Jacobsen: This one is a little more international, but I’ll make an exception for this series—though it’s meant to focus on America. Canada, my country, has issued travel advisories for the United States. The warning states that travellers with an “X” gender marker on their passports may not be allowed to enter the country.

The advisory explains: “While the Government of Canada issues passports with an X gender identifier, it cannot guarantee your entry or transit through other countries.”

U.S. Customs and Border Protection said in an email statement that a traveller’s gender, as indicated on their passport, and their personal beliefs about sexuality do not make them inadmissible to the United States.

Although former President Donald Trump issued an executive order in January recognizing only two biological sexes, including in government-issued identification documents, this order applies only internally within the United States and to American citizens. The Canadian advisory, then, was issued as a precaution but clarified that the policy would not render Canadian travellers inadmissible at the U.S. border.

What are your thoughts on this? And how does it affect people? That’s the more important question. It’s subtle, but essential.

Dempsey: It is essential. Part of what has interested me in this conversation is that while the government—specifically the president—is talking about recognizing only two sexes, the discussion around gender markers and the lack of clarity between “gender” and “sex” is still ongoing. The conservative movement often conflates the two, and that confusion shapes these policies.

But as you said, what matters most is how this affects people. Individuals in the queer community—especially those who are gender diverse—want to live authentically. Having a gender marker that reflects who they are might seem minor to some, just a letter on a document, but for others it represents a significant step toward being unapologetically themselves, toward social and governmental recognition.

Even though issues like safety and discrimination remain serious concerns, the ability to update one’s gender marker is a small but powerful form of validation—evidence that the government is at least attempting to support them. Taking that away would mark a step backward toward a time when queer and especially trans individuals were openly excluded from mainstream society and government recognition.

Jacobsen: Transgender sports participation. The Supreme Court will hear a bid by Idaho and West Virginia to enforce their state laws banning transgender athletes from competing on female sports teams in public schools. I don’t know the outcome of this one yet; it might still be pending.

This case has been taken up as another civil rights challenge concerning restrictions on transgender people. Idaho and West Virginia appealed lower court decisions that had sided with transgender students who sued. The plaintiffs argued that these laws discriminated based on sex and transgender status, violating the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection, as well as Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in education. No date has been set yet for oral arguments. If no date had been set by late September, none will likely be set by the second week of October. Any thoughts?

Dempsey: This is a continuation of both sides of the argument feeling neglected. The difference, as I see it, is that the Fourteenth Amendment is very clear about the protections in place. Yet, most people arguing in favour of banning trans individuals from sports—often coming from a religious background—ignore the principle of separation of church and state.

When they say, “What about our protections?”—well, those are written differently in the Constitution. If you have an issue with that, take it up with your lawmakers. Propose an amendment. The point is, people are selectively choosing which parts of the Constitution they want to uphold. They’ll defend their Second Amendment rights fiercely but ignore the Fourteenth when it applies to gender, sexuality, diversity—or even race, depending on where we’re talking about.

There’s also a broader problem here: a lack of civics knowledge in this country. As general as that sounds, it’s true. We need deeper national conversations about civics, as many of the issues we discuss ultimately stem from it. If people had a better understanding of how government powers work—who makes decisions, what laws actually mean, and why some things are or aren’t constitutional—we’d be having a different conversation. But that’s probably a pipe dream.

Jacobsen: Two things come to mind. Republicans often argue that education should emphasize the basics—reading, writing, arithmetic—and they’re not wrong. I’ve seen the data. Canada’s not much better. The Canadian Encyclopedia estimated that about one in six Canadians is functionally illiterate. That’s around six to eight million people, averaging at 7 million.

In the U.S., the average reading level across all demographics is between sixth and eighth grade. So I agree with conservatives when they emphasize literacy, because reading and writing are your access points to society. If you can’t read prescription instructions properly, you could harm yourself.

On the other hand, progressives make an equally valid point: we need civics education and inclusive curricula—LGBTQ+ history, for example. It shouldn’t just be keyword censorship, where anything containing “gay” gets erased from history books. Both sides make valid points about education.

You’re pointing to something more profound, however. For students—whether in high school or post-secondary—who are caught in these national or state-level legal battles, their lives can be disrupted for months. If someone like that came into a social work setting and asked for help, what kinds of distress might they be experiencing?

Dempsey: It can vary widely—anything from depression and anxiety to personality disorders or even psychosis. If we’re focusing on the populations we usually serve, which tend to be within the queer community, historically, the everyday struggles were anxiety and depression. For trans people, that can also include gender dysphoria.

But now, things have escalated. Safety is a constant concern. The questions clients ask are often existential: Do I leave the country? Do I feel safe staying here? Will my rights be taken away?

And with the growing discussion around potentially overturning Obergefell v. Hodges—the Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage—those fears have only deepened.

Folks who fall under the sexuality-diverse umbrella, as opposed to solely gender-diverse, are also starting to have those conversations. I find that interesting because there’s a large portion of the queer community who are cisgender and say, “Well, we have our rights now—we’re good. We don’t need to worry about the rest.” And now, as many of us expected, those same people are starting to backtrack as attempts to roll back rights are surfacing again.

Jacobsen: When it comes to depression and anxiety, my understanding—as a non-clinician—is that they’re often closely linked. If someone has anxiety, they’re more prone to depression, and vice versa.

Dempsey: Yes, that’s correct. There’s often a genetic predisposition as well. That’s partly why we’re seeing increased rates over time, but it’s also due to greater openness and less stigma surrounding mental health. As each generation progresses, people discuss it more openly.

For members of the queer community, though, external factors—social stigma, discrimination, economic barriers—all play significant roles. Those external stressors lead to higher rates of depression and anxiety compared to their non-LBGTQ+ counterparts.

Jacobsen: The biggest one, which I didn’t expect to see resurface so strongly, was the conversion therapy case.

Dempsey: I was surprised, too, when I saw it heading to the Supreme Court. I think it reflects the Republican Party’s continued attempts to stir fear—especially in rural regions with less exposure to diversity. They’re strategically picking target populations. First, it was immigrants; now, with ICE deportations slowing down, it’s the trans and queer community becoming the next scapegoat to mobilize voters. That’s my take.

Jacobsen: All right, one more. A primer question for this next topic: how vital is literature—particularly what children and adolescents read—in shaping their self-understanding? Regardless of background, would you say that’s generally important?

Dempsey: Absolutely. Any form of media that includes representation is beneficial.

Based on research, I would assume that for a developing brain, exposure to diverse perspectives and differing opinions helps cultivate critical thinking—a skill society could use much more of, regardless of the setting.

In general, people on both sides of almost any issue tend to isolate themselves among those who think and act like them. This is driven by frustration over how divisive the country has become, but ironically, it makes the divide even deeper. For a developing brain, exposure to diversity—in any sense of the word—can be profoundly positive.

Jacobsen: That brings us to the final news item for today. In Campbell County, Wyoming, a local library director named Terry Leslie was fired in 2023 after several years of dispute over the presence of books with LGBTQ+ themes or sexual content, as critics described it, in the library’s youth and teen section.

Leslie alleged that her dismissal was retaliation for refusing to remove or censor books and that it violated her First Amendment rights. In 2025, the county reached a $700,000 settlement with her. She still has a separate suit pending against individuals who led the opposition to the books.

Do you think we’ll see more of these battles over book bans related to LGBTQ+ themes?

Dempsey: I do. I’ve been involved with Drag Story Hour for several years—I founded the Massachusetts chapter and now sit on the national board. I’ll emphasize that what I’m saying here reflects my own personal views, not those of the organization.

There’s been a noticeable increase in scrutiny toward queer-themed books and how children access them. We’re seeing a growing push to restrict the types of media children can access. Even in Texas, recent curriculum changes focus narrowly on “American history” while filtering what that means in practice.

We can also look abroad—other countries are curating information in similar ways, and unfortunately, some U.S. political figures admire those authoritarian models. So yes, I expect these restrictions to continue. I only hope the burden doesn’t fall on individual librarians and educators.

Book bans and challenges to queer literature will likely persist, and they’re tied to the ongoing demonization of anyone who opposes censorship. For instance, drag performers and librarians who read inclusive books to children are being labelled as “groomers”—rhetoric that echoes the 1950s and earlier homophobic tropes.

This cycle isn’t new. The target shifts—from gay men to drag queens to trans people—but the underlying fear-mongering remains the same. Statistically, much of the conservative base is concentrated in rural areas with less exposure to diversity, and some legislators exploit that lack of access and understanding to sow fear.

Book bans are a highly effective way to sustain that fear: “These people are dangerous; protect your children.” By controlling access to knowledge, they prevent adults from realizing that such rhetoric is false. Division serves their political purpose. Unity does not.

Jacobsen: We’ll wrap up there. Thank you very much for your time today, Will. I’ll talk to you next week at our regular time.

Dempsey: Thanks, Scott.

Jacobsen: Cheers.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.