Supporting LGBTQA+ peoples’ recovery from sexual orientation and gender identity and expression change efforts

ABSTRACT Objective This paper reports on a critical survivor-driven study exploring how Australian lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer and asexual (LGBTQA+) adults attempt recovery from religious Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression Change Efforts (SOGIECE), and what supports they find useful in this process. The study privileged the critical communal lens of self-titled survivors of perspectives through its reference group, and applied Bronfenbrenner’s psycho-social lens, in an effort to ensure research used by psychologists was for and with survivors rather than on them. Method Qualitative data on SOGIECE survivor experiences and perspectives was collected using two focus groups and interviews including a total of 35 Australian SOGIECE survivors aged 18+ years. Results Findings suggested that post-SOGIECE recoveries were more successful if survivors experience three provisions: people who are affirming with whom to be freely themselves – especially health and mental health practitioners, family and friends, and survivor support groups; considerable time and internal motivation to enable support to be effective; and conflicting aspects of identities and beliefs are reconciled in ways that foreground survivors’ autonomy in their reconstruction. Conclusions SOGIECE survivors need recovery plans that consider complexities at all levels of their ecology of development; and diversify their exposure to affirming supports and ideas at all levels. Mental health practitioners should be especially careful to foreground survivors’ autonomy in therapies, recalling that they likely experienced past abusive therapies/therapy dynamics. Key Points What is already known about this topic: People exposed to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity and Expression Change Efforts (SOGIECE) are at increased risk for many mental health conditions. People exposed to SOGIECE are at increased risk of self-harm and suicide. SOGIECE survivors need distinct treatment considerations distinguishing ‘pathology’ from SOGIECE’s ‘negative effects’, and challenging past social conformity-drives. What this topic adds: SOGIECE survivors need community (re)building aid in their recovery confluent with their own faith goals and avoiding conformity with therapists’ (faith-negative/faith-positive) ideals. SOGIECE survivors need considerable time and different phases in recovery processes, to do developmental work discussing and reconciling dualities in identities, beliefs and social (re)engagements. Support approaches and resources closely aligned to SOGIECE survivors’ presented identities were emphasised for the initial recovery decision-making, these could later vary more across treatment.