Introduction
Today, people develop various attitudes toward conversion therapy and its impact on society. In Canada, much attention has already been paid to this pseudoscientific approach, which aims to help people change their sexual orientation or gender identity. At the end of 2021, the Canadian parliamentarians passed legislation to ban conversion therapy, which provoked multiple reactions and disagreements. Rachel Aiello and Brian Bird created articles to share their positions on the topic, addressing different perspectives and choosing specific approaches. The evaluation of the articles will be based on the framework developed by the Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL, 2015) and focused on such elements as authority, creation, information value, research, scholarship, and searching worth. The ACRL framework proves that it is not enough to identify the authors’ purposes and intentions but to clarify if their words and arguments are strong and credible to succeed in delivering their messages. The articles by Aiello and Bird on conversion therapy’s ban in Canada have certain strengths and drawbacks, depending on authority levels, research methods, and standpoints to support their purposes.
Authors’ Points of View
Evaluating the structure and context of information plays an important role in understanding a topic and the level of facts’ credibility. The authors of the chosen articles address the government’s decision to ban conversion therapy in Canada. Aiello’s (2022) point of view is based on the fact that conversion therapy is not illegal in the country and the explanation that anyone who practices this approach should be imprisoned for five years. Bird’s (2022) standpoint is more subjective because he admits that the government puts Canada “on a worrisome path” due to the possibility of positive outcomes of conversion therapy. Each author is confident that eradicating this therapy would change society, and it is necessary to understand the context changes following a proper structure. The authority of the chosen articles lies in defining the social positions as citizens and proving that this special experience of conversion therapy banning remains ambiguous.
Research Process Evaluation
Each article usually presents the results of some research and ideas obtained from different sources. I am going to evaluate each resource for its research addressing the ACRL frame of research as inquiry and focusing on the chosen methods. Bird (2022) offers a strong background to explain why the current Canadian law is more than a ban for society. He mentions the example of a man who might need professional counselling to repress his non-heterosexual attraction and save his family (Bird, 2022). The author is curious about what could happen when cooperation with an expert becomes a crime. His research is not only a clear statement but an inquiry to define the essence. Aiello (2022), on the other hand, does neither pose additional questions nor raises concerns about the legislation. She introduces the facts about the comprehensive criminalization of conversion therapy in Canada and other countries (Aiello, 2022). In both cases, the governmental solution is the only reliable source on the basis of which additional perspectives and opinions are developed.
Authors’ Arguments
The strengths of the articles under analysis lie in the possibility of the authors stating their arguments in a clear and understandable way. For example, Bird (2022) believes that the effects of the law cannot be defined as purely positive or negative for Canadians and offers such arguments as parental involvement, religious controversies, and family values. Aiello (2022) creates the article within the frames of the offered law and uses the definition of conversion therapy, the imposed restrictions, and social expectations as the major arguments. These sources show how to match the product with the information needed to approve the legalization. Canada’s ban on conversion therapy cannot be ignored, but the ambiguity of its outcomes still bothers some individuals.
Authors’ Success and Failures
I think Bird was more successful in his arguments compared to similar attempts made by Aiello. According to the ACLR (2015), researchers and scholars should share new insights and introduce their perspectives and interpretations. Bird (2022) introduced conversion therapy’s ban and gave several examples of why this decision could have a far more impact than people thought. His approach was not only to mention the fact but developed new ideas to prove the possible failure of the law. Aiello (2022) did not promote a conversation but stated that conversion therapy was no longer legal in Canada. Bird’s success and Aiello’s failure could be explained through the prism of novelty and the intention to avoid or rely on dry facts only.
Resources’ Purposes and Results
The originality of ideas and the observed accomplishment should be proved through the offered goals and intentions of the authors. Information value is related to various aspects, including education, persuasion, negotiation, and understanding (ACLR, 2015). In both articles, the authors did not clearly indicate their purposes. Still, it is possible to use their titles as the major urge of their writings. The length and the content of Aiello’s article (2022) prove that her goal is to inform the reader and underline that conversion therapy is illegal in Canada. There are no other questions or concerns about the situation, which defines the purpose to inform was successfully met. Bird’s purpose (2022) is to persuade the reader that the therapy ban is not just another legal decision but an event that could cause a more serious impact. Addressing a number of examples and ambiguous situations, Bird (2022) concludes that more clarity on the conditions when citizens might be exposed to criminal prosecution is required. Thus, the resources’ purposes and outcomes are characterized by a strong information value.
Agreements and Disagreements
In fact, regarding the purposes and methods used by Aiello, it is hard to find enough reasons for disagreement. She introduced a clear statement and supported the discussion with several arguments to identify a serious milestone in LGBTQ2S+ rights. There are no right or wrong opinions because the article is based on facts and the outcomes of the eradication of conversion therapy. At the same time, Bird’s intention to add personal contradictions to the parliamentarian decision may be associated with some additional questions and strategic explorations. I think that Bird’s opposition to the biological predisposition of male and female identities is weak. For a long period, people have been living in a world divided between two basic genders – a man and a woman. The desire to create new gender differences might have some mental health or emotional arguments, but biology is a science with a long-lasting history. It is wrong and useless to question the worth of biology to support or oppose conversion therapy.
Conclusion
People need to believe in something and use their arguments and knowledge to support the chosen positions. Aiello’s and Bird’s perspectives are effective in their research, purposes, and arguments. However, the chosen articles have limitations due to an overall subjectivity (Bird’s case) and objectivity (Aiello’s case). Both authors agree that conversion therapy is now illegal in Canada, but Bird’s explanation made me disagree with the author because of multiple biased attitudes and provocations.
References
Aiello, R. (2022). Conversion therapy is now illegal in Canada.CTV News. Web.
Association of College & Research Libraries. (2015). Framework for information literary for higher education. Association of College & Research Libraries. Web.
Bird, B. (2022). Canada’s ban on conversion therapy could impact far more than that.Policy Options. Web.