That’s a truckload of assumptions! I am gay, but it’s not my “identity”. Thatt’s only part . I suppose you could say I beling to that group which does not find women romantically or sexually attractive, but I don’t think of that as a “group iidentity”.

Finally, to “presume” that there is agreement on political interests or “common ground” with other gays just because I am gay is as silly as making these same presumptions about straight people.

This is often seen in academics when female scholars will only study areas dealing with women, GLBT scholars or Queer Theorists will only study areas pertaining to them, etc. and is reflected by the rise of departments such as Women’s Studies, Chicano Studies, or Pan-African Studies within universities, rather than said scholars working from traditional departments. Unfortunately this often leads professors to assume that their students must only be interested in looking at subjects that pertain to their supposed identity, causing them to purposefully steer students towards pre-decided areas such as feminist issues or queer issues, rather than exposing students to the broad base of knowledge and allowing them to choose what interests them. Overall it creates a vast pigeonholing effect that doesn’t recognize or allow for individual variation, whether in policy choices, or personal choices.

With all due respect, Evan, could you translate that into simple English? What is “identity politics”? Are you referring to therapies which are gay-supportive or gay-affirming? My experience is that “ex-gay”, “change” or “reparative” therapies are very deeply wrapped up in politics and religion — and not very much in science.

I’m sorry if my English is not as clear as that of a native speaker/writer. It might be too formal and stiff sometimes, because I learned and used English in formal environments (university, governmental institutions etc).

Yes, I meant that there’s too much politics in the field – including the type of therapies you mentioned – and a lot less public effort on the part of the scientific community to be supportive towards individuals, not as much as categories of self-identified individuals (is there such a thing as a 100% pure category of sexuality to keep talking about identity as something real instead of political?). It’s strange and counterproductive, because in real life people are trying to have meaningful relationships with real people, not great identity feelings. The identity stuff was created by science and injected into society by politics. We are past whatever political goals needed to be achieved and I think a couple of decades is already enough. It’s time for science to focus on individuals, on real people and their needs. That is the problem I see with the way things are still going on.

Present scientific practice in its public form and goals is way behind social reality and is missing the point. We are approaching a new decade but we’re still doing identity politics. Not all people who struggle with unwanted attractions are identified in some way, be they Christian or not. People from the scientific community must realise that their position on this subject comes at a social cost. I’m talking from the point of view of a man in his twenties who looks at what his generation is going through (at least what I am seeing in Europe) and I have to say that old politics don’t hold much water anymore in the field of sexuality. In real life, people are past identity age, but still dealing with the same problems. Labels only make it worse. I hope there are people in the scientific community who are perceptive enough to understand that while neutral, science must work to meet real people’s needs. In fact, I know there are, but people need to hear them start talking.

BTW: Did anyone ever answer Ann’s question (and mine, too) about what the last four shortcuts are all about? LOL. We know bold, italics, link and bquote but where do those other shortcuts do for you? (If you only know one or two, that’s cool…might not be able to absorb four at once anyway.)

My hope is that all who participate, whether as presenters or audience, will be broadened and that this will be a foundation for some genuine ‘common ground’ discussion in the future.

All religious types, but especially those who call themselves evangelical or conservative

Are you only referring to the Christian religion and/or those who identify themselves as Christian? There are many religions and faiths and beliefs other than Christianity. People of these other faiths and religions and beliefs also have same gender attractions and often face the same obstacles with their religion, many times much worse.

Then, they whine like babies that the APA won’t recognize or praise them.

I appreciate and agree with your thoughts about therapies that are unethical. I do not think they should be held out as an example of other therapies that are ethical and have been effective for other people though. I do not consider these therapists whining to the APA when they are representing the right of their client.

No. I haven’t seen “Expelled”. Can you tell me about it

It is a new documentary that describes the deleterious effect of shutting out and down inquiries and discussion between people who have two very different beliefs on a subject. When ideas and choice are no longer permitted or are stifled to accommodate only one belief, then we can count on instability as a civilization. Usually the person or people who want to shut down or out inquiries and discussion are the ones who feel threatened by new information that will invalidate what they have always held as the only truth. It is their way of controlling that which is only good for them rather than considering the needs and desires and rights of others. This one was mainly about Darwinism and Intelligent Design, however, the premise can be applied to just about any subject