Jim Burroway at Box Turtle Bulletin has an extraordinary report on a young man treated by George Rekers in 1970. This is a must read and a significant contribution to understanding the roots of treatment for homosexuality. As most readers of this blog know, George Rekers, former NARTH board member, was caught with a male prostitute last year. His efforts to prevent homosexuality were unsuccessful on that personal level and according to Burroway had tragic consequences for a young man who launced Rekers career.
Here is just a snippet of the report. This section is relevant to the post I did last week on Chuck Colson’s promotion of Joseph Nicolosi’s book on preventing homsexuality.
UCLA’s Neuropsychiatric Institute wasn’t just one of the world’s great research facilities, it was home to some of the top experts on gender identity. Dr. Robert Stoller, who established the Gender Identity Clinic at the Institute in 1963, is credited with coming up with the concept of “gender identity” as a distinct concept in which one’s self-perception of his or her gender can be different from one’s apparent anatomical sex.
Stoller was a leading expert on “transsexualism,” but he didn’t venture much into homosexuality in the 1960s, calling it “a large issue beyond my present understanding.” But by the 1970?s he was willing to tackle homosexuality as well, since he regarded homosexuality and transsexualism as two expressions of the same problem. Stoller believed that the most feminine boys — the most extremely feminine boys — would grow up to become transsexual. But those boys who somehow managed to pick up some stray bits of masculinity along the way had considerably more options available to them. With a touch more masculinity, a boy might avoid becoming transsexual and instead become merely homosexual. Add still more masculinity, and maybe he would be straight but a cross-dresser. More masculinity still, and he’d be “normal.” How much masculinity a boy picked up depended entirely on his mother.
This meant that feminine boys weren’t the only ones in psychology’s crosshairs. Mothers were targeted as well. This was nothing new. Psychology had long blamed mothers for all sorts of problems in their children, including schizophrenia, autism, asthma, and, of course, homosexuality and other forms of gender non-conformity. Stoller told a panel at a 1976 American Psychoanalytic Association meeting, “Most feminine boys result from a mother who, whether with benign or malignant intent, is too protective, and a father who either is brutal or absent (literally or psychologically).” That statement apportions some blame on the father, but Stoller let them off the hook because, after all, it was the mother who chose to have the father in the picture to begin with. “He was chosen by his wife to be a distant, passive, nonparticipating man.”
Stoller was just one of the many stars at UCLA. Dr. Ivar Lovaas, who established the ward that housed the clinic, was head of UCLA’s Neuropsychiatric Institute. He was already famous for his controversial behavioral treatment program for autistic children, some of which involved electric shock therapy. Some of his behavior modification techniques (minus the electric shock therapy) made their way into UCLA’s treatment program for suspected “prehomosexual” or “pretranssexual” children. Another UCLA researcher, Alexander Rosen, published several important articles describing his work with gender nonconforming children and adults. Three of his early papers were co-written with Stoller. Later, he would co-write at least fourteen more with Rekers. Peter Bentler was another noted researcher, and his contributions were in the field of “psychometrics” — in developing psychological tests and performing complex statistical analyses in order to interpret the results. He would write five papers with Rekers and Rosen, including three papers vigorously defending the Clinic’s experimental children’s program against its more vocal critics.
As noted last week, Chuck Colson promoted these same theories in his columns encouraging parents to get Nicolosi’s book on preventing homosexuality. Guess who wrote the only professional recommendation for Nicolosi’s book on Amazon.com? George Rekers is the correct answer. Rekers wrote:
“Every concerned parent will benefit from this practical parenting advice on how to help a child develop a secure gender identity that leads to a normal heterosexual orientation in adulthood. Joseph Nicolosi is an internationally recognized professional expert on therapies that promote normal heterosexual adjustment. He is known for his long-standing leadership in a key professional association that applies scientific findings to psychosexual adjustment. But his breadth of technical scientific knowledge is combined with years of extensive clinical experience helping everyday people. This combination has enabled the authors to explain psychological research findings to parents in a very practical way. Their book provides clear guidance on what parents can do to promote their child’s sexual adjustment.” (George A. Rekers, Ph.D., professor of neuropsychiatry and behavior science, University of South Carolina School of Medicine )
This recommendation should be read in the light of Burroway’s new report. According to Burroway, Anderson Cooper at CNN is also covering this story beginning tomorrow night. I will be following it as well, and providing additional material that highlights the roots of efforts to prevent homosexuality in children and the parent blaming that goes along with it.
@Ken# –
Lovaas is best known for his use of cattle-prods as part of behavioural conditioning of autistic children at UCLA at the time.
Please see THE MISBEHAVIOUR OF BEHAVIOURISTS
Ethical Challenges to the Autism-ABA Industry by Michelle Dawson.
Thanks Zoe. A very interesting commentary.
I’m sure you are correct to suggest that there are instances where ‘treatment of last resort’ might be necessary, if only to protect others. (After all, despite the very poor record that prisons have when it comes to the rehabilitation of offenders, we still deem it necessary to send some people to prison in order to ‘protect society’.) But to say that such ‘treatment of last resort’ is actually therapeutic is a contention that strikes me as very difficult to justify; I suspect that such ‘treatment’ is not administered to help the client her/himself – rather because it is deemed necessary or convenient for others. I take the view that doing something to someone ostensibly for others’ perceived benefit is not what ‘therapy’ is about. Therapy must be directly beneficial to the client, or else it isn’t therapy. Period.
I suspect that many experiments on ‘sissy boys’ etc are not motivated by a desire to help the boy in question, but rather in response to the aspirations and/or ideological bents of others. Thus such experiments surely fail the principle ‘litmus test’ of what constitutes true ‘therapy’. Rekers had an ‘axe to grind’ (he was, I suspect, projecting his own agenda onto his clients); this ipso facto rules him out as an effective therapist.
Thank you, Timothy, for your explanation. As usual, with many of your comments, this further comment of yours was well written and cogent.
Thank you, also, David Blakeslee, for your invaluable insights on this issue.
I do have two further questions:
How much of reparative therapy and NARTH are dependent on George Rekers and his writings?
Do you think NARTH, et. al., will take note of this and in any way amend their current position regarding reparative therapy?
Timothy – Make sure you write about that; gives some indication of how broadly this story is being followed.
Cattle-prods! OMG!
(I suppose that, back in the day, ‘therapists’ did some pretty crass and brutal things. What a good thing that many have ‘moved on’. What a shame that people like Rekers have not.)
Thanks for making this point so clearly, Tim. Even if Kirk hadn’t killed himself for whatever reason, this story would still be scandalous because of the Wonkatastical-scale “fudging” of data (possibly exaggerating Kirk’s effeminacy, whitewashing the corporal punishment involved in the “poker-chip” system, not reporting the teenage suicide attempt, not attempting to do long-term follow-ups with Kirk as an adult, etc.).
David
I agree with points 1 through 5.
But I think it is irrelevant to points 1 through 5 that Kirk committed suicide. The reporting of Kraig was neither more nor less inaccurate in 2002 than in 2004.
I think what is confusing is that we are conflating the two questions on sexual orientation therapy: 1) is it effective, and 2) is it harmful.
Kirk’s story significantly contributes to the question as to whether such therapy is effective. As the Kraig study has been instrumental in supporting the therapy, the revelation that it does not support that theory – and, in fact, refutes it – is very important.
As to the second question, the harm of orientation therapy, the suicide might be relevant but to a much lesser degree. We cannot claim that Kirk’s suicide is directly linked to the therapy (regardless of the family’s beliefs). There were just too many other factors to make such a claim.
So while it may be interesting (and worth consideration) Kirk’s suicide does not give conclusive testimony to either effectiveness or harm. That’s why I was calling it irrelevant (though your term “secondary” might be better)
And it is truly terrible of me…. but Reker’s compatriot in the whole mess was a guy named… Dr. I. Lovaas
Only a Mel Brooks character could have gotten away with that name.
Teresa,
My hunch is they will lift my arguments about confounding variables to deny that “reparative therapy” can account for Kirk’s being harmed.
Secondly, they are likely to say that a reparative model that is not interpersonally focused is likely to have poor effects and easily results in poor outcomes.
I don’t know of anyone, during my brief NARTH experience, that ever advocated for a behavioral model like Rekers’ to treat unwanted SSA.
Rekers’ model is not psychodynamic or interpersonal in nature. Joe’s work with adults will not be changed, his book on preventing homosexuality in children will need to be amended.
Guys… to clear up some stuff (this is a complicated story)
The issue is not really whether the program is solely responsible for Kirk’s suicide. That is a bit unknowable and frankly a bit of a red herring.
The issue is that George Rekers made claims about the effectivity of therapy to prevent homosexuality. As evidence he presented Kraig and the story of Kraig was the primary evidence reported over his 30+ year career.
Rekers cannot say “I didn’t know.” Because he CLAIMED to know. As recent as 2009 (when Kirk had been dead for six years) Rekers was presenting the story of Kirk as evidence of his success.
So CONSEQUENCE ONE: whatever claims that Rekers made based on the Kraig case study no longer have any basis. Kraig did not “grow up straight” as Rekers reported. This speaks not to intent, but simply to the study being a failure rather than a success.
Further, Rekers should have known that Kraig was not a success. The follow up in his late teens reported (it’s there in the black and white) that Kirk had attempted suicide in the previous year. If this did not set off red flags for Rekers (and it appears that it did not) then Rekers may possibly be the single worst therapist to walk the face of the planet.
Truly, is there a greater sign of failure than your patient trying to kill themself at 17? Regardless of the reason for the attempt, clearly there’s a problem. To declare this kid to be “cured” has go to be callousness on a colossal level.
CONSEQUENCE TWO: George Rekers has demonstrated a desire to report conclusions that supported his agenda rather than facts. Thus, we know that any positions based on Rekers’ research has no basis.
So the twin pillars of Rekers and Kraig must be removed from the structure of reparative and preventative therapy.
I suspect that when these are removed, the entire structure has insufficient support. We will have to see.
Timothy,
I think the nuclear explosion here is that Reker’s research is horribly flawed in its data collection. Regardless of how Kirk’s story played out (even if he turned out to be heterosexual), the:
1. Initial diagnosis of Kirk is extremely suspect (Reker appears to have exaggerated his symptoms).
2. The progress reported during treatment provided directly by Rekers is suspect (no control group, nothing to account for a compliant child wanting to please experiementers).
3. The research based upon the data collection by the mother is corrupt due to contamination by Kirk’s brother.
4. The lack of control on other contaminating variables like alcoholism and abuse (sexual repression is sometimes an outgrowth of trauma…you stop feeling everything).
5. The lack of humility about not knowing Kirk’s status as an adult when he was alive (he had no right to assume heterosexual adjustment).
The complexity associated with suicide needs to be acknowledged and is no “red herring”…but it is secondary to the clear corruption of Reker’s credibility on scientific grounds.
While Rekers’ work was clearly flawed, this report calls into question far more than his papers. Keep in mind there were at least 2 other UCLA faculty members (Green and Lovaas) involved in this research that should have acted as a check on Rekers.
I would say ANY research from that era (esp. dealing with sexual orientation/gender non-conformity with small sample sizes) needs to be looked at carefully.
And I’m very curious what people who relied on Rekers’ work (ex. Nicholosi) have to says about this research. Esp. the revelation of the serious flaws in his data.
David, Warren
Yes, even though we went to a dedicated server, it became overloaded and went down. We are desperately trying to get our service to get us back on line.
It is beyond frustrating.
Then how could he continue citing him as a successful example of effeminate-gay-child-to-successful-heterosexual-male?
Timothy,
It is to your credit that the site has crashed! :).
Good story, well written; Important.
Thanks David,
My role was just as proof reader. The real credit goes to Jim Burroway.
Warren,
We will do so.
Jon, he assumed that the Kirk he saw at the end of this ‘therapy’ was Kirk forever. At least, that’s my assumption for Rekers. I really can’t fault Rekers for any of this UCLA experiment, or his role in this. Although, if he witnessed some of the actual ‘therapy’, I would be less inclined to be charitable. In my opinion, some of this experimental ‘therapy’ crossed over into the area of child abuse.
Jon, what do we know … about what Rekers knew … about Kirk later on? Did they follow-up some years later to see how Kirk was doing? Was that part of the Proposal for this experiment? We can’t take Rekers later ongoing dismissal of reparative therapies’ pitfalls, or his cherry-picking scientific data (and, I’m not assigning wilfulness to this), and lump that with the George Rekers of yesteryear.
Warren,
Link to BTB is broken at this time.
The website appears to be down…
I agree with David. While the UCLA study probably contributed to Kirk’s suicide, there were many other factors in his life that contributed as well.
And it is still unclear who was actually in charge of the study. It shouldn’t have been Rekers (he was just starting out as a grad student), however, he seems to be the only one wanting to claim it. It seems Green was the PI on the grant, but Rekers’ papers are co-authored with Lovaas and not Green. It would be interesting to hear from the other assistant Kaytee Murphy mentioned.
Teresa,
To attribute Kirk’s suicide to coercive treatment alone could be an example of confirmation bias and it would be likely if one were a political activist.
To attribute Kirk’s suicide to his homosexuality alone could be an example of confirmation bias and it would be likely if one were a political activist.
David B said:
And that is the point of the post. I don’t think the suicide was in direct relationship to the treatment. I do wonder to what degree those experiences promoted by UCLA led to his view of himself. All off these things influence a cascade of events to follow. However, as you know, I think childhood accounts for very little of the variance for personality in general so I do not believe his adult depression was directly caused by this therapy.
I do wonder however, if more sensitive care could have been given to the parents at the time (the real patients), then could the cascade of events been much different for the whole family.
@ David Blakeslee:
I think I’ve answered my previous question to you. It is simplistic to state that this experiment was solely the cause of Kirk’s problems or suicide, ignoring for the most part his troubled parents and upbringing.
Question to you, David:
Do you see any value in BTB and CNN’s pursual of this story?
Barbara, that is the truly sad thing about all this. It appears, even to this day, George Rekers will take no responsibility for anything; will not even apologize, and will not admit his own same-sex attractions. According to Jim Burroway on Box Turtle Bulletin, CNN tracked down Rekers, who, seemingly unaware of the irony, resorted to the excuse of (loose paraphrase) “it’s not scientifically shown that we caused this” … “that we were responsible”.
I can attribute youthful ambition and ignorance to Rekers; but, at this late date, I’m finding it hard to see this man in a Christian way.
The part I find most (un)humorous about this whole sad afair is that Rekers contiued to cite Kirk as a successfully adjusted effeminate-child-to-hetero-man as recently as 2009 — which is 6 years after he’d committed suicide and years after he’d accepted that he was gay.
@ Boo : Sex and gender – not the same thing, actually. Again, sorry if you were offended.
I would suggest that people read the entire article at BTB.
The family does not blame Rekers…they barely remember him! What they do remember is a “graduate student” named George who was minor figure.
They blame Green, repeatedly and vehemently; he advertised the UCLA program and oversaw the NIH studies.
Secondly: There are significant confounding variables leading to Kirk’s suicide:
1. Child abuse
2. Vicarious Traumatic violence (murder of close family relative).
3. Alcoholism
4. Parental abandonment
5. Mental Health Decompensation by custodial parent
Warren,
You would caution about us coming up with simplistic causes for SSA; isn’t it equally a sign of “confirmation bias” to do so in this situation?
No matter what, the science of Rekers’ work is completely in doubt, and rightly so.
Sorry if you were offended. There are ‘problems’ with ‘the law’ in the UK when it comes to transgendered / transsexual / intersex persons. French law has, I believe, recently been altered to make what is hoped will be better provision for them.
Fortunately one does not have to wait for a change in the law in order to refer to people with their correct gender.
Richard,
What is the distinction? Fortunately or unfortunately, I think the issue of definitions is going to be an ongoing key factor in understanding rather than assuming, which happens too often for many of us.
I know of a boy who has the most beautiful eyes. He is expressive, sensitive, bright and creative. He recently had highlights added to his hair – just like his mom! So says he. Cannot help but smile and enjoy this child. I pray for him and fear for him. We know there are going to be some tough days.
His intervention is oddly superficial, but painfully thorough: Behavior Modification.
It was meant to ‘raise a chuckle’! But there could be a serious point there as well, I suppose.
Great to hear you got guns ‘out of your system’ at an early age – and without any ‘reparative therapy’! When I was little, it was ‘Action Girl’, not Barbie, by the way! My father even painted a turquoise bikini on her, so that ‘Mighty Neil’ (who was about half her height and three times her width) wouldn’t be embarrassed! I blame my sister, of course (but don’t tell her that, or she’d ‘clock’ me one)!
(I wish I could do those smiley faces – maybe a British court has banned them pursuant to some super-injunction!!!)
Warren, can we extrapolate anything from this “… preventing homosexuality via manipulation of gender roles.” to the further development of altering homosexuality via psychoanalysis? In my mind, it’s not a leap in logic to think one is dependent on the other. Also, would admission of this failure necessarily lead to a re-examination of reparative theory, or simply be excused away to the subject being inadequate to the task?
Richard, I had to chuckle at your comment above. I was the gun-toting little girl, and thankfully I wasn’t forced to play Barbie dress-up. Heavens only knows what Barbie would be up to right now! 🙂
BTW, I didn’t find it tasteless, at all.
Incidentally, I personally know only one person, now deceased (GRHS), who actually had ‘the op’. Before s/he did so, s/he was married and fathered three children, served in the Royal Navy and was an engineer by trade (s/he and I spent many happ hours talking about planes, trains and automobiles). S/He was also a committed Christian. So much for the ‘ballerina syndrome’! (Oh, and as far as I know, there were no ‘pre- or post-op’ boyfriends.)
P.S. I can’t dance for toffee, and never could! LOL!
@ Teresa
Deeply-held convictions and emotions are very much linked, in my view. In most cases, the conviction / emotion comes first, with ‘logic’ employed subsequently to ‘back it up’. In itself, this is not wrong (I have convictions – which I then use logical argument to support – of my own), but it is not the ‘scientific paradigm’. That’s my point – and Warren’s too, I suspect.
I don’t think that what these people do is necessarily done with malice; I do think it is fatally flawed and (potentially) very damaging. And, as the saying goes, ‘the road to hell is paved with good intentions’. Good intentions aren’t good enough if the actions are demonstrably destructive ones.
I see your point about the need for some to believe that homosexual orientation is ‘avoidable’. A cynic might suggest that such people’s livelihoods depended upon such an ‘axiom’. A less cynical critic might say what you have said on this point. (I must confess to being a ‘part-time’ cynic here!)
(Perhaps I should, in ‘fairness’ to Rekers, also make the point that we all ‘have axes to grind’; however ‘professionalism’ and good science both point to the necessity of always trying to mitigate the effects of those ‘axes’ in this interests of those we might seek to ‘help’.)
Thanks Zoe. A very interesting commentary.
I’m sure you are correct to suggest that there are instances where ‘treatment of last resort’ might be necessary, if only to protect others. (After all, despite the very poor record that prisons have when it comes to the rehabilitation of offenders, we still deem it necessary to send some people to prison in order to ‘protect society’.) But to say that such ‘treatment of last resort’ is actually therapeutic is a contention that strikes me as very difficult to justify; I suspect that such ‘treatment’ is not administered to help the client her/himself – rather because it is deemed necessary or convenient for others. I take the view that doing something to someone ostensibly for others’ perceived benefit is not what ‘therapy’ is about. Therapy must be directly beneficial to the client, or else it isn’t therapy. Period.
I suspect that many experiments on ‘sissy boys’ etc are not motivated by a desire to help the boy in question, but rather in response to the aspirations and/or ideological bents of others. Thus such experiments surely fail the principle ‘litmus test’ of what constitutes true ‘therapy’. Rekers had an ‘axe to grind’ (he was, I suspect, projecting his own agenda onto his clients); this ipso facto rules him out as an effective therapist.
(Perhaps I should, in ‘fairness’ to Rekers, also make the point that we all ‘have axes to grind’; however ‘professionalism’ and good science both point to the necessity of always trying to mitigate the effects of those ‘axes’ in this interests of those we might seek to ‘help’.)
@Richard Willmer – um…. how to say this…..
Institute uses punishment machine to discipline severely autistic and emotionally disturbed children by giving them electric shocks
It is at least possible that with the most profoundly self-destructive patients, this “treatment of last resort” might be less harmful than any other therapy, or lack of it. I’m willing to entertain the idea that with strict oversight and supervision, that in a few cases, it might be the only way forward, no matter how distasteful.
BUT…. if such an incident happened, the only ethical way of dealing with it would be to keep meticulous records, analyse what happened, and put in preventative measures, while informing parents and civil authorities of the incident.
What happened indicates a culture devoid of ethics, and devoid of humanity. There was no supervision, no review, no questioning, and the amount and severity of shocks well after the fictitious incident amounts to punitive torture, nothing more .
While I could give the benefit of the doubt, that these therapists meant well, no matter how wrong and even evil I might consider their “treatment” to be, this episode shows a lack of professionalism, a lack of responsibility, and a lack of moral decency. There is no benefit of the doubt to give. These are monsters.
As to why I’m willing to entertain the idea, there’s this:
I am unaware of any long-term follow-up though.
TLDR version: it’s still happening. Hi-tech, specially -designed CSS (Contingent Skin Shock) machines – glorified cattle-prods – are still in use, though on teens rather than toddlers. The evidential basis for this treatment is poor.
Cattle-prods! OMG!
(I suppose that, back in the day, ‘therapists’ did some pretty crass and brutal things. What a good thing that many have ‘moved on’. What a shame that people like Rekers have not.)
@Richard Willmer – um…. how to say this…..
Institute uses punishment machine to discipline severely autistic and emotionally disturbed children by giving them electric shocks
It is at least possible that with the most profoundly self-destructive patients, this “treatment of last resort” might be less harmful than any other therapy, or lack of it. I’m willing to entertain the idea that with strict oversight and supervision, that in a few cases, it might be the only way forward, no matter how distasteful.
BUT…. if such an incident happened, the only ethical way of dealing with it would be to keep meticulous records, analyse what happened, and put in preventative measures, while informing parents and civil authorities of the incident.
What happened indicates a culture devoid of ethics, and devoid of humanity. There was no supervision, no review, no questioning, and the amount and severity of shocks well after the fictitious incident amounts to punitive torture, nothing more .
While I could give the benefit of the doubt, that these therapists meant well, no matter how wrong and even evil I might consider their “treatment” to be, this episode shows a lack of professionalism, a lack of responsibility, and a lack of moral decency. There is no benefit of the doubt to give. These are monsters.
As to why I’m willing to entertain the idea, there’s this:
I am unaware of any long-term follow-up though.
TLDR version: it’s still happening. Hi-tech, specially -designed CSS (Contingent Skin Shock) machines – glorified cattle-prods – are still in use, though on teens rather than toddlers. The evidential basis for this treatment is poor.
@Ken# –
Lovaas is best known for his use of cattle-prods as part of behavioural conditioning of autistic children at UCLA at the time.
Please see THE MISBEHAVIOUR OF BEHAVIOURISTS
Ethical Challenges to the Autism-ABA Industry by Michelle Dawson.
Thanks for making this point so clearly, Tim. Even if Kirk hadn’t killed himself for whatever reason, this story would still be scandalous because of the Wonkatastical-scale “fudging” of data (possibly exaggerating Kirk’s effeminacy, whitewashing the corporal punishment involved in the “poker-chip” system, not reporting the teenage suicide attempt, not attempting to do long-term follow-ups with Kirk as an adult, etc.).
Teresa,
My hunch is they will lift my arguments about confounding variables to deny that “reparative therapy” can account for Kirk’s being harmed.
Secondly, they are likely to say that a reparative model that is not interpersonally focused is likely to have poor effects and easily results in poor outcomes.
I don’t know of anyone, during my brief NARTH experience, that ever advocated for a behavioral model like Rekers’ to treat unwanted SSA.
Rekers’ model is not psychodynamic or interpersonal in nature. Joe’s work with adults will not be changed, his book on preventing homosexuality in children will need to be amended.
Teresa,
When Jim started looking into this, he was surprised at the extent to which this case study was present in the literature. The 1974 paper which broke the case very nearly became a “classic” in the professional literature and was cited more than a hundred times by other journals, books, and even college textbooks. “Kraig’s” case — Rekers’s pseudonym for Kirk, was cited specifically by numerous researchers, and he became the subject of intense debate over the ethics and efficacy of behavioral therapy to change sexual orientation. It was among the top 12 cited articles in clinical psychology in the 1970s.
It was most recently discussed in the 2009 NARTH handbook prepared by Dr. Julie Harren Hamilton (Handbook of Therapy for Unwanted Homosexual Attractions).
As for what NARTH will do… sadly, if history is anything to go by, NARTH will mostly ignore this revelation and will seek to discredit or diminish anyone involved in the reporting. I hope I’m wrong.
Thank you, Timothy, for your explanation. As usual, with many of your comments, this further comment of yours was well written and cogent.
Thank you, also, David Blakeslee, for your invaluable insights on this issue.
I do have two further questions:
How much of reparative therapy and NARTH are dependent on George Rekers and his writings?
Do you think NARTH, et. al., will take note of this and in any way amend their current position regarding reparative therapy?
And it is truly terrible of me…. but Reker’s compatriot in the whole mess was a guy named… Dr. I. Lovaas
Only a Mel Brooks character could have gotten away with that name.
David
I agree with points 1 through 5.
But I think it is irrelevant to points 1 through 5 that Kirk committed suicide. The reporting of Kraig was neither more nor less inaccurate in 2002 than in 2004.
I think what is confusing is that we are conflating the two questions on sexual orientation therapy: 1) is it effective, and 2) is it harmful.
Kirk’s story significantly contributes to the question as to whether such therapy is effective. As the Kraig study has been instrumental in supporting the therapy, the revelation that it does not support that theory – and, in fact, refutes it – is very important.
As to the second question, the harm of orientation therapy, the suicide might be relevant but to a much lesser degree. We cannot claim that Kirk’s suicide is directly linked to the therapy (regardless of the family’s beliefs). There were just too many other factors to make such a claim.
So while it may be interesting (and worth consideration) Kirk’s suicide does not give conclusive testimony to either effectiveness or harm. That’s why I was calling it irrelevant (though your term “secondary” might be better)
While Rekers’ work was clearly flawed, this report calls into question far more than his papers. Keep in mind there were at least 2 other UCLA faculty members (Green and Lovaas) involved in this research that should have acted as a check on Rekers.
I would say ANY research from that era (esp. dealing with sexual orientation/gender non-conformity with small sample sizes) needs to be looked at carefully.
And I’m very curious what people who relied on Rekers’ work (ex. Nicholosi) have to says about this research. Esp. the revelation of the serious flaws in his data.
Timothy,
I think the nuclear explosion here is that Reker’s research is horribly flawed in its data collection. Regardless of how Kirk’s story played out (even if he turned out to be heterosexual), the:
1. Initial diagnosis of Kirk is extremely suspect (Reker appears to have exaggerated his symptoms).
2. The progress reported during treatment provided directly by Rekers is suspect (no control group, nothing to account for a compliant child wanting to please experiementers).
3. The research based upon the data collection by the mother is corrupt due to contamination by Kirk’s brother.
4. The lack of control on other contaminating variables like alcoholism and abuse (sexual repression is sometimes an outgrowth of trauma…you stop feeling everything).
5. The lack of humility about not knowing Kirk’s status as an adult when he was alive (he had no right to assume heterosexual adjustment).
The complexity associated with suicide needs to be acknowledged and is no “red herring”…but it is secondary to the clear corruption of Reker’s credibility on scientific grounds.
Thanks David,
My role was just as proof reader. The real credit goes to Jim Burroway.
Warren,
We will do so.
Guys… to clear up some stuff (this is a complicated story)
The issue is not really whether the program is solely responsible for Kirk’s suicide. That is a bit unknowable and frankly a bit of a red herring.
The issue is that George Rekers made claims about the effectivity of therapy to prevent homosexuality. As evidence he presented Kraig and the story of Kraig was the primary evidence reported over his 30+ year career.
Rekers cannot say “I didn’t know.” Because he CLAIMED to know. As recent as 2009 (when Kirk had been dead for six years) Rekers was presenting the story of Kirk as evidence of his success.
So CONSEQUENCE ONE: whatever claims that Rekers made based on the Kraig case study no longer have any basis. Kraig did not “grow up straight” as Rekers reported. This speaks not to intent, but simply to the study being a failure rather than a success.
Further, Rekers should have known that Kraig was not a success. The follow up in his late teens reported (it’s there in the black and white) that Kirk had attempted suicide in the previous year. If this did not set off red flags for Rekers (and it appears that it did not) then Rekers may possibly be the single worst therapist to walk the face of the planet.
Truly, is there a greater sign of failure than your patient trying to kill themself at 17? Regardless of the reason for the attempt, clearly there’s a problem. To declare this kid to be “cured” has go to be callousness on a colossal level.
CONSEQUENCE TWO: George Rekers has demonstrated a desire to report conclusions that supported his agenda rather than facts. Thus, we know that any positions based on Rekers’ research has no basis.
So the twin pillars of Rekers and Kraig must be removed from the structure of reparative and preventative therapy.
I suspect that when these are removed, the entire structure has insufficient support. We will have to see.
Timothy,
It is to your credit that the site has crashed! :).
Good story, well written; Important.
Timothy – Make sure you write about that; gives some indication of how broadly this story is being followed.
David, Warren
Yes, even though we went to a dedicated server, it became overloaded and went down. We are desperately trying to get our service to get us back on line.
It is beyond frustrating.
Teresa,
When Jim started looking into this, he was surprised at the extent to which this case study was present in the literature. The 1974 paper which broke the case very nearly became a “classic” in the professional literature and was cited more than a hundred times by other journals, books, and even college textbooks. “Kraig’s” case — Rekers’s pseudonym for Kirk, was cited specifically by numerous researchers, and he became the subject of intense debate over the ethics and efficacy of behavioral therapy to change sexual orientation. It was among the top 12 cited articles in clinical psychology in the 1970s.
It was most recently discussed in the 2009 NARTH handbook prepared by Dr. Julie Harren Hamilton (Handbook of Therapy for Unwanted Homosexual Attractions).
As for what NARTH will do… sadly, if history is anything to go by, NARTH will mostly ignore this revelation and will seek to discredit or diminish anyone involved in the reporting. I hope I’m wrong.
If Rekers didn’t know about Kirk post-therapy success, then he shouldn’t toss him out as a significant successful story.
Apparently, Rekers knew nothing of Kirk’s life after his late teen years. Over 20 years later and after Kirk came out as a gay man and even after he killed himself, Rekers was still reporting Kirk as a successful masuline heterosexual.
Jon, he assumed that the Kirk he saw at the end of this ‘therapy’ was Kirk forever. At least, that’s my assumption for Rekers. I really can’t fault Rekers for any of this UCLA experiment, or his role in this. Although, if he witnessed some of the actual ‘therapy’, I would be less inclined to be charitable. In my opinion, some of this experimental ‘therapy’ crossed over into the area of child abuse.
Jon, what do we know … about what Rekers knew … about Kirk later on? Did they follow-up some years later to see how Kirk was doing? Was that part of the Proposal for this experiment? We can’t take Rekers later ongoing dismissal of reparative therapies’ pitfalls, or his cherry-picking scientific data (and, I’m not assigning wilfulness to this), and lump that with the George Rekers of yesteryear.
Then how could he continue citing him as a successful example of effeminate-gay-child-to-successful-heterosexual-male?
Warren,
Link to BTB is broken at this time.
The website appears to be down…
Teresa,
To attribute Kirk’s suicide to coercive treatment alone could be an example of confirmation bias and it would be likely if one were a political activist.
To attribute Kirk’s suicide to his homosexuality alone could be an example of confirmation bias and it would be likely if one were a political activist.
Teresa,
I see BTB and CNN’s pursuit of this story as courageous and necessary and very helpful.
For all the factors that contributed to Kirk’s suicide…including coercive treatment of atypical gender behavior.
So grateful that people are curious and seek accountability and Jim Burroway’s work on this and other topics (the dangers of heterosexual marriage) is exemplary.
@ David Blakeslee:
I think I’ve answered my previous question to you. It is simplistic to state that this experiment was solely the cause of Kirk’s problems or suicide, ignoring for the most part his troubled parents and upbringing.
Question to you, David:
Do you see any value in BTB and CNN’s pursual of this story?
I agree with David. While the UCLA study probably contributed to Kirk’s suicide, there were many other factors in his life that contributed as well.
And it is still unclear who was actually in charge of the study. It shouldn’t have been Rekers (he was just starting out as a grad student), however, he seems to be the only one wanting to claim it. It seems Green was the PI on the grant, but Rekers’ papers are co-authored with Lovaas and not Green. It would be interesting to hear from the other assistant Kaytee Murphy mentioned.
David Blakeslee, I certainly agree with what you’ve stated here. I’m puzzled about your statement though in this situation. To whom is the “sign of confirmation bias” directed … us, BTB, Green and company?
@All,
I suspect Rekers had no idea what happened to Kirk after the work with him was ended. To follow up David Blaskeslee’s comment, having read the article was why I was giving Rekers the benefit of the doubt in this case. He was, after all, only a first year grad student … the ‘gopher’ for the grunt work. He, perhaps, had a personal stake in this work (if had awareness and acceptance of his same-sex attractions); which may explain his interest to begin with in the area. He didn’t write the proposal, didn’t setup the parameters for the experiment … had basically nothing to do with any of this.
However, after joining the team, he certainly was aware of the protocol, etc. Collection and assembly of data was probably his area … grunt work. Can we know exactly what his role was? I repeat, though, Rekers knew the protocol, what was involved, and probably was there as an onlooker during some of the ‘treatment’ as part of his role. Has Rekers ever described his actual participation in this program? We know he’s used the results over and over in his writings. He took this study where no one else took it. Kirk’s family didn’t know Rekers; but, Rekers used Kirk, et. al., to begin his long career.
Regardless, what is disturbing about Rekers is his failure to admit the mistaken outcomes in this work and his later ongoing work. At this juncture, I somehow only feel pity for Rekers.
David B said:
And that is the point of the post. I don’t think the suicide was in direct relationship to the treatment. I do wonder to what degree those experiences promoted by UCLA led to his view of himself. All off these things influence a cascade of events to follow. However, as you know, I think childhood accounts for very little of the variance for personality in general so I do not believe his adult depression was directly caused by this therapy.
I do wonder however, if more sensitive care could have been given to the parents at the time (the real patients), then could the cascade of events been much different for the whole family.
I take the view sex is an essentially ‘discrete’ thing (one is either ‘this’, ‘that’ or ‘something else’),
Richard,
Thanks – I guess the word “sex” has lots of meanings, this being one of them 😉
If Rekers didn’t know about Kirk post-therapy success, then he shouldn’t toss him out as a significant successful story.
Apparently, Rekers knew nothing of Kirk’s life after his late teen years. Over 20 years later and after Kirk came out as a gay man and even after he killed himself, Rekers was still reporting Kirk as a successful masuline heterosexual.
@ Trouten,
yep.
The part I find most (un)humorous about this whole sad afair is that Rekers contiued to cite Kirk as a successfully adjusted effeminate-child-to-hetero-man as recently as 2009 — which is 6 years after he’d committed suicide and years after he’d accepted that he was gay.
The general view is that sex is biological term (female / male / intersex / hermaphrodite), whereas gender is a sociological one (masculine / feminine / …).
I take the view sex is an essentially ‘discrete’ thing (one is either ‘this’, ‘that’ or ‘something else’), while gender is more of a ‘continuum’.
The terminology is indeed difficult; the scope for misunderstadings is huge. However, it does seem that there is one thing that (almost) all of us here agree on: viz. Rekers’s antics are based on fundamentally flawed premises and are a potential danger to many.
I would suggest that people read the entire article at BTB.
The family does not blame Rekers…they barely remember him! What they do remember is a “graduate student” named George who was minor figure.
They blame Green, repeatedly and vehemently; he advertised the UCLA program and oversaw the NIH studies.
Secondly: There are significant confounding variables leading to Kirk’s suicide:
1. Child abuse
2. Vicarious Traumatic violence (murder of close family relative).
3. Alcoholism
4. Parental abandonment
5. Mental Health Decompensation by custodial parent
Warren,
You would caution about us coming up with simplistic causes for SSA; isn’t it equally a sign of “confirmation bias” to do so in this situation?
No matter what, the science of Rekers’ work is completely in doubt, and rightly so.
Richard,
What is the distinction? Fortunately or unfortunately, I think the issue of definitions is going to be an ongoing key factor in understanding rather than assuming, which happens too often for many of us.
@ Boo : Sex and gender – not the same thing, actually. Again, sorry if you were offended.
Sorry if you were offended. There are ‘problems’ with ‘the law’ in the UK when it comes to transgendered / transsexual / intersex persons. French law has, I believe, recently been altered to make what is hoped will be better provision for them.
Fortunately one does not have to wait for a change in the law in order to refer to people with their correct gender.
Teresa,
I see BTB and CNN’s pursuit of this story as courageous and necessary and very helpful.
For all the factors that contributed to Kirk’s suicide…including coercive treatment of atypical gender behavior.
So grateful that people are curious and seek accountability and Jim Burroway’s work on this and other topics (the dangers of heterosexual marriage) is exemplary.
One of the saddest things about life is that too often people would rather be right than be at peace. I am afraid this is the case with Rekers.
We can but hope. By doing so, he could help others and win respect from reasonable folk.
David Blakeslee, I certainly agree with what you’ve stated here. I’m puzzled about your statement though in this situation. To whom is the “sign of confirmation bias” directed … us, BTB, Green and company?
@All,
I suspect Rekers had no idea what happened to Kirk after the work with him was ended. To follow up David Blaskeslee’s comment, having read the article was why I was giving Rekers the benefit of the doubt in this case. He was, after all, only a first year grad student … the ‘gopher’ for the grunt work. He, perhaps, had a personal stake in this work (if had awareness and acceptance of his same-sex attractions); which may explain his interest to begin with in the area. He didn’t write the proposal, didn’t setup the parameters for the experiment … had basically nothing to do with any of this.
However, after joining the team, he certainly was aware of the protocol, etc. Collection and assembly of data was probably his area … grunt work. Can we know exactly what his role was? I repeat, though, Rekers knew the protocol, what was involved, and probably was there as an onlooker during some of the ‘treatment’ as part of his role. Has Rekers ever described his actual participation in this program? We know he’s used the results over and over in his writings. He took this study where no one else took it. Kirk’s family didn’t know Rekers; but, Rekers used Kirk, et. al., to begin his long career.
Regardless, what is disturbing about Rekers is his failure to admit the mistaken outcomes in this work and his later ongoing work. At this juncture, I somehow only feel pity for Rekers.
He will most likely never do so. Admit his mistake. So dont we all.
I take the view sex is an essentially ‘discrete’ thing (one is either ‘this’, ‘that’ or ‘something else’),
Richard,
Thanks – I guess the word “sex” has lots of meanings, this being one of them 😉
@ Trouten,
yep.
The general view is that sex is biological term (female / male / intersex / hermaphrodite), whereas gender is a sociological one (masculine / feminine / …).
I take the view sex is an essentially ‘discrete’ thing (one is either ‘this’, ‘that’ or ‘something else’), while gender is more of a ‘continuum’.
The terminology is indeed difficult; the scope for misunderstadings is huge. However, it does seem that there is one thing that (almost) all of us here agree on: viz. Rekers’s antics are based on fundamentally flawed premises and are a potential danger to many.
@ Teresa : I suppose that when one has travelled very far down a particular road, it becomes very difficult to turn back and admits one’s mistakes. That’s no excuse for not trying to recognize the error of one’s ways, of course, and I hope that Rekers does this, if only for his own wellbeing.
@ Mary : Who is the ‘we’ to whom you refer? Isn’t there a danger that your prognosis could become one of those unnecessary ‘self-fulfilling prophecies’?
@ Zoe : Thank you for your comment. Inter alia, it shows how ‘pigeonholing’ people can be so pointlessly destructive.
@ Boo : Sorry if you were offended. There are ‘problems’ with ‘the law’ in the UK when it comes to transgendered / transsexual / intersex persons. French law has, I believe, recently been altered to make what is hoped will be better provision for them.
One of the saddest things about life is that too often people would rather be right than be at peace. I am afraid this is the case with Rekers.
We can but hope. By doing so, he could help others and win respect from reasonable folk.
He will most likely never do so. Admit his mistake. So dont we all.
@ Teresa : I suppose that when one has travelled very far down a particular road, it becomes very difficult to turn back and admits one’s mistakes. That’s no excuse for not trying to recognize the error of one’s ways, of course, and I hope that Rekers does this, if only for his own wellbeing.
@ Mary : Who is the ‘we’ to whom you refer? Isn’t there a danger that your prognosis could become one of those unnecessary ‘self-fulfilling prophecies’?
@ Zoe : Thank you for your comment. Inter alia, it shows how ‘pigeonholing’ people can be so pointlessly destructive.
@ Boo : Sorry if you were offended. There are ‘problems’ with ‘the law’ in the UK when it comes to transgendered / transsexual / intersex persons. French law has, I believe, recently been altered to make what is hoped will be better provision for them.
Barbara, that is the truly sad thing about all this. It appears, even to this day, George Rekers will take no responsibility for anything; will not even apologize, and will not admit his own same-sex attractions. According to Jim Burroway on Box Turtle Bulletin, CNN tracked down Rekers, who, seemingly unaware of the irony, resorted to the excuse of (loose paraphrase) “it’s not scientifically shown that we caused this” … “that we were responsible”.
I can attribute youthful ambition and ignorance to Rekers; but, at this late date, I’m finding it hard to see this man in a Christian way.
I know of a boy who has the most beautiful eyes. He is expressive, sensitive, bright and creative. He recently had highlights added to his hair – just like his mom! So says he. Cannot help but smile and enjoy this child. I pray for him and fear for him. We know there are going to be some tough days.
Reker should take a good long look in the mirror. But he won’t.
Richard Willmer- “s/he” is an extremely offensive way to refer to a trans woman. She was a she.
Also, after the David Reimer case and all the other idiocies promoted around “treating” sexual and gender variations, can anyone honestly find this story very surprising? A “scientific” discipline that treats the likes of John Money, J Michael Bailey, and George Rekers seriously has no bottom.
A ridiculous number of trans women are engineers or scientists, often with military service.
Although technically I’m Intersexed (so precluded from a diagnosis of transsexuality), I am, or was, effectively transsexual before transition.
Her story is typical.
When I was young, I would never play with girls toys, for two reasons. First, I wasn’t interested in dolls, only cars, planes, mechanisms etc. Second, because I didn’t want anyone to find out I was a girl. I wanted to be a boy, I looked like a boy…. just didn’t think like a boy.
That screwed me up a bit psychologically later, as the necessity to reinforce the act grew greater, and the effort harder. I never bought into the “Macho Man” rubbish, but maybe I could be Sir Galahad, the Gary Cooper type. I tried to be the kind of man I should have married and had children with, obvious in retrospect, but not at the time.
Anyway, I couldn’t even wear a pink or paisley shirt. Or anything too colourful, too… feminine. My control had to be absolute, not giving a millionth of an inch, or it would shatter. I seemed sane, even to myself, but was damaged. I wore a long-sleeve shirt even when swimming, ostensibly to stop sunburn, actually so no-one would see my terribly masculinised body.
My control shattered when my Intersex condition gave me a partial female puberty (for want of a better term) in 2005, due apparently to late-onset non-SR 3BHDD syndrome. And I started healing.
That’s still in process: obviously so as I spend so much time trying to help Intersexed and Trans kids, rather than attending to my own life. Call it… occupational therapy. I can’t help the girl I was, sobbing helplessly in her room at age 15. But maybe I can help others. That’s as good. Maybe better.
Incidentally, I personally know only one person, now deceased (GRHS), who actually had ‘the op’. Before s/he did so, s/he was married and fathered three children, served in the Royal Navy and was an engineer by trade (s/he and I spent many happ hours talking about planes, trains and automobiles). S/He was also a committed Christian. So much for the ‘ballerina syndrome’! (Oh, and as far as I know, there were no ‘pre- or post-op’ boyfriends.)
P.S. I can’t dance for toffee, and never could! LOL!
It was meant to ‘raise a chuckle’! But there could be a serious point there as well, I suppose.
Great to hear you got guns ‘out of your system’ at an early age – and without any ‘reparative therapy’! When I was little, it was ‘Action Girl’, not Barbie, by the way! My father even painted a turquoise bikini on her, so that ‘Mighty Neil’ (who was about half her height and three times her width) wouldn’t be embarrassed! I blame my sister, of course (but don’t tell her that, or she’d ‘clock’ me one)!
(I wish I could do those smiley faces – maybe a British court has banned them pursuant to some super-injunction!!!)
Richard, I had to chuckle at your comment above. I was the gun-toting little girl, and thankfully I wasn’t forced to play Barbie dress-up. Heavens only knows what Barbie would be up to right now! 🙂
BTW, I didn’t find it tasteless, at all.
Reker should take a good long look in the mirror. But he won’t.
Sorry – that was rather tasteless, wasn’t it?! (I’ve never toted a gun in my life, and don’t intend to start now!)
Or perhaps, Teresa, a more fundamental ‘rethink’ is called for. After all, the concept of ‘reparative therapy’ is only valid if there really is something that can and should be ‘repaired’.
(On a lighter note: if one tells lots of little boys to ‘stop dancing’ and play with toy guns instead, then one might later end up with the large numbers of disgruntled ‘gun-toting pansies’ – and the likes of Rekers might end up being shot, rather than merely embarrassed!)
His intervention is oddly superficial, but painfully thorough: Behavior Modification.
Warren, can we extrapolate anything from this “… preventing homosexuality via manipulation of gender roles.” to the further development of altering homosexuality via psychoanalysis? In my mind, it’s not a leap in logic to think one is dependent on the other. Also, would admission of this failure necessarily lead to a re-examination of reparative theory, or simply be excused away to the subject being inadequate to the task?
Richard Willmer- “s/he” is an extremely offensive way to refer to a trans woman. She was a she.
Also, after the David Reimer case and all the other idiocies promoted around “treating” sexual and gender variations, can anyone honestly find this story very surprising? A “scientific” discipline that treats the likes of John Money, J Michael Bailey, and George Rekers seriously has no bottom.
A ridiculous number of trans women are engineers or scientists, often with military service.
Although technically I’m Intersexed (so precluded from a diagnosis of transsexuality), I am, or was, effectively transsexual before transition.
Her story is typical.
When I was young, I would never play with girls toys, for two reasons. First, I wasn’t interested in dolls, only cars, planes, mechanisms etc. Second, because I didn’t want anyone to find out I was a girl. I wanted to be a boy, I looked like a boy…. just didn’t think like a boy.
That screwed me up a bit psychologically later, as the necessity to reinforce the act grew greater, and the effort harder. I never bought into the “Macho Man” rubbish, but maybe I could be Sir Galahad, the Gary Cooper type. I tried to be the kind of man I should have married and had children with, obvious in retrospect, but not at the time.
Anyway, I couldn’t even wear a pink or paisley shirt. Or anything too colourful, too… feminine. My control had to be absolute, not giving a millionth of an inch, or it would shatter. I seemed sane, even to myself, but was damaged. I wore a long-sleeve shirt even when swimming, ostensibly to stop sunburn, actually so no-one would see my terribly masculinised body.
My control shattered when my Intersex condition gave me a partial female puberty (for want of a better term) in 2005, due apparently to late-onset non-SR 3BHDD syndrome. And I started healing.
That’s still in process: obviously so as I spend so much time trying to help Intersexed and Trans kids, rather than attending to my own life. Call it… occupational therapy. I can’t help the girl I was, sobbing helplessly in her room at age 15. But maybe I can help others. That’s as good. Maybe better.
@ Teresa
Deeply-held convictions and emotions are very much linked, in my view. In most cases, the conviction / emotion comes first, with ‘logic’ employed subsequently to ‘back it up’. In itself, this is not wrong (I have convictions – which I then use logical argument to support – of my own), but it is not the ‘scientific paradigm’. That’s my point – and Warren’s too, I suspect.
I don’t think that what these people do is necessarily done with malice; I do think it is fatally flawed and (potentially) very damaging. And, as the saying goes, ‘the road to hell is paved with good intentions’. Good intentions aren’t good enough if the actions are demonstrably destructive ones.
I see your point about the need for some to believe that homosexual orientation is ‘avoidable’. A cynic might suggest that such people’s livelihoods depended upon such an ‘axiom’. A less cynical critic might say what you have said on this point. (I must confess to being a ‘part-time’ cynic here!)
Warren,
Thanks for posting on this story.
It’s odd to think that so very very much of the literature that extolled preventative therapy for gender atypical children relied heavily – sometimes solely – on this one case. It’s even more disturbing to discover that the reporting of Kraig was false and that everything built upon it has a base in fiction.
George Rekers has for the past thirty years or so been lauded as an expert, an authority. Last year he lost his personal reputation. Now this will end his professional reputation.
A house of cards.
Unless I missed it, there was no mention of his interaction with the stick, which might have been helpful in understanding him at that early age.
Is it emotion or faith-belief? Are they the same? Don’t want to get off-topic here; but, in a sense, the same thing is occurring in the Christian world now with Evolutionary Christianity. How do we reconcile deeply held beliefs with scientific discoveries that upend those beliefs?
Just speculating how these well-intentioned people are caught themselves between a rock and a hard place. If they have to admit that little can be done to alter homosexuality, just what would they be faced with?
Should be, about being barren. Maybe, bare-ness, could be OK, too. 🙂
Point #3 seems to have been of little interest in maintaining the idea that “mother was to blame”. Also, interesting in that for some years now, the Christian churches are lamenting the “absent father”, emotionally and physically. Rather peculiar when you think of all the ‘disorders’ attributed to mothers, including the age-old bugaboo about bareness. If a woman couldn’t conceive, she’s the problem. Thankfully, we now know that the man can, also, be barren.
I don’t want to attribute bad motives to people involved or promoting these theories; but, what is hard to understand is their “cherry picking” data from their choice of scientific works; and, their refusal to consider, let alone admit, data that flies in the face of their opinions. I have no idea how they would ever have conceded the “refrigerator mom” theory of autism, if scientific data had not upset that applecart.
Jim Burroway makes the connection between Evangelical Christianity (Westmont College), George Rikers and Paul Cameron and back to Evangelical Christianity (Fuller Theological Seminary).
This can’t be about Westboro Baptist Church.
@ David
One of the principal flaws in the ‘parental behaviour’ theory is the lack of any meaningful ‘control experiment’. As you say, there are the issues of ‘confounding factors’ and ‘data collection’ here.
Let’s face it: what motivates the likes of Rekers is emotion. Then such people contort ‘science’ in order to satisfy their emotional cravings.
There are several problems as I am reading this very interesting biography of events:
1. The child seems to be misidentified from intake forward.
2. There are significant problems with data collection
3. There are confounding variables of alcoholism, child abuse and child abandonment by the father.
I think that one can see here the terrible danger of seeking to rationalize something that is driven primarily by emotion. As a scientist, I am aware of the need for rigorous discipline in scientific endeavour, as well as the need for a real understanding of philosophy. Perhaps the greatest scientific ‘sin’ is to take something that is really an opinion (or, indeed, a theory), and present it as a ‘fact’. Facts are empirical – only and always! If it’s not empirically-based, then it’s not a fact! The absence of any credible systematic empirical evidence to justify blaming parents for their children’s sexual preference means that the notion that parental behaviour ’causes’ homosexuality / transsexuality is nothing other than an opinion.
Sorry – that was rather tasteless, wasn’t it?! (I’ve never toted a gun in my life, and don’t intend to start now!)
Or perhaps, Teresa, a more fundamental ‘rethink’ is called for. After all, the concept of ‘reparative therapy’ is only valid if there really is something that can and should be ‘repaired’.
(On a lighter note: if one tells lots of little boys to ‘stop dancing’ and play with toy guns instead, then one might later end up with the large numbers of disgruntled ‘gun-toting pansies’ – and the likes of Rekers might end up being shot, rather than merely embarrassed!)
Warren,
Thanks for posting on this story.
It’s odd to think that so very very much of the literature that extolled preventative therapy for gender atypical children relied heavily – sometimes solely – on this one case. It’s even more disturbing to discover that the reporting of Kraig was false and that everything built upon it has a base in fiction.
George Rekers has for the past thirty years or so been lauded as an expert, an authority. Last year he lost his personal reputation. Now this will end his professional reputation.
A house of cards.
Unless I missed it, there was no mention of his interaction with the stick, which might have been helpful in understanding him at that early age.
Is it emotion or faith-belief? Are they the same? Don’t want to get off-topic here; but, in a sense, the same thing is occurring in the Christian world now with Evolutionary Christianity. How do we reconcile deeply held beliefs with scientific discoveries that upend those beliefs?
Just speculating how these well-intentioned people are caught themselves between a rock and a hard place. If they have to admit that little can be done to alter homosexuality, just what would they be faced with?
Should be, about being barren. Maybe, bare-ness, could be OK, too. 🙂
Point #3 seems to have been of little interest in maintaining the idea that “mother was to blame”. Also, interesting in that for some years now, the Christian churches are lamenting the “absent father”, emotionally and physically. Rather peculiar when you think of all the ‘disorders’ attributed to mothers, including the age-old bugaboo about bareness. If a woman couldn’t conceive, she’s the problem. Thankfully, we now know that the man can, also, be barren.
I don’t want to attribute bad motives to people involved or promoting these theories; but, what is hard to understand is their “cherry picking” data from their choice of scientific works; and, their refusal to consider, let alone admit, data that flies in the face of their opinions. I have no idea how they would ever have conceded the “refrigerator mom” theory of autism, if scientific data had not upset that applecart.
Jim Burroway makes the connection between Evangelical Christianity (Westmont College), George Rikers and Paul Cameron and back to Evangelical Christianity (Fuller Theological Seminary).
This can’t be about Westboro Baptist Church.
@ David
One of the principal flaws in the ‘parental behaviour’ theory is the lack of any meaningful ‘control experiment’. As you say, there are the issues of ‘confounding factors’ and ‘data collection’ here.
Let’s face it: what motivates the likes of Rekers is emotion. Then such people contort ‘science’ in order to satisfy their emotional cravings.
There are several problems as I am reading this very interesting biography of events:
1. The child seems to be misidentified from intake forward.
2. There are significant problems with data collection
3. There are confounding variables of alcoholism, child abuse and child abandonment by the father.
I started reading Jim’s report last night. Needless to say, it was disturbing, and upsetting. The hypocrite, that is George Rekers, has been such a major proponent in the vilification of homosexuals through his faux science. His actions are beyond reproach, as well are the words of others like Peter Sprigg, Bryan Fischer.
It is worth noting that the religious activist group, SaveCalifornia.com, has launched a website. In it, they egregiously quote from NARTH and Acpeds, two fringe organizations that are not even recognized by the APA or the AAP.
I wonder to what end these people will tout their misinformation, and falsehoods, until, finally they have achieved their goals in demonizing homosexuals to a sub-human status?
the boxturtle report is an excellent (albeit sad and extreme) example of what I meant by how distortions of research can hurt gays, and their friends and families.
I think these quotes are also pretty important:
…
The Anderson Cooper story is starting TONIGHT – June 7th, (not tomorrow) at 10PM. I’ll be interested in seeing how they handle the story.
And Warren, you really can’t bring up a topic about NARTH and/or Rekers without people going off on a tangent about the meaning of the word “change”. I’d request that when it happens, just ignore it but please don’t close off ALL discussion because of the tangent.
I think that one can see here the terrible danger of seeking to rationalize something that is driven primarily by emotion. As a scientist, I am aware of the need for rigorous discipline in scientific endeavour, as well as the need for a real understanding of philosophy. Perhaps the greatest scientific ‘sin’ is to take something that is really an opinion (or, indeed, a theory), and present it as a ‘fact’. Facts are empirical – only and always! If it’s not empirically-based, then it’s not a fact! The absence of any credible systematic empirical evidence to justify blaming parents for their children’s sexual preference means that the notion that parental behaviour ’causes’ homosexuality / transsexuality is nothing other than an opinion.
I started reading Jim’s report last night. Needless to say, it was disturbing, and upsetting. The hypocrite, that is George Rekers, has been such a major proponent in the vilification of homosexuals through his faux science. His actions are beyond reproach, as well are the words of others like Peter Sprigg, Bryan Fischer.
It is worth noting that the religious activist group, SaveCalifornia.com, has launched a website. In it, they egregiously quote from NARTH and Acpeds, two fringe organizations that are not even recognized by the APA or the AAP.
I wonder to what end these people will tout their misinformation, and falsehoods, until, finally they have achieved their goals in demonizing homosexuals to a sub-human status?
the boxturtle report is an excellent (albeit sad and extreme) example of what I meant by how distortions of research can hurt gays, and their friends and families.
I think these quotes are also pretty important:
…
The Anderson Cooper story is starting TONIGHT – June 7th, (not tomorrow) at 10PM. I’ll be interested in seeing how they handle the story.
And Warren, you really can’t bring up a topic about NARTH and/or Rekers without people going off on a tangent about the meaning of the word “change”. I’d request that when it happens, just ignore it but please don’t close off ALL discussion because of the tangent.