[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by jaxie

Ann was speaking out on behalf of someone else who wanted to have this therapy and wasn't allowed. She wasn't supporting it personally, she was supporting his right, which is really different matter. Perhaps he needs to do it to convince himself it does not work, sometimes it's hard to be in someone elses head. As with many things to do with Ann, some people pick up a sentence and see black and white and ignore the grey area of what she really said.

She was giving her own views on conversion therapy nobody else's, she used somebody else in the article as an example to highlight her stance but it seems pretty clear to me she's in favour of it and considers it an acceptable form of therapy. Throughout the article she positions it as something that should be considered 'helpful'. I really don't see the grey in this - she supports it as a legitimate therapy and promotes it by telling people it can be helpful... this is all directly from the article, her own words, what she believes.

Does anyone defending Ann on this not find it in the least bit odd that she'd completely omit the dangers of conversion therapy and how it's discredited by medical professionals, and only portrays it in the article as something that could be helpful (which isn't even the case).