Lesbian and bisexual women's experiences of aversion therapy in England

Abstract

This article presents the findings of a study about the history of aversion therapy as a treatment technique in the English mental health system to convert lesbians and bisexual women into heterosexual women. We explored published psychiatric and psychological literature, as well as lesbian, gay, and bisexual archives and anthologies. We identified 10 examples of young women receiving aversion therapy in England in the 1960s and 1970s. We situate our discussion within the context of post-war British and transnational medical history. As a contribution to a significantly under-researched area, this article adds to a broader transnational history of the psychological treatment of marginalised sexualities and genders. As a consequence, it also contributes to LGBTQIA+ history, the history of medicine, and psychiatric survivor history. We also reflect on the ethical implications of the research for current mental health practice.

Older LGBTQ People and Religious Abuse: Implications for the UK Regulation of Care Provision in Later Life

“…Many older LGBTQ people have experienced abuse earlier in their lives, in the form of emotional, physical and/or sexual abuse as children, bullying and harassment in schools, family rejections, being ejected from the armed forces if 'outed', enforced psychiatric "cures" and "aversion therapy" and religious "conversions" [89][90][91][92][93][94]. In the UK, older gay and bisexual men lived in fear of criminalisation, many being targeted by undercover police and/or subjected to blackmail [95].…”

Happenstance and regulatory culture: the evolution of innovative community mental health services in Oxfordshire in the late twentieth century

“…Also, we recognise that this organic freedom can lead to trajectories rather different from those of the Ley Community and the Isis Centre. Spandler and Carr (2022) describe how the (now discredited) aversion therapy for lesbian and bisexual women was made possible by the space for discretion opened up by relaxed regulatory cultures of 1960s mental healthcare. But thinking of good practice in terms of conformity to guidelines or defended by evidence from trials reflects a current, highly bureaucratised moral imaginary.…”