Day: June 15, 2006

Eve Tushnet, writing for National Review Online, reviews the June 10, Love Won Out conference near Washington DC. It’s a pretty brief article but she finds most fault with the reparative therapy tone of the day. While she acknowledged that some men do fit the reparative-theory-predicted understanding of things, others don’t. Interesting was the man, “Frank,” who said he did fit the theory, but even with all the insight, he has not lost his same-sex attractions.

On the whole, she is unimpressed with the emphasis on causation. Reading further on her blog, she writes:

But there are all kinds of cases where family dynamics don’t explain very much. And honestly–family dynamics are often a reductive and boring explanation for homosexuality. Plus, the Love Won Out speakers were super defensive on the subject of origins, hammering on and on about how homosexuality isn’t genetic. Why on earth does this even matter? All kinds of things have a genetic component. Even from the ex-gay perspective, there shouldn’t be anything threatening about acknowledging that homosexuality has some kind of complex relation to genetics. People wouldn’t avoid treatment for anxiety disorders, or stop going to AA, or give up on controlling their tempers, just because anxiety or alcoholism or anger has a genetic component. So I really have no idea why the idea of an inborn predisposition to homosexuality wigged these people out so bad.

Yeah, I wonder that too. I suspect it is a reaction to those who say, “don’t tamper with someone’s feelings, they’re genetic!” However, I don’t think one overreaction deserves another.

From the Journal of Health and Social Behavior (Dec., 2005), pp. 307-22 comes this interesting abstract:

Title: Geneticization of deviant behavior and consequences for stigma: the case of mental illness.
Author: Phelan JC. of the Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, Department of Sociomedical Sciences, 722 W. 168th Street, New York, NY 10032, USA. [email protected]

Abstract: One likely consequence of the genetics revolution is an increased tendency to understand human behavior in genetic terms. How might this “geneticization” affect stigma? Attribution theory predicts a reduction in stigma via reduced blame, anger, and punishment and increased sympathy and help. According to “genetic essentialist” thinking, genes are the basis of human identity and strongly deterministic of behavior. If such ideas are commonly accepted, geneticization should exacerbate stigma by increasing perceptions of differentness, persistence, seriousness, and transmissibility, which in turn should increase social distance and reproductive restrictiveness. I test these predictions using the case of mental illness and a vignette experiment embedded in a nationally representative survey. There was little support for attribution theory predictions. Consistent with genetic essentialism, genetic attributions increased the perceived seriousness and persistence of the mental illness and the belief that siblings and children would develop the same problem. Genetic attribution did not affect reproductive restrictiveness or social distance from the ill person but did increase social distance from the person’s sibling, particularly regarding intimate forms of contact involving dating, marriage, and having children.

Polling data about homosexuality supplied by Wayne Besen on his website seems to be counter to the impact on mental illness. I wonder if the fact that most people do not see homosexuality as a mental illness could contribute to the difference. Not going anywhere particularly, just thought the study was interesting. I am interested in this because I am concerned that the advances in genetics will erode perceptions of free will and have impact on how clients perceive a variety of clinical issues. The whole chemical imbalance thing makes it difficult to establish talk therapy with clients who want to “wait until the meds kick in.”