The Religious Social Ecology of Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE) Among Sexually and Gender Diverse Youth: A Qualitative Study of Service Providers and Educators

Background and Purpose: Sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) “violate the very tenets of the social work profession…an infringement of…social worker ethics and values” (NASW, 2015). SOCE condemn same-sex sexuality, and coerce sexually and gender diverse youth (SGDY) to alter or suppress their sexual and/or gender identity. SOCE are undergirded and supported by homophobic and transphobic religious discourses, which research suggests are pervasive in society and the lives of SGDY. However, little is known about how SOCE are manifested in SGDY’s everyday lives, which is vital to promoting SGDY equity and health. We examined manifestations of SOCE and homophobic religious ‘conversion’ discourse, and their impact on SGDY. 

Methods: Informed by van Dijk’s critical discourse analysis and Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (EST), we used qualitative methods to identify and understand the invocation of SOCE in everyday talk, use of religious scripture and language, and institutional cultures and practices across SGDY’s social ecology. We purposively sampled professionally- and ethnically-diverse key informants (KIs) (N=16; age 25-62 years)—frontline service providers, agency coordinators/administrators, and educators, with ≥3 years’ experience working with SGDY in Toronto—in order to draw on their professional expertise and experience. In-depth, semi-structured interviews (45-60m) elicited KIs’ perspectives and narratives on SOCE, and religiously-based homophobic rhetoric and victimization, experienced by SGDY, including case examples. Interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed, and reviewed and coded using thematic content analysis, with NVivo-10. We triangulated data sources (teachers, service providers, administrators) and theories (critical discourse, EST), and used multiple coders, to foster trustworthiness. Peer debriefing, memo-writing, and team meetings supported reflexivity.

Results: KIs described both direct and indirect manifestations of SOCE in SGDY’s experiences. Direct: Some SGDY were remanded or coerced into programmatic SOCE involvement, including “a home to make them straight”, “pastoral counseling” and “conversion therapy.” Religious authorities and families invoked homophobic religious rhetoric, with parents withholding love and approval, to coerce SGDY into SOCE participation. Indirect: KIs identified language and underlying prejudices of SOCE, including selective appropriation of religious scripture, invoked in everyday homophobic and transphobic rhetoric and victimization experienced by SGDY in public schools, faith-based institutions, families, places of worship, the media, and institutional practices and policies (i.e., hate speech as a ‘protected’ religious liberty). Negative consequences of SOCE and ‘conversion’ rhetoric for SGDY included social isolation, internalized stigma, family estrangement, homelessness, peer victimization, and school nonattendance. 

Conclusions and Implications: Our study identifies manifestations of SOCE both within and beyond the walls of particular religious programs, and associated harms for SGDY. SOCE are prohibited for minors across select U.S. and Canadian states/provinces; however, our results highlight the multiple systems through which SOCE discourse is expressed in SGDY’s lives, contributing to their marginalization. Social workers should identify and counter discursive manifestations of SOCE embedded in secular practices and policies, including peer victimization, familial rejection, school climate, and discriminatory laws. Strategic engagement with SGDY-affirmative and -inclusive religious officials and places of worship may support SGDY in integrating religious and sexual identities, inclusive practices in families and places of worship, and counter the discursive power of SOCE.