APA appoints sexual orientation therapy task force

APA Press Release

May 21, 2007

Contact: Public Affairs

(202) 336-5700

——————————————————————————–

APA APPOINTS TASK FORCE TO REVIEW RECENT SCIENCE ON THERAPEUTIC RESPONSES TO SEXUAL ORIENTATION

——————————————————————————–

WASHINGTON, DC—The American Psychological Association has appointed a Task Force of researchers and clinicians to review the current scientific research on therapeutic response to sexual orientation with an eye toward updating the Association’s 1997 policy statement on the topic.

“I am pleased to announce the initiation of this Task Force. Its work will be of significant value as it will help inform all mental health practitioners about appropriate and effective therapeutic responses to sexual orientation. I look forward to the group’s report,” said APA President Dr. Sharon Stephens Brehm.

Task Force members were selected after an open nominations process. All nominations were reviewed by the APA Committee on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Concerns (CLGBTC) which forwarded the complete list of nominations and a suggested slate of nominees to the APA Board for the Advancement of Psychology in the Public Interest (BAPPI) for review. The CLGBTC and BAPPI recommendations as well as the full list of nominations were then sent to the APA President who made the final appointments to the task force in consultation with the APA Board of Directors.

The members of the Task Force, as announced today, are:

Judith M. Glassgold, PsyD – Dr. Glassgold is a clinician, researcher and visiting faculty at the Graduate School of Applied and Professional Psychology, Rutgers University. She sits on the editorial boards of Pragmatic Case Studies in Psychotherapy, Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy and PsycCritiques. Much of her work focuses on ethical issues in psychotherapy including the interplay of psychology and religion. Dr. Glassgold will serve as the Task Force Chairperson.

Lee Beckstead, PhD – Dr. Beckstead is a counseling psychologist who has focused his research and clinical work on helping gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people with strong religious affiliations. He works full-time in private practice and is a staff associate in the University of Utah’s Counseling Center.

Jack Drescher, MD – Dr. Drescher is a psychiatrist in clinical practice. His academic appointments include that of Adjunct Clinical Assistant Professor in the New York University Postdoctoral Program in Psychotherapy and Psychoanalysis and Clinical Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at New York Medical College. He also serves as the editor of the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy.

Beverly Greene, PhD – Dr. Greene is a Professor of Psychology at St. John’s University and a practicing clinical psychologist. She has published extensively in the psychological literature on multi-minority identities and the interplay between multiple identity status, coping with social marginalization and psychotherapy. She was a founding co-editor of the APA Division 44 series Psychological Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Issues.

Robin Lin Miller, PhD – Dr. Miller is a community psychologist and an associate professor at Michigan State University. She is currently the editor-in-chief of the American Journal of Evaluation. She was appointed to the Task Force to provide specific expertise in research and evaluation methods.

Roger L. Worthington, PhD – Dr. Worthington is the interim Chief Diversity Officer at the University of Missouri-Columbia and an Associate Professor in the university’s Department of Educational, School and Counseling Psychology. Dr. Worthington is on the Board of Directors of the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education and on the editorial board of the Journal of Diversity in Higher Education. His research interests include multicultural counseling, heterosexual identity, sexual prejudice, and lesbian, gay and bisexual issues.

The task force will review the scientific literature on therapeutic responses to sexual orientation, particularly any research published since the Association’s resolution on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation was passed (1997). The Task Force will furthermore make recommendations on any revisions or updates to the resolution. Since the 1997 resolution was written, new research on sexual orientation conversion therapy has been published. This new science enables the Association to review its policy position and offer additional guidance to mental health professionals who treat persons with concerns about their sexual orientation.

The task force is expected to generate a report that will address the following:

The appropriate application of affirmative therapeutic interventions for children and adolescents who present a desire to change either their sexual orientation or their behavioral expression of their sexual orientation, or both, or whose guardian expresses a desire for the minor to change;

The appropriate application of affirmative therapeutic interventions for adults who present a desire to change their sexual orientation or their behavioral expression of their sexual orientation, or both;

The presence of adolescent inpatient facilities that offer coercive treatment designed to change sexual orientation or the behavioral expression of sexual orientation;

Education, training, and research issues as they pertain to such therapeutic interventions; and

Recommendations regarding treatment protocols that promote stereotyped gender-normative behavior to mitigate behaviors that are perceived to be indicators that a child will develop a homosexual orientation in adolescence and adulthood.

Once completed, the report and any recommendations of the Task Force will be reviewed by APA governance including the APA Board of Directors and Council of Representatives. Any actions concerning possible adoption of the Task Force report and any included recommendations will be the purview of the APA Council.

The Task Force is expected to meet twice in 2007. A schedule for completion of the Task Force’s work is not yet determined.

# # #

69 thoughts on “APA appoints sexual orientation therapy task force”

  1. Maybe the best thing to come out of this would be some sort of statement from the APA that there is (1) no good evidence that gays CAN “change”, (2) that such attempts may fail and may may even harm, (3) that there is no compelling social, psychological or medical reason why gays SHOULD “change”, (4) that it is still OK for those individuals with strong religious (or other) motivations to TRY — and (4) it is certainly not ethically wrong for therapists who share the client’s dream to try to lend them a hand.

  2. Doesn’t matter to me; I appreciate the comments. I am not going to try to figure out how you all got on this track. We started with therapy issues on this thread and while important, I do not think there is much to say at this point. The task force has at least one advocate for religious diversity on there but seems short on research regarding the conflicts that the task force would be attempting to solve. Other than Dr. Beckstead, the task force seems long on those who already have their minds made up.

  3. Hey Lynn,

    I didn’t realize this thread was still going. I’ll answer you in the other thread because it is more apropriate. We are probably lucky that Dr. Throckmorton didn’t throw us out because this thread is about the APA. 😎

  4. Drowssap (26511):

    Religion isn’t the reason I question the “what” and “why” of homosexuality. It doesn’t have to be immoral or something to condemn. If you believe that every cell in your body is the product of hundreds of thousands of years of natural selection an exclusive homosexual orientation doesn’t make rational sense.

    So now Darwinian evolution is something you feel in your bones? Who has ever said a homosexual orientation has to be exclusive? Whether a moralistic or religious determination, your emotionalism is not making a scientific determination there.

    Drowssap (26722):

    A lot of hypothesis have been put forward to explain how a gene could survive inspite of this. I have read them all and they are all silly. The latest is the increased fertility hypothesis. Somehow the gene that causes homosexuality in men also increases a woman’s fertility. I won’t waste a page debunking that kind of illogical silliness, unless someone wants to read it.

    Please do…. Gavrilets and Rice in “Genetic models of homosexuality: generating testable predictions.” (Proceedings of the Royal Society B (2006) 273, 3031-3038) say you’re wrong. Rice has said, “I think that it is too early to decide which of our models (or one yet to be formulated) is most feasible. However, based on the abundance of sexually antagonistic variation found in fruit flies, the sexually antagonistic variation seems like a probable candidate process leading to polymorphism for homosexuality.” [see: http://www.physorg.com/news84720662.html%5D. Sexually antagonistic traits are those that are advantageous in one sex, but may cause a nonadvantageous trait (such as homosexuality) in the other sex. Thus fertility in females vs homosexuality in males would qualify as those possible sexually antagonistic traits.

    Well, I had to throw that in here….

  5. I believe that human bonding, not reproduction of the fittest, is THE most powerful human drive. We all have it. Men and women have it. Gays and straights have it. Therefore, there is no danger that the “gay gene”, if there is one, will put a “drag on the gene pool” — or of it posing any sort of threat to the survival of the species. That’s just plain silly. Nature over-over-reproduces to balance out those indidividuals who may not or cannot replicate themselves.

    And while we are at it, there is no evidence that proves that homosexuality does NOT contribute some sort of survival advantage in some OTHER way… In battle, perhaps some gay soldiers help the other troops survive. Maybe a gay doctor discovers a cure for cancer. Maybe gays bring skills, viewpoints, talents, perspectives — a variety of important cultural and scientific contributions that might actually ADD to the general fund of knowledge of the species? Maybe a wide variety of viewpoints and experiences is ESSENTIAL to the survival of the HUMAN species? Isn’t that possible? I believe so. It is not just the strongest who survive and reproduce, but the smartest and the most adaptible.

    I think that humanity is much more than a genetic rat race where only the genetically superior prevail. There is anthropological evidence that many wandering nomadic tribes would actually carry those who were too old or sick to hunt (slowing the tribe down and putting them at risk) — because these weak ones and elders were SPECIAL to the community. They needed their wisdom and their love. Not every culture drowned them in streams or pushed them off on an ice flow — as a strict “survial of the species” narrative would suggest.

  6. Michael Bussee

    “It has been argued that ALL variations in human sexuality may have some “survival value” Seeing people behave sexually (whatever this particular behavior may be) may stimulate sexual interest in general”

    Hypothetically speaking if two gay men have sex in public and it arouses the whole tribe it actually contributes to “gay” genes being wiped out. The rest of the tribe becomes aroused, has even more sex and creates even more kids. That dillutes the “gay” gene even faster.

    Even if gay men had 80 kids for every 100 that straight men had the gene that caused gayness would get obliterated in just a few generations. Correct me if I’m wrong but in modern times gay men have about 20 kids for every 100 that straight men have? The number of gay people should be dropping like a rock, but in fact the population is steady. Something else in the environment is causing it IMHO.

  7. Michael Bussee,

    “Not true. There seem to be MANY genetic characteristics and differences that have have NOTHING to do with reproduction and are not wiped out”. Not every genetic variation has survival advantages.”

    I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. 😎 Even if a common characteristic lacks survival advantages today it had to have a benefit at some point in history. Moroever it can’t be a drag on fitness right now or it will rapidly diminish. Even though I don’t believe SSA is genetic I have no doubt it is biologically based and not the result of bad parenting. 2% of men are exclusively gay because their dads didn’t hug them enough? C’mon, that is ridiculous.

    Wow, how did this thread end up so off topic? 😎

    I support the idea of therapy for people who want it. (back on track) Drug treatment therapy fails 95% of the time and nobody wants it outlawed. If this therapy helps a few motivated people I am for it. If it doesn’t work for anyone it will eventually go away on its own.

  8. Drowssap,

    I think your argument falls apart in a few ways:

    1. You are applying only micro evolution. You assume that genetics is purely individual and that it survives only in a genetic line and not in a genetic pool or community.

    2. You start with the premise that homosexuality is fitness reducing and work backwards. I suggest that there may be attributes of homosexuality that are so beneficial to the survival of that family or clan that they overwhelm the loss of direct lineage.

    3. You assume evolution is a completed process and that those genes which would have been culled have been culled.

    4. You assume that evolution contains within itself some moral code or clue for appropriateness.

    But if “moral” or “acceptable” is defined solely by what will propogate the genes of the individual, then the most moral activity would be the complete destruction of all other genetic lines – genocide as the ultimate in morality.

  9. Michael,

    I find it offensive because I do not think there IS a way to “define gays as a group, voting block, social segment, etc..”. There is no gay community. We are as diverse as straights.

    I have to disagree with part of this. A community is defined by its commonality. Just as there is a “community of faith” that includes people that have very little in common and an “African-American community” which widely ranges in political and economic status, there is a community of people who have same-sex attraction in common.

    While gay people have vastly varying characteristics and are difficult to define as a social segment or voting block, there is a gay community. There does exist a community of people who have some basic similarities and those include same-sex attraction and (usually) agreement that discrimination ought not be based on same-sex attraction.

    And even some cultural similarities are shared by a majority of this community. For example, literature and film that includes same-sex romance or characters that are gay are probably enjoyed by a large majority. So too do gay persons enjoy – at least occasionally – the company of other gay people, so some social assumptions can be made.

    But as for other stereotypes, I agree that they are probably representative of the most visible or intentionally flamboyant rather than of a majority of gay persons.

  10. Drowssap,

    I read the first sentence and am responding. The idea that if a gene reduces fitness by the tiniest fraction ….

    I’m not saying that homosexuality is caused by a gene but rather there are genes within the human DNA that cause a diverse set of behaviors – as all members of a group will not reproduce but their value and contribution to the perpetuation of the species is still magnificent – child caring, adoption, availability for other tasks than children (but nonetheless vitalt o the survival of the “tribe”)

  11. Mary,

    I should add one last thing to my previous comment. The only genetic disorders (and there are only a handful) more common than about 1 in 10,000 are a product of something called Heterozygote Advantage, sometimes called selective advantage. Sickle Cell Anemia and Cystic Fibrosis are the two most famous examples. Put simply genes create a clumsy (and sometimes counterproductive) immune system to protect our bodies against extremely deadly pathogens. It is mother nature’s ultimate tough love.

  12. BTW: It has been argued that ALL variations in human sexuality may have some “survival value” — in that these behaviors add to a increased and generalized interest in and arousal of sexual feelings that LEAD to reproduction.

    Seeing people behave sexually (whatever this particular behavior may be) may stimulate sexual interest in general — thereby promoting survival of the species. It doesn’t seem far-fetched to me. The porn industry seem to get the idea.

  13. Hi Mary (been reading all your posts)

    If you have faith in natural selection a genetic cause for homosexuality (but not necessarily bisexuality) is all but ruled out. If a gene reduces “fitness” by the tiniest fraction in a given environment it will be completely eliminated from the group over time. Here is a simple analogy. Casinos give themself tiny advantages and yet they always come out on top. Given enough time a casino’s slight advantage ensures that it will take 100% of your money every single time. It doesn’t matter if you start with $100 or a billion dollars if you are patient enough you always get ground into the dust. That is exactly how natural selection works. If one gene produces 100 healthy kids and another produces 99 healthy kids the first one completely wipes out the second over enough generations. Our varied and evolving environment ensures that every species has tremendous variety on what works and what doesn’t. However, an exclusive homosexual orientation is not an advantage in any environment for passing on DNA. A lot of hypothesis have been put forward to explain how a gene could survive inspite of this. I have read them all and they are all silly. The latest is the increased fertility hypothesis. Somehow the gene that causes homosexuality in men also increases a woman’s fertility. I won’t waste a page debunking that kind of illogical silliness, unless someone wants to read it. 😎

    The theory of natural selection aside there are also strong factual reasons to believe genes don’t cause homosexuality. This comes as a surprise to most people but not even one common, fitness reducing condition has been traced back to a genetic trigger. Look up any genetic illness and it doesn’t start occuring until about 1 in 10,000 people up to 1 in millions. Scientists have not found an exception to this rule. The genes associated with Cancer, diabetes, blindess or any other fitness reducing condition have all been susceptability genes, not triggers. Something else in the environment (as yet unknown) is causing the disorder, the genes only increase or reduce susceptability. The next time you read an article on health and genetics it will look something like this. People with Gene X have 50% more disorder Y than other people. That is called a susceptability gene and it is all they’ve ever found.

    Could they find a gene that causes homosexuality? Anything is possible but it would be the first fitness reducing condition ever to be triggered by a gene.

    Bisexuality (at least for women) makes some evolutionary sense. If a female’s mate dies, she can pair up with another woman. This new partner might increase the chance of her offspring surviving. Exclusive homosexuality in either men or women does not make evolutionary sense. It is the product of something in the environment, like Autism or any other fitness reducing condition.

  14. Drowsap: You assertion is incorrect. You said: “Any gene that gets in the way of those two goals gets wiped out by natural selection. There are no exceptions.”

    Not true. There seem to be MANY genetic characteristics and differences that have have NOTHING to do with reproduction and are not

    wiped out”. Not every genetic variation has survival advantages. Some just seem to be examples of God’s incredible creativity and His love of variety. He’s an artist. Sometimes, I think God does things just because creativity is part of his essential nature.

  15. David: with all due respect, how would you know that “it (gay sex) can not have the sensation of fullfilling a design in the same way heterosexual intercourse does.” How would you know this? Do you have personaly experience here? I do.

    I was married for nine years and I can tell you that the sexual contact with my male partner was much more pleasurable and more emotionally and spiritually fulfilling than sex with my wife. What do you mean by “the sensation of fulfillinig a design”? I am really confused. God designed my body and it seems to work very well both heterosexually and homosexually. I agree with Freud that our bodies seem to be designed to respond to any sufficient stimulus.

  16. Drowssap,

    Can you prove to me – without any question – that homosexuality does not have a role in evolution?

    Evolution is not just about producing. It is about the species perpetuating – and that takes a village – at least for humans.

  17. Ken

    No therapist on this planet would recommend gastric bypass surgery to a 105 pound woman who thought she was fat. Any competent therapist would help her understand that her problem is perception, not physical. That in no way infers that the problem is “Freudian” or made up. Those feelings could be the result of real organic differences in her brain, the cause of which may never be known.

  18. Drowssap said:

    I have an easy counterpoint. How many therapy sessions should it take before a patient with Anorexia is allowed to get Gastric Bypass surgery? It is a nearly identical set of circumstances.

    No the circumstances aren’t even close. Anorexia is a compulsive disorder. GID is not. Do you actually know of a therapist who would seriously recommend gastric bypass as a treatment for anorexia?

  19. Michael Bussee, you wrote

    “Autism is a disorder. Homosexuality is not. I think think it reveals your prejudice to equate gayness with disabilty. What about human bonding? Love? Devotion? Tenderness? Attachment? Aren’t they part of of blueprint?”

    My fundamental point is that I firmly believe in evolution and natural selection. Every cell in our bodies has been built with two goals in mind,

    1) Getting our DNA into the next generation

    & Secondarily (for men at least)

    2) Caring for children so they can reach adulthood

    Any gene that gets in the way of those two goals gets wiped out by natural selection. There are no exceptions. It doesn’t matter if a gene reduces fitness by the tiniest fraction. If it is a drag in a given environment, it gets battered into oblivion. If homosexuality doesn’t come from genes (moms, dads or babies), it isn’t part of the blueprint. Don’t get me wrong, everything we’ve learned says that homosexuality is biologically based, just not genetic. That is why I think of it as something like Autism. Neither will kill you, both reduce someone’s chances of having children but neither was part of the game plan. Obviously no one should be discriminated against or condemned.

    I should note that in the case of Autism if you Google Asperger’s Syndrome and Gender Dysphoria (the current #1 predictor of homosexuality) you’ll find a bunch of links. It is not uncommon for Autistic kids to think they were born the wrong sex. You can find chats where moms are pulling their hair out trying to understand why their 8 year old autistic son thinks he is a girl. What causes Autism? Mounting evidence is squarely pointing at exposure to a Pathogen (germ or virus) during prenatal development or very early childhood.

    Whatever scientists figure out over the next couple of decades I guarantee it will be interesting.

  20. Mike,

    I didn’t say:

    “You also remarked that “It (exclusive homosexuality) doesn’t kill anyone but it wasn’t part of the blueprint.”

    Regarding variations on touch, please review my thread, which is describing a “starting point” to touch based on function. That one need not be religious to be curious about why my sensations do not match my design.

    Touch between men or between woman can be comforting, spiritual and healing. It can also be erotic. But it can not have the sensation of fullfilling a design in the same way heterosexual intercourse does.

  21. Fair enough Michael.

    BTW, I too have lost jobs for being gay, been attacked, spit on, yelled at, threatened, etc… And my friends have been beat up, teased, ridiculed – all the same just like you. I remember the first time someone called me queer. I didn’t even know what it meant – I had to ask my mom.

    I do understand. I have been there. Hate crimes should include those of sexual orientation just as the crime of murder has degrees and categories for the perpetrators intent – so should violent crimes. Heck – I still look gay and can experience the same hate from others – and for no reason at all except for their percieved view of me. I fear – deeply, too.

    You are in my prayers.

  22. David said: “We can expand the uses of these human functions (hands, mouths, anuses), but as the uses stray from their primary purpose they are less effective and efficient.” Would this mean that straights shouldn’t use these parts during lovemaking since they are “less effective and effiecient”? Less effective for what? They are chock-full of wonderful nerve endings that communicate intense pleasure to the brain. Pretty efficiently too, I might add. Human touch and bonding serves a survival fuction — even if does not make babies. You still seem to be arguing that straightness is better because it is procreative.

    You also remarked that “It (exclusive homosexuality) doesn’t kill anyone but it wasn’t part of the blueprint.” How do you know this? How can you categorically say such a thing? Just because it doesn’t bring forth kids? I think that’s why God (or natural selection) created straights. You compare gayness and autism. Autism is a disorder. Homosexuality is not. I think think it reveals your prejudice to equate gayness with disabilty. What about human bonding? Love? Devotion? Tenderness? Attachment? Aren’t they part of of blueprint?

  23. Mary: You are correct when you sense my anger. It is not toward you personally. It is toward unjust treatment of gays generally. As a child, I was routinely teased and beaten by straight kids for being different — and NARTH advisor, Berger, says that only “busybodies” object when he suggests that we keep up the bullying of kids. He’s still with NARTH. And EXODUS is still with NARTH.

    As a teen, I had to hide who I truly was so as not to experience rejection and even more violence. As an adult, I have been fired from two jobs — just for being gay. I was rejected the church. I was nearly killed and my best friend murdered for being gay — EXODUS wants all hate crime laws abolished and Cameron suggests extermination as a plausible solution to the gay problem. NARTH still supports Cameron and EXODUS still supports NARTH.

    So yes, I get angry when I hear any person or group(and again, I am not referring to you personally) say false or hateful things about gays (or stay affiliated with those who do). When it comes to the term “gay community”, I find it offensive because I do not think there IS a way to “define gays as a group, voting block, social segment, etc..”. There is no gay community. We are as diverse as straights. How about just saying “gay people” if you want to refer to us in the plural?

  24. Apology accepted. I have my days, too. And no it was not about clarification – it was somewhere else. But let by gones be by gones. Shake?

    We can start with a newer, better understanding that not everyone is bad.

  25. Ughhhh.

    Mary, let me rephrase what I meant to say (hey if presidential candidates can “rephrase”, why can’t I).

    What I meant to say was:

    If I offended you elsewhere, I am truly sorry.

  26. Well that was my guess. So I gotta say I have no idea why you were subjected to abuse. I still don’t think it’s indicative of gay folks in general but obviously it was in your case.

    As far as my writing style on other sites… yeah it changes from site to site. We all tend to. I may have been less polite to you elsewhere but (if we are referencing the same discussion) I think you may possibly have me confused with someone else. I recall asking for clarification from you on a story – but in a polite way. However if we were stating contrasting opinions – not personal stories – or some instance that I don’t recall, I may have been quite forceful. I can be from time to time.

  27. I’m not judging others. I am evaluating my own life and living it to the best of my vision. I do not think God wants me to live sexually active with another woman. I believe he intends for me to partner up with a man. That’s for me.

    As for the sober friend analogy. I have been accused of wanting to stay gay by affiliating with gays – and that was presented by gay people!! Would you say I was wanting to drink if I hung out with my friends who still drank??? No. I don’t preach to my neighbor about his sexuality. I could care less as long as he remains a good neighbor. You know – friendly, not too loud, helps with the plants and the courtyard, is polite to my friends who are coming and going etc… the samething he expects from me.

    I have been presented with more hostility, judgment, accusations and assumptions by gays simply for being a believer and an ex-gay – no matter what I say about supporting their rights, defending them to other believers etc… And I have been kicked out of chatrooms, discussion boards where christians were getting very political over the gay issue – as I am a defender of a gay rights. So, I do get it from both sides.

    BTW, in another forum Timothy, you were less than polite. I observe and watch a lot. Sorry, but I had to call you on that. You present differently in this forum than in others.

  28. Mary,

    Sorry – I was naive at one time thinking that of course the gay community was diverse in its acceptance of others but have since discovered that not to be true. Perhaps you are. But most are not.

    I will for the moment assume that you are not calling me naive. Obviously your experiences are vastly different than mine.

    Now granted I only personally knew two people who decided to become ex-gay (that I recall at the moment). But neither of them were subjected to any abuse that I ever became aware of. (Incidentally, I never heard from one of them and the other is, well, not finding the process to be easy). And both of them made this a personal decision, not a universal proclamation of what should be done by all.

    Let me float a possibility by you – though I will not assume that it is the case.

    I know at least three people who found themselves detrimentally impacted by drinking and so decided to become sober. Two of them continue to join their friends in social settings, but will have a Sprite or a tonic water.

    The other required a great deal of accomodation. And dished out a great deal of “I’m not saying what you should do, but…” type of “suggestion” to those around him. You couldn’t be part of a group and have a cocktail with dinner or go to the ballgame and have a beer if he was with you. His perspective was not that alcohol was bad for him but rather that alcohol was bad universally. He’s since mellowed out, but not before he lost many of his friends – some who seldom drank at all.

    Which brings me to my question.

    I don’t ask this to be accusatory. But is it possible that during the time in which others were not respectful of your decision, you might have expressed yourself in a way that seemed judgemental of others? Is it possible that at that particular time you held the view that homosexuality was something that should be corrected – rather than something that FOR YOU should be corrected?

    Because if you were expressing what was perceived as judgement on others, it’s probably not too surprising if they responded without grace.

    I only ask because my experience – limited though it may be – did not show any animosity or abuse towards those who sought to change.

  29. MIchael,

    Your last comment to me shows a lot of anger. I have never, ever suggested that gays not recieve equal rights in all things. I have to this day supported those quests, votes, bills etc… Just because I am not gay anymore does not mean that I have forgotten being gay and the inequality experienced by gays. For your information, I am a conservative christian but also a liberal voter. Hope this helps you see me and my words more clearly. I think we both have spoken that we want the same things as far as choice, decisions, etc…

    As far as terms that offend you – honestly, we are trying to discuss an issue and what term should I use to define gays as a group, voting block, social segment, etc..? Really, we use the term gay community in our neck of the country and no one is offended. It is difficult at best when discussing sensitive issues to find terms that meet everyone’s criteria. So – to better understand you – what term would you like to use instead of gay community?

  30. Ken, you wrote

    “As to your comments about gender re-assignment surgery. Do you believe a trans-gender person just walks into a surgeons office, asks for gender re-assignment and just gets scheduled for the next available surgery? Have you ever spoken to a therapist who helps trans-gender people? Ever spoken to someone who is trans-gendered? ”

    I have an easy counterpoint. How many therapy sessions should it take before a patient with Anorexia is allowed to get Gastric Bypass surgery? It is a nearly identical set of circumstances.

  31. David Blakeslee

    “It can be rooted in rationality and deduction also, and a sense that something is amiss which may be able to be changed, redirected or worked around.”

    That was expressed as logically as I’ve seen. Religion isn’t the reason I question the “what” and “why” of homosexuality. It doesn’t have to be immoral or something to condemn. If you believe that every cell in your body is the product of hundreds of thousands of years of natural selection an exclusive homosexual orientation doesn’t make rational sense. I believe it is akin to something like Autism. It doesn’t kill anyone but it wasn’t part of the blueprint.

    (This debate is getting pretty hot, I might go back and hide for a while) 😎

    BTW, I posted this last night, didn’t go through for some reason.

  32. BTW, Michael – you could always suggest Warren as a starting point. He seems to be more unbaised than most.

  33. Michael,

    “Are only heteros allowed to use them?”

    Let me see if I can trace my argument because I think you are confusing me with some who say, “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.”

    I have purposely proposed a biological design model for understanding why a secular client might pursue their potential for opposite sex attraction. I do not know why you are introducing the moral argument and this “Adam and Steve” argument.

    The task force seems to be overwhelmingly constructed by those who believe a gay or lesbian identity is the healthy outcome of experiencing SSA.

    I am trying to emphasize that a few secular clients I have known over the years have sought to explore heterosexual potential based upon a biological design model. They actively resent and reject religion as authoritative in their lives.

    Regarding: ‘What are hands “designed for”? How about Mouths? Genitals? Anuses?’

    We can expand the uses of these human functions, but as the uses stray from their primary purpose they are less effective and efficient.

    We can “hear” sound through our bones and while novel and interesting, it is not as effective or provide the broad range of understanding as does hearing through our ears.

  34. Ken,

    Yes, I am familiar with the amount of psychological evaluation that must take place before gender reassignment. A good friend of mine went through reassignment.

    I do not equate gender reassignment with a nose job. I equate body manipulation with body manipulation because we are dissatisfied with how our body fits into our image of ourselves and what is our perceived idea of what we need to feel complete (in that sense). We readily accept that gender reassignment makes someone the person they were born to be – and yet that 23rd chromosome will always say otherwise. In fact, I am making a bigger deal out of gender reassignment being acceptable and changing your mind not being acceptable. I won’t get into a long descending debate about whether or not being gay is inborn or environmental. My point is that you can’t make such a double standard for people by saying that if you were born one gender you may change everything about your body and appearance but if you were born gay you are not allowed to think differently about your sexuality and live heterosexually – even though you can’t change that gene – if it exists. In other words, look at it this way – it is okay to dress, act and sculpt away your body to “look” like the other gender (we know your genes will always testify against that) and it is not okay to dress, act, and behave like a heterosexual because we know your genes will always testify against that? That is what is being said by the GLBT community that accepts its T members.

    I read in one of these blogs on the issue of sexuality as expressed by his father pastor – that being gay is not as black and white as the church makes it out to be. Well, neither is it as black and white as the gay community makes it out to be.

    And though I believe for myself one set of standards I also believe that you may choose your standards for your life. If a person wants to go for gender reassignment, then go for it. But also let me do with my mind and my body what feels best for me. Is that fair?

    Michael,

    That you would do what you suggest concerns me. You never suggested to interview me, understand my goals, my perspectives on religion and its place in my life etc… And you have prejudged based on your experience that sexual orientation therapy does not work. (And I am stating this because, I know for myself and some of my friends, that is does work. You just don’t happen to know very many people like myself and have heard of all the bizarre stories from many other gay people) And that is so sad – what has been done to others in the name of religion and sin. However and in addition, if you knew me through an interview or intake session then you would know that sending me off to a faith based model (one which you yourself pronounced never worked for you) would not be very good – since I am not in agreement with many of the assumptions that faith based models make about sexuality, sexual sin, sexual orientation, and their methods of administering “care”. And I use the word care very generously here (okay so I’m a bit bitter towards the majority of the religious crowd). I conclude by saying that you have made the same error that you claim the religious crowd makes – assumptions, personal “truths” being applied to the general population and not providing other resources for a “client” to evaluate. That’s steering and it is biased.

    As far as the APA goes as an authoritative definition of people, mental disorders, sexuality etc… it is still only a group of people who get together and decide on a definition. It does not mean that it is correct – as we have seen over the years that changes do occur when we discover new methods of approaching mental health. It would be folly to think we have all the answers we will ever need right now, today. Well – at least for me. And, you would have known my perspective on this had you interviewed me as a client. Also, you are assuming that a person is not competent to research, evaluate, consider, negotiate, manage or have considered more about them than the quick determination that you make about them based on your life.

    So, you see – I really don’t take the APA or any religious doctrine as complete truth in most any circumstance. And neither should anyone else. We are a diverse group of thoughts, hopes, dreams, etc…. as humans. And we are much more than what others determine us to be – even ourselves sometimes. Trying to fit gays, ex gays, straights etc… into nice little molds doesn’t work. Are there similarities among certain groups of people? – Sure. But we don’t all like the same food.

    And you could refer me to NARTH but with a disclaimer about the Cameron thing. Yep – NARTH has an error. But it does not disqualify ALL the work they have done. No one, no organization, no church family, no family, no job, no country etc… is perfect, fits every expectation, or doesn’t lack some problem and not be in need of growth and change.

    Timothy,

    I have been blasted more times and in more violent and threatening ways by the gay community for changing. Sorry – I was naive at one time thinking that of course the gay community was diverse in its acceptance of others but have since discovered that not to be true. Perhaps you are. But most are not.

  35. For David: I have a real problem with any “natural design” argument about sexuality. You say that you are not arguing that heterosexuality is superior because that’s how God designed it, but I strongly suspect that is exactly what you meant. At least that’s what almost eveyone else means when they make the “design” argument. You hear it all the time: “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!” But that’s nonsense. Of COURSE he made Adam and Steve! And Glen and Mary and Christine and…

    David: What are hands “designed for”? How about Mouths? Genitals? Anuses? It seems to me that they are all “designed” for multiple purposes — including sexual pleasure. Are only heteros allowed to use them? The only thing that is “obvious” to me is that sperm and egg combine to make a fetus.

    And for Mary: What the “gay community” (a term I find very offensive) is “screaming” is: stop lying to us, stop trying to keep “equal rights” only for yourselves, stop saying hateful and untrue things about gays, stop equating right-wing politics with “real” Christianity, stop violence, stop bullying. We are certainly not saying that you can’t try to be straight if you really believe that’s what God expects of you. I have the right to live in accordance with my values and so do you.

  36. Mary,

    You make some very good points about what body changes are acceptable and which are not. You inspire thought about the artificial notions of betrayal to one’s ethnic or other identity group.

    But this is not fair:

    But here comes the gay community screaming – stop! You are not allowed to change your own mind! You were made gay and so gay you must be!

    I don’t know of ANYONE in the gay community saying that you are not allowed to seek to be straight if you so wish. Perhaps you have met them, but I have not. And it may possibly be a lesbian thing rather than a gay man thing, I don’t know.

    But all the gay people I know would say that you, as an individual, are certainly allowed to do what you want. We doubt orientation changes completely (and many gay people are willing to state that it absolutely does not). Frankly, mostly we think you’re wasting your time – but it’s your time and you’re welcome to waste it if you choose (personally, I think if it makes you happier, go for it).

    And we are collectively angry at those who insist that one MUST change their orientation. And angry at those who use reorientation claims as justification for discrimination – and as you know, they are many.

    And those of us who are people of faith are unhappy with religious leaders who are unwilling to reconsider scripture in context of its writing. And we are furious at those who insist that their interpretation of scripture justifies punitive and cruel legislation.

    But we are not, I repeat not, saying that someone cannot seek to be straight. If there is one community that almost universally supports the rights of the individual, it’s the gay community.

  37. Mary: I am not saying that I would have “denied you mental health services because of my faith, hope/expectations.” Denying mental health services to someone who really needs them is indeed unethical. I would try to find you what you are looking for, but where?

    I would need to be honest with you, follow APA guidelines and give you a little “informed consent.” I would have to tell you that there is no good scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed and that such “therapies” may actually do harm. As I see it, this is my ethical duty.

    If you wanted to talk to a therapist who thought they make you straight, I would have to tell you that I know of no one who has such skills. If you said you wanted to remain celibate because of your faith, I would respect your faith — but most likely refer you to someone who had experience helping people remain celibate — perhaps steer you in the direction of your church for a religiously-based clinic. If sexual reorientation was not your goal, but you wanted help putting together a healthier Christian lifestyle, then perhaps I could help.

    But I would not refer you to NARTH or EXODUS — until they both stongrly denounce Cameron and get out of politics. So, what’s left? You are right when you say: “People have the right to get up and walk away from therapy. If they are falling, falling, falling – then walk away. ” But then where do they go?

  38. Tim,

    “To suggest that heterosexuality is based on biological design or genetic purpose is to reduce heterosexuality to solely penis-vagina and to insemination.”

    Disagree.

    There is no reduction implied…only a starting point. That heterosexuality is biologically designed…a starting point.

    From there comes very distinct relational qualities which seem to be more valued by the female gender and which, over centuries (this too may be related to biological issues like oxytocin) have encouraged heterosexual men to behave monogomously.

    The intimate exploration of “otherness” in body shape, personality and gender.

    This is especially interesting since it appears to supercede the biological drive model and a superficial understanding of the evolutionary model Furthermore, it puts the human heterosexual male at odds with the overwhelming majority of other male mammals who are not monogomous and do not build relationships around sex.

    Biological design is a starting point around which identity is justifiably formed. Many things can be added to it and feelings in conflict with biological design create conflicts and confusion. Exploration of capacity for opposite sex attraction based upon biological design (and the intrinsic motivations of the patient) is a reasonable and rational, non-coercive and non-religious motivation for some clients.

  39. Warren said:

    Since I have never had anyone come to see me with the request Ken mentioned, I am not sure exactly what I would do.

    Is this really how you want to present your qualifications as a therapist, Warren? “Unless I’ve had previous experience with something, I’d be clueless about what to do”

    Given how you responded in the other thread (“Alan Chambers on the…”) to a similar question I posed about homophobia and racism, I don’t believe you missed the point of my questions. I was under the impression that you were willing to openly and honestly discuss your therapeutic methods. Yet when presented with an opportunity to delve into the issues, you dodge it like a high school student looking for an excuse not to do his homework. I’m disappointed, I had thought better of you.

  40. Mary said:

    Can I interupt? A black individual would go to a dermatologist or plastic surgeon to change their appearances – wouldn’t they??

    Only if they believed their inferiority was based solely on their appearance.

    As to your comments about gender re-assignment surgery. Do you believe a trans-gender person just walks into a surgeons office, asks for gender re-assignment and just gets scheduled for the next available surgery? Have you ever spoken to a therapist who helps trans-gender people? Ever spoken to someone who is trans-gendered?

    The fact that you would attempt to equate gender reassignment surgery with getting a nose job or liposuction give me a pretty good idea what the answers to those questions are.

  41. Mary – Yes, you may interrupt 🙂 Since I have never had anyone come to see me with the request Ken mentioned, I am not sure exactly what I would do. I have on the other hand had numerous requests surrounding sexuality and so I went and wrote guidelines about that matter.

  42. Can I interupt? A black individual would go to a dermatologist or plastic surgeon to change their appearances – wouldn’t they??

    Now, if they have an issue being black and have no interest in changing their skin color they could choose to go to either a therapist that will help them become the person they want to be (encourage change in skin color, plastic surgery to reduce what they view as racial characteristics or enhance those of their preferred racial preference) or they can go to a therapist who will affirm their race and not encourage them to make any changes.

    I guess, I question, when a man comes to therapy and he presents with gender identity issues and wants to change his gender – in today’s world – we are to encourage that person to fulfill their expression of themselves. Go castrate yourself, take hormones, have feminizing plastic surgery of the face and vagina, add fatty deposits into the lips, breast augmentation is usually performed, calves are sometimes enhanced, buttock implants are added etc….

    And then we oppose some who go in for skin lightening because it is considered a betrayal to your race and yet – it happens ALL over the world. Skin darkening also happens – please note the numerous adds for tanning, mist tanning etc…

    We say that if you are white and your nose is too big then get rhinoplasty – reshape and redesign because everybody is doing it. But if you have some african features such as a wide nasal cavity or larger lips and you want to reduce that, then you are a disgrace to your race or in denial of your ethnicity.

    Now going back to others, we say if you want to be a woman then do so. We have the technology – go do it. Even women today do not even feel feminine enough with the media putting constant images in front of us to enlarge our breasts, reduce our “love handles”, tighten up your butt, and labiaplasty is on the rise. Who would have ever thought of having a designer vagina?? But it’s all available. And who’s to judge???

    So, how do we navigate through this maze of how we were made vs. how we feel? Honestly, some days I am just amazed at how far we have come in what we do to our bodies. But here comes the gay community screaming – stop! You are not allowed to change your own mind! You were made gay and so gay you must be!

    Really? That just sounds like a double standard. And it also feels a little like intimidation and big brother looking over my shoulder. One thing I surely did learn from my lesbian experience – This is my body, my mind and I will do with it what I want to. Thank you very much.

    And anyone else may do so as they please with theirs – just as long as you stop at my nose.

  43. For Warren and David,

    How would you handle the following situation:

    A black client comes to you and wants you to help him be white, because he recognizes blacks are inferior to whites. Further, he recognizes you may not be able to make him completely white, but he wants to go as far as possible. Would you still maintain your values neutral approach? Would you say that your personal values conflict too much with your clients values and just refer him to another therapist who does believe that blacks are inferior to whites? What would you do as a therapist to help this person?

    And if your approach to this client would be different than for a gay client wanting to be straight, why?

  44. “Penis-vagina” sex seems extraordinarily reductionistic (and devaluing)…but if that is what you think heterosexual sex is, so be it.

    Human beings seem to need to make sexual activity between heterosexuals as both related to natural drives and something more than natural drives. Reproduction, sure; but monogomy and relationship focus seem to have developed as optimal ingredients to heterosexual sex.

    David,

    you are arguing my point exactly.

    To suggest that heterosexuality is based on biological design or genetic purpose is to reduce heterosexuality to solely penis-vagina and to insemination. I find such arguments (especially when phrased in terms of plumbing) to be overly simplistic and, in fact, insulting to straights. Appeals to natural design negate all that is relational and reduces sexuality to rutting.

    However, I think you err in assuming that the non-physical componants of relationships are limited to heterosexuals. I would state the following and hope that you will agree with it:

    Human beings seem to need to make sexual activity between homosexuals as both related to natural drives and something more than natural drives. Physical pleasure, sure; but monogomy and relationship focus seem to have developed as optimal ingredients to homosexual sex.

    We may (and I’m sure do) disagree about the extent to which same-sex relationships are monogamous (I observe them to be about as monogamous as heterosexual when presented with the same social conditions). But it is inarguable that they are relationship driven and far deeper than the physical drive to, umm, boink.

  45. Mary,

    Unless I’m mistaken, Beckstead is a practicing Mormon. I don’t know the religion of the other members. However, it does appear that at least the chair is strongly interested in the interplay between religion and faith so perhaps her perspective is more open that one might presume.

    One other member seems to be selected solely for her research and evaluation expertise.

    I do suspect that the committee members believe that a gay identity is best for same-sex attracted persons. However, that isn’t the question they are answering. They aren’t discussing “best” but rather what is appropriate for those who seek reorientation or values therapy.

    They seek to determine whether reorientation (or some other values based therapy) can have positive results. And we know that one member, at least, has reported on just such a thing. And one other has said that traditional reorientation can be harmful.

    We should not be so quick to claim “agenda” until we know more about the committee. Otherwise we can find ourselves in the uneviable position of appearing to have a martyr complex 😉

  46. I don’t think I introduced the notion of morally superior to this argument.

    I was arguing from a position of materialism, deduction, natural design…not moral superiority.

    “Penis-vagina” sex seems extraordinarily reductionistic (and devaluing)…but if that is what you think heterosexual sex is, so be it.

    Human beings seem to need to make sexual activity between heterosexuals as both related to natural drives and something more than natural drives. Reproduction, sure; but monogomy and relationship focus seem to have developed as optimal ingredients to heterosexual sex.

    Regarding Beckstead…

    we’ll see. He certianly appears at least outnumbered. The Shidlo and Schroder study, incredibly flawed and biased in its recruitment of participants and its goal is the reason why the task force is being orgainized. Again I restate, it appears that the task force is populated by members who believe that adopting a gay or lesbian identity is the optimal response to experiencing same-sex attractions.

  47. MIchael,

    You misunderstood my writing about coming out a different person with new coping skills and managments tools.

    Let me expand that to clarify.

    You will either come out of therapy with a new perspective of God and your sexuality and follow a gay sexuality or you will come out with a new perspective of God and sexuality and follow a heterosexual life.

    What I am trying to say is that you do not go in and come out with your therapists perspective of God and sexuality. That is for the individual to determine and that client has the right to pay a therapist that supports the client. Why would a therapist want me to see things their way?? When they have a program and schedule of their own – that’s when. Their job is to help me be me – not help me be them.

  48. Timothy,

    The composition of the group seems to be weighted in one direction. Getting a voice or declaring balanced perspectives should be just that – not heavily tipping to this side or that side.

    Gay perspective does not always mean diversity when is excludes the valid religious perspectives of clients.

    Valid does not mean single truth. Valid means different, varying perspective that has value to the person holding that opinion, belief. Secular morality has often been referred to as the new religion. By that standard – to whom does one give their allegiance.

  49. Michael,

    You may know people who are worse off for having been through some kind of therapy.

    I’m not pretending that there are not bad, bad therapists out their with an agenda of their own. However, I am thankful with all my soul that I could recieve Christian support mental health services to address.

    People have the right to get up and walk away from therapy. If they are falling, falling, falling – then walk away. Just because there are bad therapists out there and bad outcomes does not mean that every therapist is bad or that every client has a bad outcome.

    I know a lot of progress has been made in this field and for that I am truly grateful. By eliminating or curtailing to fit the needs of some we ignore the needs of others. I am one of thos others. Are you saying that you would have denied to me mental health services because of my faith, hope/expectations?? Or worse yet, told me that there was only one way to deal with my sexuality and that was to go out and have relationships with women?

    If that is what you are suggesting, then that in itself is unethical. That is steering towards your own beliefs not mine.

    I know you see things differently. I am not asking you or anyone else to indulge in a therapuetic relationship or process that is harmful. I am asking that I have the right to choose my therapy and the right get “my diversity on” even if that means I am conservative.

  50. One need not be religious to experience tension and confusion about being attracted to the same sex. To see how one’s body is biologically designed is to understand a genetic purpose to gender and identity.

    David, I think that you are doing little more here that stating an opinion – and one that is not based on study or even observation.

    I would suggest that there are not significant numbers of persons who come to some tension and confusion based solely on genetics or biology. I doubt that there are many individuals, if any at all, who wish to change their attractions out of some need to propogate the species.

    What you are claiming is that heterosexuality is an obviously desired state and that an observation of biology and genetics deems it so. This is, frankly, of little value and displays what is commonly called heterosexist thinking – the presumption that all are (or should be) heterosexual and interpreting all observations though the lens of that bias.

    Observations of “biological design and genetic purpose” do not seem on their own to produce conflicts. I would suggest that very few heterosexuals act out of genetic purpose – nearly all seek to limit the number of children by means either prophylactic or natural. Yet they feel no tension with design or purpose. I would suggest that monogamy itself is contrary to biological design or genetic purpose yet it does not cause confusion.

    If you wish to claim that some such conflict exists in a vacuum without culture or religion, you may need to provide more than just a statement that it’s true.

    I would suggest, instead, that being a minority raised without recognition that there are others like yourself could create conflict. So too could cultural expressions. Or familial obligations. Or definitions of what is “the good life”. Or, yes, religious teaching.

    But some objective observation of biology? I’ll need more than your just saying that it’s so.

  51. Mary says that the woman seeking reorientation “will come out a different person with new perspectives, skills for managing/coping with herself.” Not necessarily. I have met many, many people who have emerged from “reparative therapy” much more damaged than when they went in — STILL homosexually oriented, doubting their salvation and hating themselves even more because they couldn’t become straight.

    And I disagree that David’s implication that penis/vagina sex is somehow morally superior when he argues that “to see how one’s body is biologically designed is to understand a genetic purpose to gender and identity.” Genetic purpose does not equal right and wrong. Anatomy is not morality.

    I clearly see how my body is designed. I understand that reproduction occurs heterosexually. But that does not mean that reproduction is the sole purpose of sexuality — or that non-heterosexual expressions of love are therefore somehow wrong. I am reminded of the old (bad) joke: “If God had intended for men to have sex with each other, He would have given them…” (You know the rest…)

  52. David and Warren,

    When I read the list, I noticed that Lee Beckstead was a part of the committee. And I remembered that Beckstead has in the past advocated the notion that values reinforcing therapy can result in positive consequences for the same-sex attracted patient. I was pleased to see the following:

    I will point out that Lee Beckstead has endorsed the sexual identity therapy framework and is presenting with Mark Yarhouse and me in a symposium in August at the APA convention.

    So I am uncertain why the composition of this committee is considered to be “agenda” or lacking in religious or viewpoint diversity.

  53. In addition, the outcome of plastic surgery procedures or mental health counseling will be different for each individual because of the client and doctor. Good surgeons always ask what is your percieved body, what is your ideal body, and what is your expectation of the outcome. Any person who has unrealistic expectations is probably not a good candidate for surgery. The same can be said for counseling. If you go in thinking that your all problems will go away, then you are unrealistic. Somewhere along the line a person has to learn to deal with their picadelios (sp?) and that is basically still a choice.

  54. One need not be religious to experience tension and confusion about being attracted to the same sex. To see how one’s body is biologically designed is to understand a genetic purpose to gender and identity.

    It is narrow-minded to view those who wish to explore heterosexual potential as being oppressed into treatment by cultural or religious bullies.

    It can be rooted in rationality and deduction also, and a sense that something is amiss which may be able to be changed, redirected or worked around.

    There appears to be in the task force the implicit assumption that gay and lesbian identity is the healthy outcome for same sex attraction….

    That will become the new coercion and the APA will become the new authority to enforce it…a kind of liberal fundamentalism at odds with scientific inquiry.

  55. If a woman goes to a plastic surgeon to have liposuction or breast reduction, she is going to lop off the offending part of her body. We pretty much accept this as normal these days. If a woman goes to a mental health professional and talks about how she percieves her behaviors and desires and she finds these unacceptable to her religious faith then she is going to lop off the offending part of her inconsistencies – either her faith and belief in her God or her understanding of her behaviors and desires. And she will come out a different person with new perspectives, skills for managing/coping with herself.

    My question is, just as it was when I was gay – why is it okay for one group of people to design a life/perspective/understanding for my life instead of having myself do that??

    It seems to me, that when someone’s God offends someone else, then we prescribe lopping off that God …. and replacing it with a newer fashioned version of God.

    IMO, people should have the right to keep their God and get mental health services, too.

  56. You didn’t “get me”. I am not part of an LGBT group and really have no opinion on sex reassignment surgery, exept that on an emotional leve it kinda saddens and puzzles me. I’m a gay man. I understand that. Transgendered folks will have to speak for themselves. Sexual reorientation (if it is even possible) may be less intrusive, but it is unproven, potentially harmful — and there is no good reason the APA should endorse it.

    What I am trying to say is that it seems to me that some people are upset that the APA won’t endorse efforts to change sexual orientation. Why should they? Should the APA urge its members to support any choice, any belief?

    My point about the “limb thing” is that I don’t think therapists whould feel obligated to give clients anything they want just becuase they want it — or because the cleint’s religion teaches it.

  57. Michael Bussee

    “I personally believe that the desire to change one’s sexual orientation is akin to the desire to hack off a perfectly healthy limb.”

    I don’t mean to play gotcha but how do you feel about a man with Gender Identity Disorder undergoing a sex change procedure? LBGT groups have long supported sex reassignment. Therapy to help someone overcome or cope with “gay” feelings is a hundred times less invasive.

  58. If his leg is already gone, I guess I would have to.

    However, I do not agree with your premise. Wanting to follow your beliefs about sexual purity is not analogous to lopping off limbs.

  59. I just re-read this: “Any judgments made about what the desire to change means is a value based one and not one based on science.”

    That’s very true. And it applies equally to those who believe sexual orientation can/should be changed (EXODUS, NARTH, reparative therapists, Cameron, etc.)and those believe that homosexuality is a perfectly natural, morally neutral, human variation — and that we should leave well enough alone. Either way, we’re ultimately talking religion, not science.

  60. It is one thing to affirm that a client’s religious views ought to be respected — but under all circumstances? What if the client’s desire is to learn how to stand the rest of his life on only one leg because his other leg has offended him and he is taking the Bible literally that he should cut off the offending part?

  61. The diversity that may be overlooked is religious and viewpoint diversity. Any judgments made about what the desire to change means is a value based one and not one based on science. Given the task force’s charge and most of its members now, I wonder if viewpoint diversity will be respected.

    I will point out that Lee Beckstead has endorsed the sexual identity therapy framework and is presenting with Mark Yarhouse and me in a symposium in August at the APA convention.

  62. Just because a client wants to change something does not mean that the APA should embrace it as “diveristy”. I personally believe that the desire to change one’s sexual orientation is akin to the desire to hack off a perfectly healthy limb. Just because someone has strong religious prohibitons against something doesn’t mean the APA should endorse it.

  63. What this means:

    Looks like an agenda driven task force. Diversity, Diversity, Diversity, Diversity….

    Oops, not you guys, we don’t want diversity on the panel itself.

    What a narrow worldview.

    A fear-based choice; rather than a scientifically curious choice.

    Or maybe it is scientifically curious, or should I say “odd.”

    The APA could settle the “culture war” pollution the science on both sides by includings a larger, more diverse panel.

    Narrow, small panel screams AGENDA.

    Psychology abandons it’s scientific mantle and so marginalizes it’s voice of authority in matters of human sexuality.

  64. I was hoping that I’d see Dr. Throckmorton’s name on that panel. 😎

    While I believe change is possible for some people, I don’t believe a 180 degree turn is possible for anyone. Twenty years from now when a true “cure” is available I wonder what the APA’s opinion will be. Most of the people on this message board will probably live to see it IMHO.

  65. I believe it means what should a therapist do if someone walks into his/her office and says “I’m gay and I don’t want to be”

    And I think what constitutes “appropriate” and “affirmative” is something that the task force needs to determine.

  66. The appropriate application of affirmative therapeutic interventions for adults who present a desire to change their sexual orientation or their behavioral expression of their sexual orientation, or both;

    What does that mean?

Comments are closed.