So Forbes thinks conversion therapy can be consented to.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/13/two-snp-leadership-candidates-call-jk-rowling-a-national-treasure
The idea that someone else knows whether a person has "genuinely" consented or not where there has been no coercion seems very problematic to me. The people assessing the genuineness or authenticity of someone else's consent or thoughts will have their own biases and agenda. Everyone's thoughts are shaped by their nature / nurture so how can anyone's thoughts be deemed "genuine"?
If a person's thoughts are influenced by their faith/ social or economic or political belief systems/ values/ morals, I am not seeing how that makes them any less genuine. Especially as a lot of faith/ belief system/ values/ morals encourage you to transform yourself or your thoughts or restrain your impulses or adopt new behaviours, habits and lifestyles to achieve certain goals. And these goals may require sacrifice of individual or personal or short-term gratification for the "greater good", whatever that means. Hence people sacrifice comforts, well-being, family life and their own lives sometimes for the good of their community or their country.
My children, when they were in primary school, were deemed to be able to decide for themselves if they wanted to fast during Ramadan i.e. not eat or drink anything including water until sunset.
If someone decides their sense of well-being or their sense of purpose and place in society will be enhanced if they become vegetarian or restrict their consumption of food or resources or if they become celibate or do not act on some of their sexual impulses, or dress more modestly or restrict themselves in their choice of further education, profession or in the criteria for their choice of spouse based on their political or faith beliefs, surely that's their choice. In the absence of coercion, how does someone else get to decide which choices are genuine?