In this segment, Ryan Kendall, former reparative therapyclient, alleges that he was mistreated by Joseph Nicolosi. For his part, Nicolosi can’t remember Kendall. CNN’s Randi Kaye produces bills and documentation from the clinic but Nicolosi can’t recall the sessions. This is a component of the segment that I wanted to know more about.
384 thoughts on “Sissy Boy Experiment, Part 3 – Nicolosi defends reparative therapy”
Comments are closed.
George,
I have to say I love it when people throw up a single (or a few authors) that may be progressive but seem, for whatever reason, to support a more conservative view, and suggest that this somehow makes the opinion balanced or relative. LOL. What does “liberal persuasion” mean anyway?
George,
I’m not sure what you would have had them do. It took nearly a year of debate and discussion for homosexuality to be removed. The science was reviewed and it could not support maintaining same sex orientation as a disorder. Your attempts at distracting from the facts by using words like “politics” and “fraudulent” to describe the entire process, are just that, distractions
StraightGrandmother–I understand homosexuality to be a developmental disorder where psycho-social growth has gone off the track from its normal progression. The terms “developmental issue” and “developmental disorder” are used interchangeably in the mental health field. They are considered to be Axis II diagnoses. Sorry for the confusion.
George,
Did you ever ask yourself why homosexuality was included in the first place? Your extreme bias is showing in almost everything you post on this subject.
From wikipedia:
There was more at work in the removal of homosexuality from the DSM than simply politics, but focusing on the politics, as most fringe religious conservatives like to do, helps them to ignore the science and the more legitimate academic arguments for its removal.
George Ribble –
What does that mean George? Is it a disorder that is part of a disease? What is the medical terminology for an “issue?”
Please state if homosexuality is a disease or not.
What you do is use a lot of words in order to avoid answering a simple question.
I simply wish for you to answer the question, and no you are not clear. To be clear the 2 choices are
Homosexuality IS a disease
Homosexuality IS NOT a disease.
Thank you George Ribble I await a short answer from you.
Maddeson# ~ Jun 27, 2011 at 2:23 am
“a) specify exactly what is likely to change
feelings, attractions, etc
b) specify how likely is it that change (described in a)) will actually happen
For the authetically motivated, many or most.”
Do you have any peer-reviewed research to support these claims? Because from what little I’ve been able to find, changes in orientation (what you are describing in your answer to a) ) rarely (if ever) happen.
“c) be clear about potential unintended consequences of trying to change
Same as any other therapy: minimal but not zero.”
There is anecdotal evidence (again because there is little reliable research) that there can be some very severe consequences (depression, loss of religious faith, even suicide). Hopefully, the more severe consequences occur very rarely.
“d) not attempt to force children to change because the children’s parents don’t like
that they are gay.
This is a tricky one because it certainly helps to address it earlier ”
And you base this claim about addressing it earlier, on what ? I certainly hope it isn’t Reker’s research. Further, aside from the moral issues, it will likely violate the “highly motivated” criteria you gave earlier.
“e) not use nebulous claims of change to discriminate against gays.
I don’t think this happens too much.”
and I think you just don’t want to know about it. Reker’s (and others) have testified in court cases to prevent gays from becoming foster or adoptive parents. In one case (AZ I believe) he argued families with any adult male in the household shouldn’t be allowed to foster. The Prop 8 campaign also used such claims in some of their arguments. And these are just the recent cases.
“Also understand that the gay community is overly critical of SOCE.”
it is not just the gay community. And I wouldn’t say “overly” critical.
“Here’s what I askof ken and others to include a disclaimer in all posts: without consideration, I reject anything to do with SOCE because it compromises my political wishes.”
Again more false assumptions. I challenge conversion therapy because it is not based on science and makes many unfounded claims. You seem to be the only person here who doesn’t really consider what you are saying. And I would say your political views are effecting your judgment far more than mine are.
George Ribble# ~ Jul 3, 2011 at 12:25 pm
“Warren–Call it what you will, your thinking is still flawed. Repressed memory therapy may rely on psychoanalysis, reparative therapy does not. Your comparing apples to oranges. There’s still no fit.”
It was you who brought up repressed memory in this thread, not Warren. then you go off on some pointless tangent about whether reparative therapy is or isn’t psychoanalytic (which btw, Nicolosi HAS claimed it IS).
further, I think the reason you are going off on this tangent is so you can avoid the real issue that the Boxturtle/CNN report on Reker’s research brought up, which is that it is wrong, and that calls into question all the later claims by many people (esp. those in NARTH) who held this study up as proof homosexuality could be averted/changed.
As to your Cummings quote, you never answered my question:
Do you believe Cummings gave an accurate representation of the removal of homosexuality from the DSM?
“Mr. Doyle’ letter did not cite the source of the Superior Court ruling. Since the editors at the “Post” did not rebuttal this piece of information, I took it at face value.”
Well, I can find no such ruling. In fact, I wasn’t able to find any rulings dealing with sexual orientation and protected classes in 2009 from the DC courts. And nothing at all dealing with “ex-gays”.
__________________
Ken–The link below will bring up a news item in the “Washington City Paper” reporting that the D.C. Superior Court ruled that ex-gays are a protected class in the Distric of Columbia. In the third paragraph of the article there is a link to the actual court opinion. The judge confirmed on page 12 of his opinion that ex-gay was a recognized, and therefore protected, group/class under the D.C. Human Rights Act. According to the “Washington City Paper” ex-gay is defined as individuals who previously practiced gayness, and now prefer to practice heterosexuality. That definition works for me.
______________
P.S. I’m not sure that after I post this comment if the link below will open. Other links that I see on this blog appear in red print, and open easily. If the link below does not open I would appreciate it very much if someone would coach me through the proper procedure to post a link on this blog. Thank you. GR
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/08/25/ex-gays-protected-under-dc-human-rights-act/
Madison, I have a serious issue with this from above,”
d) not attempt to force children to change because the children’s parents don’t like that they are gay.
This is a tricky one because it certainly helps to address it earlier (but we know the gay agenda would like to delay as much as possible). The same approaches and precautions should be used as any other similar situations. (ADHD comes to mind since treatment is so common.).
I don’t agree with that AT ALL. NO do NOT treat children to change their sexual orientation, period. If you are, you are clearly doing it at the behest of the parents NOT the child. No no no no no no no no, I strongly object to that!
Thank you, Mr Ribble. I’ve now got the answer for which I’ve been waiting. This makes it clear (“That definition works for me”) that when you say that ex-gays are “another sexual minority”, this does not refer to people’s sexual orientation, i.e. to whom they are erotically attracted, but to their sexual behaviour, i.e. with whom they are having sex. So, for example, it is not permissible to discriminate against a man because he is now having sex with a woman (or women) instead of with a man (or men) like he used to. Quite right. That’s how it should be.
This raises a number of (to me) intriguing questions.
1. Is the instance of discrimination that I have described above purely hypothetical, or has such an instance actually occurred? If so, where and when? If not, has anyone seriously suggested that discrimination of this kind would be defensible? If so, who?
2. Quite a large number of men who are now exclusively heterosexual in orientation (or as near as damn it) and in behaviour have at some time in the past “practiced gayness”, i.e. have engaged in homosexual behaviour. Do heterosexual men who, for example, ever took part in same-sex experimentation behind the bike sheds when they were at school count as ex-gays? Or does the same-sex behaviour have to have been post-18, post-21 or post- some other age? Does having “practiced gayness” on just one occasion in the past suffice to make a heterosexual man an ex-gay? If not, how many of these experiences does he need to have had in order to qualify? And is there some kind of cut-off point in terms of time? In other words, is a heterosexual man an ex-gay if he “practised gayness” within the past 5 years, 7 years, 10 years…?
3. If a man who “previously practiced gayness” and now prefers to “practice heterosexuality” is living, in Madison’s words, “a satisfying non gay life”, then that is absolutely fine. But if he continues to insist on classifying himself as a member of “another sexual minority”, viz. ex-gays, that would seem to suggest that the fact that he “previously practiced gayness” is more important to him than the fact that he now “practices heterosexuality”. Why would this be?
George – I think Nicolosi would be surprised to hear that his work is not based at least originally in psychoanalysis. Some people do reorientation therapy without a psychoanalytic base but reparative therapy — Nicolosi’s term for it — is based in the reparative drive which is a psychoanalytic concept. A quick read of Nicolosi’s first book will be all anyone needs to see that.
RE: research – you can either keep cursing the darkness or light a candle. Whining about the political situation in the 90s will not change the situation currently. The situation is much different than even when Nick edited his book. His voice actually had something to do with that change. Things have changed but NARTH keeps fighting old battles with the straw men they set up.
I agree that the ACA, and NASW are hostile places for evangelicals but if NARTH would see what has changed within APA, they might find conditions which are fair. However, they keep flailing away.
In other words, research is possible for those who want to do it. For those who want to live in the past, just keep doing what you’re doing.
Madison I am still waiting your response in this topic,
/2011/06/21/mohler-says-evangelicals-have-not-told-the-truth-about-homosexuality-afas-bryan-fischer-proves-the-point/
Warren–I understand the significance of the Rekeres debacles. They are scandalous. Equally scandalous was a psychotherapeutic procedure once used by certain psychologists who stated that repressed incest memories could be recovered through their special techniques. This therapy sent many innocent fathers to prison because some daughters receiving this treatment accused their fathers of sexually moslesing them. In time it was established that the therapist did not discover those abuses, but rather created those traumatic memories into their patieny’s mind. Many innocent fathers were successfully prosceuted for having incestuous relationships with their minor daughters, and were sent to prison. After this fraudulent therapy was revealed, the judicial system spent nearly a decade releasing fathers from prison and punishing practitioners who had implanted falsae memories into their client’s mind (Wright, Cummings, pp. 15-16).
Another scandle occured when the American Psychological Association was censured by the U.S. Congress for publishing in one of its journals a study of college students who were molested as children. The publication took the position that these experiences had no harmful effects on these students. This ignited a firestorm of protest which resulted in the censure by unanimous vote in both the House and Senate. For the record, the APA is the only professional society in American history to be censured by the U.S. Congress (Wright, Cummings, p. xvii).
Two of the above scandles came out of organized psychology. All of the above scandles are atypical. Nearly all mental health professionals, of whatever discipline, are honest, hard-working, shoulder-to-the-wheel practitioners who want the best for their clients. To aid them in this challenge, they rely on state of the art theories to give them understanding and guidance. None-the-less, whichever theory of therapy they choose, it will have a track record showing periods of sucessess and periods of failure. Tragically, some of those failures will result in a suicied. This is not necessarily the fault of the therapist. A practitioner can do all the right things, and the treatment may still fail.
Your comment that I have the attitude of “trust us, we are the professionals” baffles me. I can’t understand how that connects to me.
I used the Doyle piece to illuminate (1) the unconscious bias so common in the national media. The term gay has no quotation marks. The term ex-gay does. (2) For some people treatment works. Mr. Doyle stated that he has been strait nearly five years. I am fully aware of the relaps problem within all areas of the helping profession. When I was employed at an inpatient psychiatric hospital, the psychiatry department offered continuing education workshops every week. They brought in experts locally, and from other parts of the country. On more then one occasion we would hear from a guest speaker who advised us that within the U.S. the success rate for hospitalized individuals was as follow: 1/3 would be admitted once, get better, and after discharge would never be readmitted again; 1/3 who were admitted would get better, but return to the hospital sometime after discharge; 1/3 who were admitted would either not improve, or get worst, and would always need residential care. In my own experience at our hospital I found the workshop info to be rather accurate. Some patients that we discharged we never saw again. Others would return in a year or two. Some like clock work. Still others would not get any better, or become worst no matter what we did. Those poor folks would either end up on a chronic ward, or be discharged to an assisted living group home situation. So, I’m aquanted with the replas situation in the helping field. I wish Mr. Doyle all the best.
Reference: Rogers H. Wright and Nicholas A. Cummings, eds., “Destructive Trends in Mental Health–The Well-Intentioned Path To Harm”, Taylor & Frances Group, New York). Warren, this is a very good read. It should be required reading for your students. It’s available at amazon.com.
George – I have compared the repressed memory scandal to reparative therapy. There are several parallels. Reparative therapy has very little empirical backing but is based on psychoanalysis as was repressed memory therapy. Psychoanalysis is resistant to testing because the concepts change with the client and the therapist. Some behaviors can mean two things at once to analysts. Analysts believe they can inferred past events from present behavior which is exactly what repressed memory therapists and reparative therapists do. Both therapists tend to use their experience versus research. They also rely on several cases to divine a general trend.
Therapists can do good things and treatment may fail. I understand the concept, however, I would say that the therapist did not successfully help his/her client. The point is to do the right kind of good things at the right time. Society demands a better answer than ‘I followed my protocols correctly and did good things.’
Nick Cummings is a mentor to me and a good friend. I have his book and have interviewed him several times and written about him in the national press. One of my great puzzles is that Nick has not written against reparative therapy. I know he believes that therapy can assist a small number to alter sexuality (about 13% from the numbers he gave me) but he does not think that reparative drive theory explains homosexuality in general. Like Nick I think a small percentage of men and women who engage in homosexual behavior are basically straight or bisexual and therapy may help them realize a more heterosexual adjustment.
George, thank you so much for your contributions here. Unfortunately, this side of the equation is sadly under-represented and tends to get quickly shouted down despite its merits.
Ken, you realize that very little of what you write is accurate? Who knows exactly Ryan Kendall came into therapy. Maybe it wasn’t obvious that he was there involuntarily. Maybe Nicolosi’s practices have changed. Calling him a liar on this point is just dumb and reveals your inability to comment credibly on this topic.
This passage bears repeating and is I feel totally and shamefully indisputable:
“Like it or not, ex-gays do exist. For some reason the major professional groups have abandoned these folks.”
Madison# ~ Jun 21, 2011 at 10:38 pm
“Ken you realize that very little of what you write is accurate?”
I write quite a bit here. Claiming what I’ve written is inaccurate, doesn’t make it true.
“Who knows exactly Ryan Kendall came into therapy. ”
this sentence doesn’t quite parse. Perhaps you can re-state it.
“Maybe it wasn’t obvious that he was there involuntarily. ”
hmmm. you really want to defend Nicolosi by claiming he wasn’t competent enough to realize Ryan didn’t want to be in therapy?
“Maybe Nicolosi’s practices have changed. ”
And here you want to play the semantic game of: “well the statements were about future tense not past tense, therefore it wasn’t a lie”.
I cited the quotes that lead me to the conclusion that Nicolosi lied. I stand by my statement.
George Ribble# ~ Jun 20, 2011 at 6:53 pm
“However, we never knowingly abandon anyone to fend for themselves.”
the professionals aren’t saying “fend for yourselves” they are saying that there is no proven method that will make a gay person straight and they will not try. However, they are willing to help a gay person deal with the issues that make them want to be straight.
That’s just silly. Why is this the only situation where progress is inadequate.
Change sufficient to lead a satisfying non gay life.
If you want to quibble with that fine. But I don’t care to hear any more of your complaining that it must be 100% or nothing. That’s not useful to anyone except the gay lobby. It sure as heck is not useful to the participants. Remember them? It’s obvious that you want to obfuscate the meaning of change to suit your arguments so I’m not even sure why I’m following up.
Or, Ken, I suspect to you!
@ Ken : I think your reply to Madison is excellent, by the way.
By the way, with regard to the matter of homosexuality being removed from the DSM as the result of a vote, correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t it as the result of a vote that homosexuality had found its way onto the DSM in the first place?
“This was the first time in U.S. healthcare history that an official diagnosis was decided by popular vote rather then by scientific validation ”
this is not true. There was a growing body of research indicating homosexuality was not a disorder. And the research since 1974 has also supported the decision.
As for the vote: Did Dr. Cummings (or anyone else claiming the change was by “popular vote” ) produce a copy of the ballot? Did he specify who asked for a vote of the membership? Did he mention if this vote was held before or after the Board had already decided to remove homosexuality from the DSM?
_______________
Ken–You’re expressing your comments/criticisms to the wrong guy. They should be directed to Dr. Cummings. My guess is that Dr. Throckmorton could provide you with his email address.
Warren# ~ Jun 25, 2011 at 5:37 am
George said
scientific evidence supports the efficacy/effectiveness of this approach
George, I can understand when someone who is not a professional makes a claim like that. However, as one, I expect more than just a statement. Please provide the 3 best references that you believe support that statement.
_____________
Warren–The entire quote needs to be included: “The people I know in this field advise me that they practice psychodynamic psychotherapy, not psychoanalysis, and that scientific evidence supports the efficacy/effectiveness of this approach”. It is “The people I know in this field…” who state that scientific evidence supports the efficacy/effectiveness of their approach, not me. I don’t know on what basis they make this claim. However, it’s not germane to the current issue being discussed in this posting (i.e., the comparing of repressed memory therapy to reparative therapy). You state that repressed memory theory is based on psychoanalysis. I don’t know. None-the-less, if you say so that’s good enough for me. However, the professionals I know who work with folks wanting to ameliorate their same-sex attractions do not practice psychoanalysis. You seem to be attempting to hammer a round peg (reparative therapy) into a square hole (repressed memory therapy). There’s no fit there, and this causes your position to crumble. It makes one wonder that if you are wrong here, where else might you be wrong.
Madison, I suggest that you reply to what I actually wrote. I never mentioned 100% – or any other figure. But since you have, I am willing to accept that there are plenty of people who could reasonably be described as heterosexual, but who are not 100% heterosexual, since they experience occasional, insignificant homosexual attractions. In the highly improbable event that I wished to become heterosexual and succeeded in becoming like them, I would consider that good enough to be called “the real thing”.
But I was explicitly referring to the sort of “change” that Alan Chambers describes: “And so every single morning – this is a ritual for me – I wake up and I say, ‘Dear Lord, I can’t make it today without you. I choose to deny what comes naturally to me.’ ”
And he admitted that this was what others pursuing the “ex-gay” quest could very well have to settle for. Indeed, as I have already said, he admitted that he wasn’t sure that he’d ever met an “ex-gay” for whom this wasn’t the case. If that’s what “a satisfying non gay life” looks like, then I wouldn’t advise anyone else to touch it with a barge-pole. But chacun à son goût.
As for your suggestion that I want to obfuscate the meaning of change, that’s simply ludicrous. Obfuscating the meaning of change is precisely what the ex-gay movement does and has been doing for years, and it’s what I want them to stop doing, because it’s cruel and deceitful.
Well, Madison, that makes no sense at all. It seems to imply that the alleged gay agenda is some kind of living, self-existent entity that is capable of taking thought and therefore of looking out for itself so that it can do what it wants. Which puts me in mind of Alice’s reaction when the Cheshire Cat vanished slowly, finally leaving only its grin behind.
“Well, I’ve often seen a cat without a grin,” thought Alice; “but a grin without a cat! It’s the most curious thing I ever saw in all my life!”
– LEWIS CARROLL, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland
Richard Willmer# ~ Jun 25, 2011 at 5:56 am
“Michael appeared to be an angry young man then, and appears to be an angry young man now. What kind of ‘change’ is that?”
But he has changed who he is angry at, and that is significant to the conversion therapy crowd (even if they had no hand in his change).
Richard Willmer# ~ Jun 25, 2011 at 10:36 am
“Or, Ken, I suspect to you!”
Not particularly. However, you were commenting about NARTH’s interest in him, and my comment was in reference to that.
Teresa, please point out the false assumptions. I believe all of my assumptions have a sound basis and a high degree of accuracy. But I’m happy to review any specifics.
The gay agenda benefits from the narrower definition. The heterosexual affirming agenda benefits from the broader definition. But you know who else benefits from the broader definition? The subject. We frequently forget about the actual people involved in a rush to put forth our own frequently political views. Which kind of makes sense because the gay agenda is looking out first for itself and only secondarily for the people involved. That’s not the case for the heterosexual-affirmers. They are looking out primarily for the subjects since there’s really nothing in it for us.
Maybe think about falling head over hearls madly in love with someone, spending a dozen terrific years together and then breaking up. Ken, jayhuck, et al would have to argue either you can never love again, or if you think about your previous lover for a split-second you’re living the lie or some other silliness like that. Obviously ludicrous. But that’s what they argue.
George, on the other hand, do you know of anyone in NARTH who has discredited George Rekers work? Who has distanced themselves from Rekers; especially, after the rent-a-boy incident of Rekers? And, certainly, I know the usual retort about an ‘unfortunate’ happening, etc. However, if Rekers couldn’t ‘fix’ himself, how is anything he’s done credible? “Physician heal thyself” comes to mind.
Even more disturbing about Rekers and NARTH’s (Nicolosi) continued support of him is Rekers continued use of Kirk as proof of ‘change’, well after Kirk’s death, when he had to be aware of the failure of the therapy. This strikes me as very similar to John Money and The David Reimer Story, which preceded Rekers work by only 2 years, if I have my dateline correct.
I’m all for individuals seeking any sort of therapy they desire. What I find dismaying is the misrepresenting, skewing, and downright twisting of research facts by people in the sciences.
___________________________
Teresa–George Rekers resigned from the NARTH Board one year ago. Since resigning he has had no contact with NARTH.
George Ribble# ~ Jun 26, 2011 at 1:54 pm
“You’re expressing your comments/criticisms to the wrong guy. They should be directed to Dr. Cummings.”
Cummings isn’t the person who posted misleading claims on this blog. You did.
Why did you cite Cummings in that post? Do you believe what you quoted is an accurate representation about the removal of homosexuality from the DSM?
You’re welcome, And feel free to repost those on any other groups where someone tries to characterize those with concerns about conversion therapy as just trying to stop people from changing.
It’s not significant to me!!!
Mmm, why is it Madison that you can voice your opinions; but, those of us who disagree, in part, with what you say, are considered to have shouted you out?
Madison, I believe that ex-gays do exist. However, I have no idea what that actually means when a person tells me this. My initial inclination was to think that these persons were telling me that they once were homosexual and they are now heterosexual. But, much to my dismay, I’ve found out the term ex-gay means many different things to different people. It’s become a useless term, deliberately ambiguous, I’m afraid, in my opinion. It’s a political term from a faith belief perspective.
Ironic, isn’t it, that the word ‘gay’ is spoken of by conservative Christians as a political term, which we can’t identify with … but, the word ‘ex-gay’ has come to be just as political a word as ‘gay’. I’m afraid it’s more of “what pot is calling the kettle black”.
@ Ken
Thank you for your posting of Jun 25, 2011 at 9:00 am.
That sums up very nicely the crux of this matter.
Of course, I don’t know if that Michael guy is “mindless” about his Christianity, but his past history suggests a possible tendency to immerse himself in prefab, off-the-rack identities — so he was formerly a Foucault-Believing Queer Activist™, and now he’s a Bible-Believing Christian™.
Or at least, that’s what I meant to imply.
Reparative therapy is the recovered memory of our time. Both entirely fraudulent.
Warren, I’m interested to read that you consider Nicolosi’s method to be based on psychoanalysis. I watched some of a video on his site that involved whiteboards, acronyms, ‘grey areas’, etc, that looked to me like pure fantasy. But you know better than I. Certainly none of my psychiatrists behaved like that. I think that my generation of men in NYC went to psychiatrists mostly to become better adjusted to their sexuality, though many of course were still trying to ‘change’. Men in the generations before mine were desperate to become straight. I knew many who tried it, some who condemned themselves to lives of misery and some who found their way. I was in my late teens when Stonewall began the sea-change that we have seen in society’s attitude towards us. NARTH, Nicolosi, et al, seem to me to think they’ve come up with something new. Of course they haven’t. It’s merely last week’s cod served with a zesty new sauce they hope will mask the smell. It doesn’t.
It seems to me there is a great confusion about shame learned from the society in which we live and what are innate feelings and behavior. I don’t see how they can be separated. (I think this is what’s behind the idea of Gay Pride, confronting the shame imposed by the greater society to claim a place within it where one can live more freely) Shame has always been a great social organizer and source of control and not just in matters of sexuality. Reparative therapy packages shame in a wrapper of pseudo-science hence, I suppose, the whiteboard and Niclosi’s air of certainty. Clearly the man’s frame of reference is religious, his outfit is named for Thomas Aquinas and he mentioned God four or five times in just a few minutes.
Religion – most often American fundamentalism though not entirely, the Catholic church under the present pope has found it a useful distraction from its own problems – claims to provide the solution. Reparative therapy, it seems to me, fits the facts into a shape that makes that solution seem scientific. If someone wants to go along with it, fine: he or she has my sympathy. I only object when Niclosi’s fantasies are used to try to shape public policy. When the theories of amateur ‘therapists’ with no real education, working out of church basements (for example, Michelle Bachmann’s husband), are used to diminish my civil rights.
Warren# ~ Jun 26, 2011 at 5:46 pm
No hammering here George – making an analogy which you did not refute.
Ok, so the people you know who work doing whatever they do, what is their empirical base? Can you give me 3 studies or ask them to give me 3 studies that support what they do?
______________
Warren–Call it what you will, your thinking is still flawed. Repressed memory therapy may rely on psychoanalysis, reparative therapy does not. Your comparing apples to oranges. There’s still no fit.
Currently, all empirical studies within organized mental health that address treatment services directed toward homosexuals are under a cloud of suspicion which undermines their validity and integrity. This is true whether the studies are pro-reparative therapy or anti-reparative therapy. The correctness of anybody’s findings are suspect. This atmosphere of doubt is the direct result of the manner in which homosexuality was removed from the DSM. It was decided by popular vote, not scientific evidence. Those in opposition were not refuted by scientific findings.. Rather, they were subjected to threats and intimidations (Wright, Cummings, p. 9).
We are in this predicament because psychiatry, psychology, and social work have been infected by a particularly aggressive virus known as political correctness. The progression of this corrosive disease has resulted in the usurpation of scientific concerns in favor of agenda-driven ideologues that show little regard for scientific validation. So advanced is this illness in organized psychology that the American Psychological Association, once an advocate for scientific and professional concerns, is now choosing ideology over science in its relationship to homosexual issues. This political correctness virus is a tether for all of us in any field that do clinical work (Wright, Cummings, pp. xiii, xiv, xviii).
So, what’s to be done? We have a patient before us (organized mental health) that presents with an Axis 1 diagnosis of serverely damaged credibility. This is the result of an Axis 3 diagnosis, political correctness virus. The antidote for this awful condition can be found at most university/college campuses in an oddity known as Research 101. By using the scientific method we can examine all psychotherapies currently in use in tne U.S. Such a research design would include a hypothesis, an experimental group, and a control group. The initial results would then need to be replicated by other independent researchers to ensure credibility. Some, but not all, of the therapies that might be investigated would include reperative therapy, gay affirming therapy, sexual idenity therapy, various Exodus therapies, etc. All would be held to the same standards. This is the medicine that will purge the political correctness virus from the mental health profession.
Reference: Roger H. Wright & Nicholas A. Cummings, eds., “Destructive Trends in Mental Health–The Well-Intentioned Path To Harm”, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, New York, available at amazon.com.
Warran–In the preface of this bookon, page xv, Dr. Cummings writes that some potential contributors declined to be included in this work for fear of losing tenure, status, or being subject to ridicule/vicious attacks. One colleague agreed to contribute provided her name did not appear as a chapter contributor. Good grief, why should any professional in the U.S. be afraid to express their ideas in print? It seems that a rather virile strain of the political correctness virus, with fascism in its DNA, has settled into psychology. No wonder that in organized psychology it is the thought police, not science, that is in control. Disgraceful!
@ Maddeson
No, people do not generally do this, unless there is some particular reason to do so. I can imagine, for instance, two Catholics, both above a certain age, discussing the liturgy and one of them saying, “Well, I can still remember when the Tridentine Mass was the norm,” and the other saying, “Well, I don’t remember that because I used to be a Protestant in those days; I became a Catholic only some time after the vernacular was introduced.” (Even so, the latter, if asked his or her religion, would reply “Catholic”, not “ex-Protestant”.)
I can also imagine being in a pub and a mate saying to me, “Whatever you do, don’t go leaving your wallet on the bar when you go to the loo. That guy just along the bar from us is an ex-convict. He’s already been to prison several times for nicking people’s money.”
What would the particular reason be in this case?
William:
By the way, I find your statement that ex-gays are “another sexual minority” slightly curious. People don’t normally categorize any aspect of their lives, whether chosen or not, in terms of what it used to be. If, for instance, I were to change my religion, I would call myself a Presbyterian, Mormon, Buddhist or whatever, not an “ex-Catholic” (even though the description would not be inaccurate). If asked my age, I would not say that I was an “ex-ten-year-old”. If asked my occupation, I would not say that I was an “ex-student”. Are you implying that the sexual orientation of the “sexual minority” whom you call ex-gays is not heterosexual, but something else? If so, what exactly?
Teresa:
It seems you stated in a prior comment that ex-gay means, having been gay … now being str8. How is str8 being a minority, and why oh why, would someone continue to label themselves something they no longer are, especially if they’re now heterosexual.
___________________
William and Teresa–See my post to William dated Jul 7, 2011 at 4:45 pm for my definition of ex-gay.
Many veterans will describe themselves as being an ex-marine (i.e., former marine “…something they no longer are…”). It’s quite common.
The point here, surely, is that it was not the removal of homosexuality from the DSM that required to be justified by scientific findings, but its continued inclusion, and there were no such scientific findings. It was not scientific evidence but merely the political correctness of an earlier era (1952), which regarded homosexuality as not socially acceptable, that had led to its inclusion in the DSM in the first place. As the late Hungarian-American psychiatrist Dr Thomas Szasz noted, the psychiatric establishment of that era had not discovered that homosexuality was a disease; they had merely chosen to define it as a disease.
George Ribble# ~ Jul 7, 2011 at 5:37 pm
“Ken–You’re in error. It was Warren’s post to me dated Jun 21, 2011 at 10:01 pm that repressed memory therapy was first introduced as a comparison to reparative thearpy.”
No I’m not in error. From YOUR post (which Warren responded to in the 10:01pm post):
George Ribble# ~ Jun 21, 2011 at 9:45 pm
(emphasis added).
…
#
George Ribble# ~ Jul 7, 2011 at 5:41 pm
“As to your Cummings quote, you never answered my question:
Do you believe Cummings gave an accurate representation of the removal of homosexuality from the DSM?
_________________
Ken–Yes!”
And what if you were to learn that there was research indicating homosexuality was not a disorder in 1973 when the APA board decided to remove it from the DSM?
what if you were to learn that the vote, Cumming’s referred to in his book, wasn’t held until after the board had already decided to remove homosexuality from the DSM?
what if you were to learn that the members who wanted a vote on the issue where those psychologist where opposed to the removal of homosexuality from the DSM?
would you still think Cumming’s gave an accurate representation of the removal of homosexuality from the DSM?
George: In my view, you avoid the significance of the Rekers debacles by placing them in the norm – “All therapies have successes and failures.” There are fatal flaws revealed by Rekers personal choices and the fudging of data and objectivity demonstrated by the Murphy case. How do we know any of what Rekers wrote is true? When you have such a discrepant result from what is writting in the literature, how can you trust the literature? If professionals are not appropriately skeptical, we will miss important signs of how wrong we can be. Your reaction is in the category of “trust us, we are the professionals.” Sorry, that is a non-starter.
You may not know that the phrase, I Do Exist in relation to ex-gays was coined by the video documentary that I produced and released in 2004. Two of the five people who said they had changed later said they had not fully changed and one is now living openly gay. Another person divorced her ex-gay husband and has disappeared from public view, having left the church. You believe Doyle because you want to, I assume. I wanted to believe the stories I was being told and did so because they were people from my religious tradition. I was sloppy as a researcher and psychologist. Having given all of this some time, reviewed the big picture and asked the hard questions, I have changed my views.
I was a NARTH award winner in 2002, a member for one year but then refused to join again when I saw the organization up close. I was offered a seat on the board but declined. Eventually, it became clear that there was no flexibility, nor interest in really examining the research or even doing any. At NARTH, science and research are cherry picked and used to further a narrow worldview. If the science doesn’t fit, then it is ignored or attacked.
Timothy Kincaid# ~ Jun 10, 2011 at 6:20 pm.
“Who would not recall the patient who turned themselves over to Child Services just to get away from you? How often does that happen – even to Nicolosi?”
I imagine Nicolosi has had countless cases where he’s ruined the lives of innocent teens. And I’m sure it would be far easier to recall all of his “successes.”
Dr. Throckmorton–I do not believe that “Sissy Boy Experiment, Part 3” establishes a strong connection between the tragic death by suicide of Kurt Murphy, then living in India, and reparative therapy. The treatment ended 24 years prior to his unfortunate death. Any number of things could have triggered the suicide. Dr. Nicolosi’s failure to remember Ryan Kendall as a former cliente is not that that unusual. One can not possibly remember all the clients he/she worked with in a career. It should be remembered that all therapies, of whatever theoretical orientation, have their successes and have their failures. Everyone in clinical work knows this. Should a suicide end up on one’s case load we grieve for the loss of that life.
To my way of thinking, if a person desires to accept a gay idenitity that is that person’s freedom to do so without fear of intimidation, isolation, or ridicule. Likewise, individuals who are struggling with unwanted same-sex attractions should have the freedom of choice to seek treatment to modify or eliminate such unwanted attractions. To this I would add the counsel given me by a professional friend, an experienced Ph.D. clinical psychologist and APA member, who works with men wishing to develop their heterosexual potential. He advises that all therapies are reparative. Regardless of which theory of treatment one uses on whatever diagnosis, hopefully something somewhere in the human psyche/brain is being repaired.
In a letter to the editor (“Singling out ex-gays in a way not applied to gays”, Washington Post, March 4, 2011), Christopher Doyle, board member, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays, noticed that a recent “Post” article concerning a gay marriage vote in the Maryland House of Delegtes put quotation marks around “ex-gay”, but no quotation marks in reference to gay members of the House of Delegates. Mr. Doyle complained–correctly–that putting “exgay-gay” in quotes conveyed the message that such a sexual orientation was not valid. He advised the “Post” that thousands of former homosexuals collectively identify themselves as ex-gay, and reminded the “Post” that in 2009 the D.C. Superior Court ruled that ex-gays are a protected sexual orientation class in the Distric of Columbia.
Treatment evidently works. Mr. Doyle ended his letter by stating that not everyone who experience same-sex attractions choose to live a gay lifestyle. Many individals voluntarily leave the homosexual life through either therapeutic work or individual choice. Mr. Doyle shared that he has left the gay life, and has been happily married to a woman for nearly five years. He’s now the father of two. He states that he no longer experiences same-sex attractions, and has no desire to return to the homosexual life. He asked the “Post” to please respect his choice by not placing ex-gay in quotes.
Like it or not, ex-gays do exist. They are another sexual minority. For some reason the major professional groups have abandoned these folks.
In the interest of full disclosure I wish to reveal that I’m a Christian guy who completed undergraduate work in psychology at Asbury University, Wilmore, KY, and graduate work in social work at the University of Tennessee. I am a member of NARTH. It should be noted that not all NARTH members practice reparative therapy. The organization is open to a variety of treatment modalities. I have twenty years experience as a clinical social worker in private practice (four years) and on a speciality ward at an accredited inpatient psychiatric hospital for adults (sixteen years).
Thank you for your attention. George
George Ribble, MSSW,LMSW,LMFT,CAADC
Clinical Social Worker (Retired)
Are there any requirements or guidelines for records retention? I would imagine that keeping an entire career’s worth of records may be a huge challenge, but I know when I went to my physician’s office back before they went paperless, they had a huge room set aside for records. I don’t believe mental health professionals follow those kinds of practices. Is that correct?
Practice records go back 7 years and patient charts 10 years (right David B?). I have been out of the full time practice world for awhile so things may have changed.
However, to completely forget you saw someone when given a name and a time frame is unusual to me. Especially someone you talked to on the phone first and then saw in person.
Nor for me.
He does have a responsibility to do long-term follow-up when treatment is experimental. But he’s not alone in that failing, it’s one of the great scandal of the profession IMHO.
I am very interested in being linked to research into this area. I would love it if someone would just post a comment below as to where I could find this research. I am very curious as to the research to both sides of the arguement. If any research you would highlight for either side follows strict academic guidelines I would be most grateful.
On another note, an interesting interview and an intriguing approach to modern debates.
Slightly off-topic — I can’t look at the cover of that book Shaping Your Child’s Sexual Identity (shown in the video) without singing:
“I’m a lumberjack, and I’m okay!
I sleep all night and I work all day!
I cut down trees, I skip and jump,
I like to press wild flowers…”
I see the video – do you all not see it?
I’m sure that Nicolosi’s office has a room set aside (not necessarily a huge room, however), for records of patients whose treatment sessions were apparently successful, so that their case histories can be waved around by NARTH as Scientific Proof!! that homosexuality is curable.
But in the case of someone like Kendall, who went to extraordinary legal lengths to get away from his family and the therapy, I would guess that Nicolosi shreds the records just as soon as he is legally able to do so.
I think it would be helpful if more of Nicolosi’s former clients came forward to discuss his therapy. According to Kendall (from the Prop. 8 testimony) his parents 1st sent him local “christian” therapist. And it is possible (and certainly what Nicolosi would argue) that Kendall is confusing which therapist said what to him.
On the other hand, it is pretty clear Nicolosi’s claim he would not treat a patient who didn’t want to change is false.
@ George Ribble
No, certainly such a connection cannot be conclusively proved. But there is no improbability in the supposition. Homophobic abuse – in which category I would certainly include any form of involuntary “treatment” either to “cure” or to prevent homosexuality – is not dissimilar to child sexual abuse, in that it can have serious and lasting repercussions that can be felt years and even decades later. What is beyond reasonable doubt is that the “therapy” that Rekers practised on Kirk Murphy not only failed to stop Kirk from growing up gay but also did him serious and lasting damage. When Kirk was interviewed by Richard Green at the age of eighteen, it emerged that he was attracted by people of the same sex, that he was deeply conflicted over it, that he had already made one suicide attempt, and that Rekers’s “therapy” had instilled in him a fear of appearing feminine which inhibited his ability to make friends. That this was the case is also confirmed by the testimony of Kirk’s brother and sister. That the shadows cast by this were at least a significant factor in the chain of events leading to his tragic end is a proposition that it requires more credulity to reject than to accept.
That certainly wasn’t a choice that was given to poor Kirk. On the contrary, an attempt was made to remove it years before Kirk even realised that he had it.
@ Elena
No doubt you could say the same about people describing the deleterious effects that sexual abuse in childhood has had on their lives.
The fact that he had to separate from his family is further evidence of the devastating effects that the “ex-gay” mindset can have on families.
I find it odd that Nicolosi would be unfamiliar with Kendall’s name.
Who would not recall the patient who turned themselves over to Child Services just to get away from you? How often does that happen – even to Nicolosi?
And I’m sure that had someone testified about me during the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial that I would recall their name, even if I didn’t recall them before that.
Are you using Int Explorer or Firefox? It is not showing up for me on Firefox.
Keep in mind, when asking how long Nicolosi has to keep the records, you need to know what the requirements were 10-15 years ago (when Kendall was a patient), not what they are today. However, if anyone does know how to get in touch with Ryan Kendall, might be enlightening to have him put in an official request for his records.
You can see the CNN Nicolosi interview here:
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/10/video-sissy-therapy-still-has-influence/?hpt=hp_c1
No, it doesn’t show up for me.
Jim and Warren,
Great question: It varies based upon the age of the client.
Adult records need to be kept 7 years after termination.
Child records depend by state or the APA: I think it is 11 years, or 7 years after age 18, whichever is greater.
Where is the video?
Warren,
Why do you think Nicolosi is so resistant to moderating his views based on experience and new evidence?
Ken,
If I ever get into a discussion, and I do sometimes, with people who claim that Homosexuality was removed from the DSM improperly I am simply going to come back to this web page and copy and paste the information you have provided. I do not have access to all these books, I am EXTREMELY appreciative that you did not give up, and get tired of the discussion with George Ribble and just let it go. You stayed with it and disproved the assertions. I have not seen anyone else follow the discussion through to a conclusion like you have. Of course William and Jaychuck joined in but you really closed this topic out. Case Closed!
Completely Off Topic but good news never the less, Americans for Truth About Homosexuality lost their tax exempt status.
Gee couldn’t happen to a nicer guy /sarcasm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/01/suburban-chicago-anti-gay_n_914935.html
George,
I understand these are legitimate books George, but they are also the opinions to a great degree of the authors who wrote those books. They also focus on the politics as their title suggests and from your posting I gather they don’t tend to dwell on the other legitimate scientific reasons why homosexuality was removed from the DSM. AS I said before, focusing on the politics only gives you a glimpse at what happened and doesn’t reveal the real complexity of the issue at the time.
I’ll ask you this question again – do you know why homosexuality was included in the DSM in the first place?
No current research supports your position that homosexuality is a disorder for the majority of gay people.
Ken,
I would like to add my voice to StraightGrandmother’s. Thank you for all your very valuable posts on this topic and for all the trouble that you have plainly gone to.
StraightGrandmother,
I would like to thank you also for all your contributions. You have a gift for going right to the crux of the matter and for expressing your observations in good, clear, simple language which no-one can pretend not to understand. (I suspect, however, that there are some who would prefer you to drape them in useless verbiage, so that points which they find disconcerting could be more easily ignored or glossed over.)
@ Ann:
I’m sure you’re right. I don’t doubt it. The danger lies in:
(1) trying to shoe-horn someone’s personal story into a pigeon-hole (forgive the mixed metaphors) to make it seem to accord with a pre-conceived theory, a bit like a medium or clairvoyant skilfully tailoring her “reading” to make it seem to fit the sitter, although in its original form it didn’t; and
(2) conversely, trying to extrapolate a general theory from someone’s personal story and then dogmatically applying it to others.
Although there are doubtless exceptions (one obvious case being that of incest), I submit that what the average gay man seeks in a sexual relationship is not a replacement or making good for something that he should have had in his relationship with his father and didn’t (if indeed he didn’t), but something quite else – something that he not only didn’t have, but couldn’t have, shouldn’t have and almost certainly wouldn’t want in his relationship with his father or with any other blood relative. Mutis mutandis, I imagine that the same can be said, by and large, of what the average heterosexual man seeks in a sexual relationship.
David Blakeslee# ~ Aug 1, 2011 at 9:26 am
“It was never the position of any presenter at NARTH that I can remember;”
Here are a few links to some old NARTH articles for you to look at:
http://www.narth.com/docs/1995papers/.omitted/byrd.html
http://www.narth.com/docs/1995papers/jcoulson.html
http://www.narth.com/docs/1996papers/berman.html
http://www.narth.com/docs/1996papers/dickson.html
I was going to excerpt text, but I think it would be better for people to read them and form their own opinions. However, David, after reading them I’d be curious to hear if you still think it so inconceivable that NARTH therapists might be projecting the attitude that gays are incapable of forming relationships (i.e. “unloving”)
also, the Byrd article (1st in the list) is an interesting “case study” about how the broken relationship with the father causes inability to form loving relationships.
Here is a good review of some of the “science” and theory that was used to promote homosexuality as a disorder, as well as how that science failed in the end. It provides some historical background and briefly discusses the removal of homosexuality from the DSM:
From the UC Davis Psychology Department:
Facts About Homosexuality and Mental Health
William,
Perhaps research could/would validate your suspicion. I still think everyone has a personal story and it might or might not be a or the contributing factor(s) to how we view ourselves compared to others.
This makes perfect sense to me. I have a friend who’s boyfriend is 19 years younger than her. They have been together 14 years. At one time they were very sexually attracted to each other. Now they seem like a very settled in couple going about their day doing routine things. She had a daughter from a previous marriage and the daughter is a few years younger than my friend’s boyfriend. Another mutual friend, who has a son, has remarked to me often that she could never be attracted to a younger man as he would remind her of her son and that would be just too weird. I think it is interesting to observe how both friends can think so differently about this and I have just always thought the difference was because their interest was in the opposite sex and for one friend, the fact that her daughter and boyfriend were close in age didn’t matter at all, while with the other friend who has a son, the thought of being attracted to any man close in age to her son mattered a lot – as you say, it was a barrier.
Well, I see nothing against that, but such research would be of very little value, if any, unless it also showed how many men identify as gay and are celibate, and who have bad relationships with their fathers, versus those men who identify as gay and have an active sex life with another man or other men and who did have or do have a good relationship with their fathers.
Only so could it address, or at least start to address, all the questions, opining, and contention that surround the theory or fact that some men are seeking to repair their broken relationships with their fathers by having sex with other men.
I see a number of reasons for regarding the theory with grave suspicion.
(1) If gay men in general were seeking to repair their supposed broken relationships with their fathers by having sex with other men, one would expect that they would generally seek sexual relationships with men who are significantly older than themselves. Some do, of course, but most do not. And in the case of those who do, what of the older partners? What are they seeking to repair?
(2) If gay male X is seeking to repair his supposed broken relationship with his father by having sex with gay male Y, how does X regard Y? As a substitute father? If so, how does Y regard X? Also as a substitute father? So X and Y regard each other as substitute fathers? I don’t see how such a charade could even get off the ground.
(3) The notion seems even less credible when I think of the gay men whom I actually know who are in committed relationships. A is 21. His relationship with his father, from what I’ve seen of it, seems a good and happy one. But if appearances are deceptive, and it’s not a good one at all, is he seeking to repair his broken relationship with his father by having sex with B, who is also 21? Then I think of C and D. Again, C seems to have a good relationship with both his father and his mother, although I know that they disapprove of a few of the things that he does (his being in a gay relationship isn’t one of them). But again, if appearances are deceptive, and C is trying to repair his broken relationship with his father by having sex with D, what of D? Is D, who is 28, seeking to repair his broken relationship with his father by having sex with C, who is 25? (And C, being only 3 years younger, certainly can’t be a substitute son either.) It’s all just a bit much to swallow.
(4) Coming back to X and Y, prescinding from all other objections to the theory, if their mutual relationship represents an attempt on the part of each of them to repair his relationship with his father, why would the relationship be a sexual one? Are we to suppose that, if X and Y had had good relationships with their fathers, those father-son relationships would also have become sexual ones?
(5) I can speak only for myself here, since I can’t get inside anyone else’s head. I had a good relationship with my father, although we had our occasional quarrels. (Show me a son, gay or straight, who never had any disputes with his father as a teenager or as a young man.) If I saw another guy, irrespective of his age, either as a stand-in father or as a stand-in son, it would be a barrier to my having a sexual relationship with him. It would be a complete turn-off.
Teresa,
Thank you Teresa and SG. Its nice, on occasion, to feel that I may have contributed something of substance to this blog 😉 I appreciate your comment, and your thoughtful posts and “due diligence” as well.
I agree, no one can top Warren however. I think all of us have a great deal for which to thank him.
Ken,
Great question:
I have heard this meme when describing “sexually compulsive” homosexual men. It was never the position of any presenter at NARTH that I can remember; although research in the 80’s and 90’s from secular sources highlighted the temporary nature of the relationships of the participants in those studies (flawed recruitment of participants skewed the results of these peer reviewed, published articles).
Given that men tend to be more sexually active than women, men having sex with men will tend to be more frequent; and it may be more promiscuous. And it may interfere with real emotional attachment.
I have heard former Nicolosi clients who remained gay assert: the therapy itself helped me really think about what I wanted and I made better choices about partnering and sex because of it (paraphrase). A better chance at love.
Nicolosi has lots of books…maybe he has written his assertion that Gays are unloveable somewhere.
In the mean time Kendall’s narrative is sparse; it is more likely that his parents treated him as UNLOVABLE; and did things repeatedly to assert this, including a referral to NARTH.
But I don’t know, and am asking to get more of this story that arbitrarily begins 14 years ago; with one year in therapy he actively resisted; and 13 years that followed that he describes being suicidal and homeless.
David Blakeslee# ~ Jul 31, 2011 at 12:04 pm
“I have known and spoken to many people at NARTH since 2001 (Kendall’s treatment takes place in 1997 it appears). I have never heard any clinician say gays are unlovable.”
Have you ever heard them say that homosexuals are that way because of a broken relationship with their fathers. and that because of this broken relationship they are constantly seeking acceptance from men by having sex with them. However, because these sexual relationships don’t provide the healing they need, they can never have a truly commited intimate relationship with another man. Or something similar?
Given the narrative coming out of NARTH for the last 30 years, it really isn’t that hard to believe Nicolosi sent Ryan the message that gays are unlovable. Regardless of whether Nicolosi used those exact words or not.
It might be interesting to do some research on how many men identify as gay and are celebate, and, who have good relationships with their fathers versus those men who identify as gay and have an active sex life with another man or other men and didn’t have or don’t have a good relationship with their father. Perhaps it could address, or at least start to address, all the questions, opining, and contention that surround the theory or fact that some men are seeking to repair their broken relationships with their fathers by having sex with other men. Women who identify as gay are not primarily seeking sex with other women, rather, an emotional connection they do not feel with men, so this kind of research might not apply to them. I am also not sure if this kind of research/study for men would be significant within any given medical or psychological or scientific organization or if it would hold any value for them so perhaps it would have to be done independantly.
StraightGrandmother,
Thanks – no need to apologize, I just didn’t understand but now I do 🙂
StraightGrandmother,
What question and how is it ironic?
As to your other comments, I am not sure if you are addressing something specific in my post or commenting in general.
Theresa-
SG- Huh? Why would that question be to personal? I mean that is what this forum is more or less about isn’t it? If you are here and participating you have interest in the subject matter and if you are commenting with opinions you should have no qualms about being asked this question.
Here I will answer it. No I do not believe that homosexuality, b-sexuality or transgender is a mental illness or disease that needs to be cured. I believe it is what Mark Yarhouse said, they are simply sexual minorities. Since reading that latest report from Yarhouse that is how I refer to people who are gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender, they are simply sexual minorities. To me it is no different than people being left handed or who have red hair. They are simply a minority of the population but there is nothing wrong with it.
I do not believe it is a sin either. It is not a sin, as Mohler would have us to believe, that to simply exist as a sexual minority is a sin. Nor to I believe it is a sin to engage in same sex intimacies although I sure wish we would have Marriage Equality so that those intimacies can take place on the marriage bed. I am Christain however I am one of those 7 out of 10 Christians who do NOT believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. I believe it was written by men of a certain era and we have to reject that which in our era does not make sense, like I reject the Biblical justification of slavery and that women need to subjugate themselves to men. I do not believe that men are to be the head of the household but are merely an EQUAL partner to the woman. I also do not believe the world is flat.
Anne, I have a very dear friend, quite a bit younger than myself, and she said since her son was about 2 that he was probably gay, and in fact her son grew up and is gay. It is not that she wanted that, or pushed that, but she realized extremely early on that he would probably turn out gay.
I don’t think it is anything a mother aspires to, “Oh I hope my son is gay” or directs the boy down that path. The younger generations are much more in tune with this than my generation and thankfully so. So yes mothers do know. And if you just “know” and are accepting that this is a “possibility” what a wonderful chance in life the young child has. I support the mother and everyone else should just back off. It is kind of ironic that you would pose that question in this topic, don’t you think?
I met my first transgender boy aged 6, about 3 years ago. Now I am a grandmother and I have seen more than one generation born and grow up so I know some things. I have seen girls who grow up to be lesbains and boys who grow up to be gay, as well as straight. You cna’t always tell when they are little but sometimes you can. This little boy I met is not gay, the child is transgender. Thankfully he has loving parents and grandparents who will love and support him no matter what. I often times think of that little boy and his parents and I do feel sorry for them as they will have a harder time in life than raising a heterosexual or gay child. They hav a tough row to hoe as my grandmother would say. But having loving supportive parents and grandparents, the boy is going to have a better chance in life than if he were born to parents who were in denial. Oh yes Anne, parents can tell even at 2 years old that something is not quite heterosexual about their child. They can have an inclination (inclination is not the right word but I can’t think of it, it is almost inclination) , not always, but some parents can see it that early.
Anne I was responding to this question in your comments
Sorry, I guess I didn’t answer your question very well, I jumped in with my personal experience. So to answer your question, yes the mother should let her little boy paint his fingernails/toenails if the boy wants to. Furthermore I guess it is not ironic that you posted your comments in this Sissy Boy topic as they do align with the topic. I guess I got carried away, please excuse me.
David, can we pursue this line of reasoning a bit more?
I, certainly, believe what you said here, to a point. However, couldn’t there be a subtle, underlying animus that ‘gays are unloveable’ in a clinician’s manner? Wasn’t this ‘gays are unloveable’ demonstrated by Nicolosi when he made a ‘joke’ about a child being dropped on his head, and he might be brain-damaged, but at least he wouldn’t be ‘gay’?
Further, David, you aren’t’t Kendall, and I assume you’re not gay. You’ve never undergone treatment for being gay. Isn’t there a world of difference between being a ‘client’ in treatment, and someone who’s talking to a fellow peer?
Because you, David, haven’t heard a clinician ever say to you “gays are unloveable”, are you dismissing Kendall’s narrative, entirely? Certainly Kendall would be especially sensitive to casual remarks about being gay, and could misconstrue them … but, there certainly could be some truth in what he states.
Isn’t the whole mantra of Nicolosi, there’s no such thing as homosexuals … “homosexuals are really heterosexuals with a homosexual problem” … and, if we never become heterosexuals, isn’t that by default saying … “we’re still mentally ill” … and, in some sense “unloveable”?
I disagree. I don’t think that is supported by the facts. I think it’s wishful thinking.
No doubt about it. Practically all forms of counseling can be harmful. As can crossing the street. Total red herring. Next question, please.
Even though you aren’t really sure? Why bother stating as fact something that is mere opinion? What’s in it for you? The chances of progress are much higher than “miniscule”. I don’t think that is disputable.
Who do you think is practicing fraud? That’d be quite an accusation. Sounds like baseless rhetoric to me. I’m not going to defend the spiritual because I am not spiritual. What would you say to the secular SOCE then?
Your whole position boils down to the inaccuracy that SOCE don’t work. We know to be false as many can attest. Does it work all the time? No. Is it easy? No. Can people change to their satisfaction? Unqualified, yes.
Do you have anything else?
Teresa# ~ Jul 10, 2011 at 9:58 pm
I now understand where you got the gay population figure of 2%.However, I wouldn’t take the fact the CNN Reporter or Anderson Cooper did not challenge the 2% figure as any assurance of its validity. Their focus for the interview was entirely different, and with only so much time, getting into debate about ‘incidentals’ to the topic is non-germane to the whole.
George Ribble# ~ Jul 16, 2011 at 2:12 pm
And you don’t think it odd that no where in any of your citations does it discuss the actual research that had occurred regarding homosexuality? Specifically, the research on homosexuals who where NOT in therapy at the time the research was done.
However, rather than go through this back and forth, lets cut to the chase:
Do you, George Ribble, believe homosexuality is a mental disorder? Do you believe it should be in the DSM, and that anyone who is gay should be considered to be psychologically disturbed?
Teresa# ~ Jul 7, 2011 at 5:42 pm
Also, for anyone out there, I’m confused about the ability to say what percentage of a given population is gay. George, you commented as 2%. I’ve seen 5%, 3%, as much as 7% … now we have 2%. Where are we getting any of these numbers?
________________________
Teresa–I got the 2% figure from the CNN ‘Sissy Boy Experiment, Part 3…” news story. During that segment Dr. Nicolosi stated that gays represent 2% of the population. Neither the CNN reporter or Anderson Cooper challenged the 2% statistic. So, I took it at face value.
Teresa# ~ Jul 8, 2011 at 9:55 pm
George, I find it difficult to follow your comments, differentiating your comments from others you include. Is there a way to use the ‘quote’ feature to help with this.
______________________
Teresa–I don’t know what you mean by the “quote feature”. Can you assist me with that?
Jayhuck,
This was my thought as well. It was a little surprising to me that a mother would describe him as gayat such a young age and, especially in front of his little friends and the adults that were there. Putting on nail polish does not show or cause one to be gay, as William said. It was the mother’s reaction and encouragement to continue playing with the nail polish, based solely on her belief that is was gay, that didn’t seem quite right to me. I actually thought she could have handled it, as well as everyone else, in a better way.
David Blakeslee# ~ Jul 31, 2011 at 1:15 am
“So, I am baffled as to Nicolosi’s cause of his subsequent problems.”
Are you serious, David? While Nicolosi wasn’t the sole cause of Ryan’s problems, he did contribute significantly. Ryan has said Nicolosi’s therapy contributed to self-loathing and that if he stayed in therapy he would have probably committed suicide.
“Did the parents abandon him for not pursuing change? Or did he seek adult status through the court early to be protected from change therapy?”
Ryan went to court to be protected from his parents and the therapy they were forcing him into.
Ann# ~ Jul 30, 2011 at 12:50 pm
“what do you or anyone else think about how the mother views her son and her choice to label him at this early age?”
1st, she didn’t label her son gay, she said he might be gay and clearly she was fine with that. I think that is admirable.
“Do you think it is ok for her to allow him to engage in an activity that encourages effeminate behavior or brings unwanted attention to him?”
I think if this boy does turn out to be transgendered (or gay or both) he will be much better off, because he has at least one parent who loves and supports him for who he is.
It sounds like the therapy was a year long; age 14 to 15? This would have been in 1997? Rekers research was still intact. And that Ryan was on the street for about 10 years after being made a ward of the court.
The narrative is compelling, but none if it has to do with doubt about his sexual identity or attempting to change himself to heterosexual. So, I am baffled as to Nicolosi’s cause of his subsequent problems.
Did the parents abandon him for not pursuing change? Or did he seek adult status through the court early to be protected from change therapy?
I have google searched his name and know he testified in PROP 8 trial, maybe that transcript has a more thorough narrative. Although he testified there that he could not change his attractions, here is sounds like that was never something he wanted to pursue.
Jayhuck,
Several years ago I was at an afternoon get-together with some friends in Venice Beach, which included children. The little boy who lived at the home of the host brought out a bottle of nail polish and started painting his nails. Two of the little girls joined him. When some of the guests inquired of his mother if that was ok, she said – yes, I think he is gay anyway so I let him do it. The little boy was, I think, maybe 6 or 7. Several of the men spoke up and said to take it away from him but she stayed firm with her opinion and allowing him to do it. Needless to say, harmony did not follow as other people chimed in and voiced their opinion, several supporting his mother while others had contrary views. Aside from the opinions that were unfortunately and inappropriately voiced from others, what do you or anyone else think about how the mother views her son and her choice to label him at this early age? Do you think it is ok for her to allow him to engage in an activity that encourages effeminate behavior or brings unwanted attention to him?
George Ribble# ~ Jul 27, 2011 at 9:16 am
“I take my cue concerning homosexuality from psychiatrist Dr. Thomas Szasz who understood homosexuality to be an expression of “psychosexual immaturity”–his words, not mine–meaning that he saw homosexuality as a developmental issue (Bayer, p. 223, note #51). ”
1st, that statement was made in 1965. Further, here is the ENTIRE text of the foot note:
(and it is from Bayer p. 200 note 223 – the book is only 216 pages)
and now lets look at the actual text that the footnote was too (Bayer pp 57-58):
So to be clear, while Szasz personally believed in 1965 homosexuality to be a developmental disorder, he did not believe his beliefs should be imposed on others (and likely that they were not conclusive enough do so).
George Ribble# ~ Jul 28, 2011 at 4:29 pm
“I understand homosexuality to be a developmental disorder where psycho-social growth has gone off the track from its normal progression. ”
Based on a quote from 1965 you took out of context from a footnote to a book written in 1981.
Do you also advocate drilling holes in the heads of the mentally ill in order to release the demons causing their madness?
George – Yes it is. I don’t mind saying that I asked him to reconsider. I think it is a mistake to speak at NARTH, especially at this year’s convention which is more political than usual.
Nick believes that a small number of gays/bisexual can shift their attractions if they have issues which are amenable to psychotherapy (about 13%) but that the causal theories proposed by reparative therapy are off based. I assume he will say that.
Warren–I’ve received by mail a brochure from NARTH outlining their annual convention to be held next month In Phoenix. I noticed that Dr. Nicholas Cummings, former American Psychological Association President, is listed as one of the keynote speakers. His topic will be “Psychotherapy with Gay and Lesbian Clients: Seperating Fact, Fiction, and Fantasy”. Is this the same Nicholas Cummings (a.k.a. Nick Cummings) who is a personal friend and mentor to you whom you hold in highest esteem? Just curious.
George (a.k.a. Curious George)
George – Yes it is. I don’t mind saying that I asked him to reconsider. I think it is a mistake to speak at NARTH, especially at this year’s convention which is more political than usual.
Nick believes that a small number of gays/bisexual can shift their attractions if they have issues which are amenable to psychotherapy (about 13%) but that the causal theories proposed by reparative therapy are off based. I assume he will say that.
Warren–I’ve received by mail a brochure from NARTH outlining their annual convention to be held next month In Phoenix. I noticed that Dr. Nicholas Cummings, former American Psychological Association President, is listed as one of the keynote speakers. His topic will be “Psychotherapy with Gay and Lesbian Clients: Seperating Fact, Fiction, and Fantasy”. Is this the same Nicholas Cummings (a.k.a. Nick Cummings) who is a personal friend and mentor to you whom you hold in highest esteem? Just curious.
George (a.k.a. Curious George)
George,
You must not have read the UC Davis page very well. The results of some of the studies that were done that eventually led to the removal of homosexuality from the DSM were done PRE 1973, even before discussions about homosexuality’s removal began.
Psychiatrists who had opposite views did express their positions. The discussion about the removal from the DSM took a year George and involved people from all sides of the issue as well as the results of several scientific studies. YOu, like other people who don’t like the fact that homosexuality was removed from the DSM, don’t seem to ever consider the legitimate reasons it was removed, only those parts of the process that you don’t like.
You STILL have yet to answer my question about WHY homosexuality was put in the DSM in the first place. Do you know the reasons? I have to wonder why you continue to evade answering this question.
Of course this is how you see it. You refuse to look at the legitimate science, to acknowledge all the discussions that took place in the year long process that was involved in the removal of homosexuality from the DSM, and you continue to repeat yourself over and over again. You seem to buy into the idea that if you call something faulty, or fraudulent long enough, maybe people will believe it. Lucky for us here, most of the people seem to be somewhat educated on the history surrounding this issue. However, I’m sure there are those out there who will willingly eat up your opinion without any sort of critical analysis whatsoever.
George,
You must not have read the UC Davis page very well. The results of some of the studies that were done that eventually led to the removal of homosexuality from the DSM were done PRE 1973, even before discussions about homosexuality’s removal began.
Psychiatrists who had opposite views did express their positions. The discussion about the removal from the DSM took a year George and involved people from all sides of the issue as well as the results of several scientific studies. YOu, like other people who don’t like the fact that homosexuality was removed from the DSM, don’t seem to ever consider the legitimate reasons it was removed, only those parts of the process that you don’t like.
You STILL have yet to answer my question about WHY homosexuality was put in the DSM in the first place. Do you know the reasons? I have to wonder why you continue to evade answering this question.
Of course this is how you see it. You refuse to look at the legitimate science, to acknowledge all the discussions that took place in the year long process that was involved in the removal of homosexuality from the DSM, and you continue to repeat yourself over and over again. You seem to buy into the idea that if you call something faulty, or fraudulent long enough, maybe people will believe it. Lucky for us here, most of the people seem to be somewhat educated on the history surrounding this issue. However, I’m sure there are those out there who will willingly eat up your opinion without any sort of critical analysis whatsoever.
Your welcome, but it really wasn’t that much effort on my part. Years ago, I became an unofficial “expert” in debunking NARTH’s mis-representations, half-truths, deceptions and lies. It was just a matter of dusting off some old notes.
Your welcome, but it really wasn’t that much effort on my part. Years ago, I became an unofficial “expert” in debunking NARTH’s mis-representations, half-truths, deceptions and lies. It was just a matter of dusting off some old notes.
Ken,
I would like to add my voice to StraightGrandmother’s. Thank you for all your very valuable posts on this topic and for all the trouble that you have plainly gone to.
StraightGrandmother,
I would like to thank you also for all your contributions. You have a gift for going right to the crux of the matter and for expressing your observations in good, clear, simple language which no-one can pretend not to understand. (I suspect, however, that there are some who would prefer you to drape them in useless verbiage, so that points which they find disconcerting could be more easily ignored or glossed over.)
Ken,
If I ever get into a discussion, and I do sometimes, with people who claim that Homosexuality was removed from the DSM improperly I am simply going to come back to this web page and copy and paste the information you have provided. I do not have access to all these books, I am EXTREMELY appreciative that you did not give up, and get tired of the discussion with George Ribble and just let it go. You stayed with it and disproved the assertions. I have not seen anyone else follow the discussion through to a conclusion like you have. Of course William and Jaychuck joined in but you really closed this topic out. Case Closed!
George Ribble# ~ Aug 2, 2011 at 2:27 pm
“The inclusion of homosexuality in the first DSM (1952) relied on a coonsensus approach to classification and a majority vote on issues of disagreement.”
So according to you, it is okay if they vote homosexuality INTO the DSM, but not okay if they vote it out of the DSM.
“At that time most psychiatrist understood homosexuality to be a disorder (Bayer, pp. 39-40). ”
and why did they consider it a disorder for inclusion into the DSM-I? (bayer, p 40):
“If the scientific evidence for the removal of homosexuality was so conclusive, why was it necessary to exclude psychiatrists having expertise in homosexuality from the nomenclature committee? ”
what is your definition of “expertise in homosexuality”? Are you claiming the committee members were incapable of evaluating the research on homosexuality? If so, what do you base that claim on?
“Why couldn’t psychiatrists having opposite views to that of Dr. Spitzer express their positions?”
They did. Many people expressed their opinions on the topic. That is why there was the vote you have so much trouble with and keep misrepresenting.
“Why was there never a call for scientific discussion or input from within the APA leadership?”
There was a call for scientific discussion. it happened in the late 60s, it was known as “the NIMH Task force on homosexuality” and headed by a noted expert in homosexuality, esp. homosexuals who were not in therapy.
“Readers of the UC Davis Psychology Department piece will have no idea that these issues existed because the above paragraph is a victim of the political correctness virus. ”
I’d say you seem to leave out a lot more than UC Davis does on this topic.
“It is my theory that the deletion of homosexuality had more to do with the APA’s weak leadership being inttimidated by three years of disruptive guerrilla-like tactics ”
Anti-abortion protesters have been far more aggressive and violent, yet the APA hasn’t changed their stance on abortion. And I’d say your memory about the issues surrounding the removal from the DSM is pretty faulty.
And there were not 3 years of disruptive tactics. The tactics used at the 1971 APA conference were not repeated at the 1972 conference, since the protesters got what they wanted, the right to speak at the 1972 conference.
“if you’re going to remove a diagnosis from the DSM, do it correctly. ”
once again, it doesn’t really matter why it was removed. Nearly 40 years of subsequent research has proven it was the correct decision.
“Dr. Szasz’s position may seem noble, but it’s quite naive.”
1st, Szasz was your inspiration for your views on homosexuality, now he was naive.
“Warren and others–This subject has become boring to me.”
why? because there are people here who know more about this topic than you do? Who can easily counter your mis-representations about what happened 40 years ago (and since then)?
George Ribble# ~ Aug 2, 2011 at 2:27 pm
“The inclusion of homosexuality in the first DSM (1952) relied on a coonsensus approach to classification and a majority vote on issues of disagreement.”
So according to you, it is okay if they vote homosexuality INTO the DSM, but not okay if they vote it out of the DSM.
“At that time most psychiatrist understood homosexuality to be a disorder (Bayer, pp. 39-40). ”
and why did they consider it a disorder for inclusion into the DSM-I? (bayer, p 40):
“If the scientific evidence for the removal of homosexuality was so conclusive, why was it necessary to exclude psychiatrists having expertise in homosexuality from the nomenclature committee? ”
what is your definition of “expertise in homosexuality”? Are you claiming the committee members were incapable of evaluating the research on homosexuality? If so, what do you base that claim on?
“Why couldn’t psychiatrists having opposite views to that of Dr. Spitzer express their positions?”
They did. Many people expressed their opinions on the topic. That is why there was the vote you have so much trouble with and keep misrepresenting.
“Why was there never a call for scientific discussion or input from within the APA leadership?”
There was a call for scientific discussion. it happened in the late 60s, it was known as “the NIMH Task force on homosexuality” and headed by a noted expert in homosexuality, esp. homosexuals who were not in therapy.
“Readers of the UC Davis Psychology Department piece will have no idea that these issues existed because the above paragraph is a victim of the political correctness virus. ”
I’d say you seem to leave out a lot more than UC Davis does on this topic.
“It is my theory that the deletion of homosexuality had more to do with the APA’s weak leadership being inttimidated by three years of disruptive guerrilla-like tactics ”
Anti-abortion protesters have been far more aggressive and violent, yet the APA hasn’t changed their stance on abortion. And I’d say your memory about the issues surrounding the removal from the DSM is pretty faulty.
And there were not 3 years of disruptive tactics. The tactics used at the 1971 APA conference were not repeated at the 1972 conference, since the protesters got what they wanted, the right to speak at the 1972 conference.
“if you’re going to remove a diagnosis from the DSM, do it correctly. ”
once again, it doesn’t really matter why it was removed. Nearly 40 years of subsequent research has proven it was the correct decision.
“Dr. Szasz’s position may seem noble, but it’s quite naive.”
1st, Szasz was your inspiration for your views on homosexuality, now he was naive.
“Warren and others–This subject has become boring to me.”
why? because there are people here who know more about this topic than you do? Who can easily counter your mis-representations about what happened 40 years ago (and since then)?
Jayhuck–The inclusion of homosexuality in the first DSM (1952) relied on a coonsensus approach to classification and a majority vote on issues of disagreement. At that time most psychiatrist understood homosexuality to be a disorder (Bayer, pp. 39-40).
It can be argued that all concepts of health and disease (physical and mental) are informed by human values. Talcott Parsons, sociologist, took this position. To Parsons, and his colleaques, all diseases were culturally defined, and were not objective, value-free circumstances. To them, only those conditions having a negative impact on human goals could be classified as being illinesses. In reality I think it’s a two-way street. Organized mental health can be impacted by the culture. Likewise, organized mental health using its influence can act upon society. (Bayer, pp. 183-186).
Jayhuck–The above paragraph taken from “Facts About Homosexuality and Mental Health” produced by the UC Davis Psychology Department is an example as to why we are wise to view post 1973 professional papers dealing with homosexual issues with suspicion. At best the paragraph is a shallow representation of the actual dynamics in play during 1973 (see my posting of Jul 16, 2011 at 2:12 pm).
If the scientific evidence for the removal of homosexuality was so conclusive, why was it necessary to exclude psychiatrists having expertise in homosexuality from the nomenclature committee? Why couldn’t psychiatrists having opposite views to that of Dr. Spitzer express their positions? Why was there never a call for scientific discussion or input from within the APA leadership? Readers of the UC Davis Psychology Department piece will have no idea that these issues existed because the above paragraph is a victim of the political correctness virus.
It is my theory that the deletion of homosexuality had more to do with the APA’s weak leadership being inttimidated by three years of disruptive guerrilla-like tactics (e.g., shouting matches with violent overtones, threats of disorder, and rancorous denunciations) organized by gay groups, feminists, and antiwar activists at APA annual meetings (the smell of fascism). The APA leadership just wanted to get rid of this “hot potato” in fear of possibly more storm-trooper retaliations (Bayer, pp. 102-111).
if you’re going to remove a diagnosis from the DSM, do it correctly.
Reference:
Ronald Bayer, “Homosexuality And American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis”, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Available at amazon.com.
Ken# ~ Jul 29, 2011 at 9:23 am
George Ribble# ~ Jul 27, 2011 at 9:16 am
So to be clear, while Szasz personally believed in 1965 homosexuality to be a developmental disorder, he did not believe his beliefs should be imposed on others (and likely that they were not conclusive enough do so).
Warren and others–This subject has become boring to me. Therefore, this will be my last posting. Thank you, Warren, for making this blog available to me. We haven’t agree on very much because you and I have been trying to play checkers on different colored squares ( we’re guided by different premises). That’s O.K. I don’t have a problem with that. We will just have to agree to disagree.
Jayhuck–The inclusion of homosexuality in the first DSM (1952) relied on a coonsensus approach to classification and a majority vote on issues of disagreement. At that time most psychiatrist understood homosexuality to be a disorder (Bayer, pp. 39-40).
It can be argued that all concepts of health and disease (physical and mental) are informed by human values. Talcott Parsons, sociologist, took this position. To Parsons, and his colleaques, all diseases were culturally defined, and were not objective, value-free circumstances. To them, only those conditions having a negative impact on human goals could be classified as being illinesses. In reality I think it’s a two-way street. Organized mental health can be impacted by the culture. Likewise, organized mental health using its influence can act upon society. (Bayer, pp. 183-186).
Jayhuck–The above paragraph taken from “Facts About Homosexuality and Mental Health” produced by the UC Davis Psychology Department is an example as to why we are wise to view post 1973 professional papers dealing with homosexual issues with suspicion. At best the paragraph is a shallow representation of the actual dynamics in play during 1973 (see my posting of Jul 16, 2011 at 2:12 pm).
If the scientific evidence for the removal of homosexuality was so conclusive, why was it necessary to exclude psychiatrists having expertise in homosexuality from the nomenclature committee? Why couldn’t psychiatrists having opposite views to that of Dr. Spitzer express their positions? Why was there never a call for scientific discussion or input from within the APA leadership? Readers of the UC Davis Psychology Department piece will have no idea that these issues existed because the above paragraph is a victim of the political correctness virus.
It is my theory that the deletion of homosexuality had more to do with the APA’s weak leadership being inttimidated by three years of disruptive guerrilla-like tactics (e.g., shouting matches with violent overtones, threats of disorder, and rancorous denunciations) organized by gay groups, feminists, and antiwar activists at APA annual meetings (the smell of fascism). The APA leadership just wanted to get rid of this “hot potato” in fear of possibly more storm-trooper retaliations (Bayer, pp. 102-111).
if you’re going to remove a diagnosis from the DSM, do it correctly.
Reference:
Ronald Bayer, “Homosexuality And American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis”, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Available at amazon.com.
Ken# ~ Jul 29, 2011 at 9:23 am
George Ribble# ~ Jul 27, 2011 at 9:16 am
So to be clear, while Szasz personally believed in 1965 homosexuality to be a developmental disorder, he did not believe his beliefs should be imposed on others (and likely that they were not conclusive enough do so).
Warren and others–This subject has become boring to me. Therefore, this will be my last posting. Thank you, Warren, for making this blog available to me. We haven’t agree on very much because you and I have been trying to play checkers on different colored squares ( we’re guided by different premises). That’s O.K. I don’t have a problem with that. We will just have to agree to disagree.
Completely Off Topic but good news never the less, Americans for Truth About Homosexuality lost their tax exempt status.
Gee couldn’t happen to a nicer guy /sarcasm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/01/suburban-chicago-anti-gay_n_914935.html
Teresa,
Thank you Teresa and SG. Its nice, on occasion, to feel that I may have contributed something of substance to this blog 😉 I appreciate your comment, and your thoughtful posts and “due diligence” as well.
I agree, no one can top Warren however. I think all of us have a great deal for which to thank him.
William,
I was going to copy and paste parts of your comment @ 12:55 to affirm each point you made, but thought it would be easier to just say I completely agree with all your well made points in the comment. Regarding confirmation biases, etc. – I often wonder what is so lacking in a person that they must twist someone’s else’s personal story/information so it is in alignment with a pre-conceived theory. Seems at times that an IQ chip is somehow missing if this is the only theory they want to believe or understand. An intelligent person is always willing to be open to new and different information. They are also willing to say they do not know if there is no real evidence to back up a theory.
@ Ann:
I’m sure you’re right. I don’t doubt it. The danger lies in:
(1) trying to shoe-horn someone’s personal story into a pigeon-hole (forgive the mixed metaphors) to make it seem to accord with a pre-conceived theory, a bit like a medium or clairvoyant skilfully tailoring her “reading” to make it seem to fit the sitter, although in its original form it didn’t; and
(2) conversely, trying to extrapolate a general theory from someone’s personal story and then dogmatically applying it to others.
Although there are doubtless exceptions (one obvious case being that of incest), I submit that what the average gay man seeks in a sexual relationship is not a replacement or making good for something that he should have had in his relationship with his father and didn’t (if indeed he didn’t), but something quite else – something that he not only didn’t have, but couldn’t have, shouldn’t have and almost certainly wouldn’t want in his relationship with his father or with any other blood relative. Mutis mutandis, I imagine that the same can be said, by and large, of what the average heterosexual man seeks in a sexual relationship.
David Blakeslee# ~ Aug 1, 2011 at 9:26 am
“It was never the position of any presenter at NARTH that I can remember;”
Here are a few links to some old NARTH articles for you to look at:
http://www.narth.com/docs/1995papers/.omitted/byrd.html
http://www.narth.com/docs/1995papers/jcoulson.html
http://www.narth.com/docs/1996papers/berman.html
http://www.narth.com/docs/1996papers/dickson.html
I was going to excerpt text, but I think it would be better for people to read them and form their own opinions. However, David, after reading them I’d be curious to hear if you still think it so inconceivable that NARTH therapists might be projecting the attitude that gays are incapable of forming relationships (i.e. “unloving”)
also, the Byrd article (1st in the list) is an interesting “case study” about how the broken relationship with the father causes inability to form loving relationships.
William,
Perhaps research could/would validate your suspicion. I still think everyone has a personal story and it might or might not be a or the contributing factor(s) to how we view ourselves compared to others.
This makes perfect sense to me. I have a friend who’s boyfriend is 19 years younger than her. They have been together 14 years. At one time they were very sexually attracted to each other. Now they seem like a very settled in couple going about their day doing routine things. She had a daughter from a previous marriage and the daughter is a few years younger than my friend’s boyfriend. Another mutual friend, who has a son, has remarked to me often that she could never be attracted to a younger man as he would remind her of her son and that would be just too weird. I think it is interesting to observe how both friends can think so differently about this and I have just always thought the difference was because their interest was in the opposite sex and for one friend, the fact that her daughter and boyfriend were close in age didn’t matter at all, while with the other friend who has a son, the thought of being attracted to any man close in age to her son mattered a lot – as you say, it was a barrier.
Well, I see nothing against that, but such research would be of very little value, if any, unless it also showed how many men identify as gay and are celibate, and who have bad relationships with their fathers, versus those men who identify as gay and have an active sex life with another man or other men and who did have or do have a good relationship with their fathers.
Only so could it address, or at least start to address, all the questions, opining, and contention that surround the theory or fact that some men are seeking to repair their broken relationships with their fathers by having sex with other men.
I see a number of reasons for regarding the theory with grave suspicion.
(1) If gay men in general were seeking to repair their supposed broken relationships with their fathers by having sex with other men, one would expect that they would generally seek sexual relationships with men who are significantly older than themselves. Some do, of course, but most do not. And in the case of those who do, what of the older partners? What are they seeking to repair?
(2) If gay male X is seeking to repair his supposed broken relationship with his father by having sex with gay male Y, how does X regard Y? As a substitute father? If so, how does Y regard X? Also as a substitute father? So X and Y regard each other as substitute fathers? I don’t see how such a charade could even get off the ground.
(3) The notion seems even less credible when I think of the gay men whom I actually know who are in committed relationships. A is 21. His relationship with his father, from what I’ve seen of it, seems a good and happy one. But if appearances are deceptive, and it’s not a good one at all, is he seeking to repair his broken relationship with his father by having sex with B, who is also 21? Then I think of C and D. Again, C seems to have a good relationship with both his father and his mother, although I know that they disapprove of a few of the things that he does (his being in a gay relationship isn’t one of them). But again, if appearances are deceptive, and C is trying to repair his broken relationship with his father by having sex with D, what of D? Is D, who is 28, seeking to repair his broken relationship with his father by having sex with C, who is 25? (And C, being only 3 years younger, certainly can’t be a substitute son either.) It’s all just a bit much to swallow.
(4) Coming back to X and Y, prescinding from all other objections to the theory, if their mutual relationship represents an attempt on the part of each of them to repair his relationship with his father, why would the relationship be a sexual one? Are we to suppose that, if X and Y had had good relationships with their fathers, those father-son relationships would also have become sexual ones?
(5) I can speak only for myself here, since I can’t get inside anyone else’s head. I had a good relationship with my father, although we had our occasional quarrels. (Show me a son, gay or straight, who never had any disputes with his father as a teenager or as a young man.) If I saw another guy, irrespective of his age, either as a stand-in father or as a stand-in son, it would be a barrier to my having a sexual relationship with him. It would be a complete turn-off.
Ken,
Great question:
I have heard this meme when describing “sexually compulsive” homosexual men. It was never the position of any presenter at NARTH that I can remember; although research in the 80’s and 90’s from secular sources highlighted the temporary nature of the relationships of the participants in those studies (flawed recruitment of participants skewed the results of these peer reviewed, published articles).
Given that men tend to be more sexually active than women, men having sex with men will tend to be more frequent; and it may be more promiscuous. And it may interfere with real emotional attachment.
I have heard former Nicolosi clients who remained gay assert: the therapy itself helped me really think about what I wanted and I made better choices about partnering and sex because of it (paraphrase). A better chance at love.
Nicolosi has lots of books…maybe he has written his assertion that Gays are unloveable somewhere.
In the mean time Kendall’s narrative is sparse; it is more likely that his parents treated him as UNLOVABLE; and did things repeatedly to assert this, including a referral to NARTH.
But I don’t know, and am asking to get more of this story that arbitrarily begins 14 years ago; with one year in therapy he actively resisted; and 13 years that followed that he describes being suicidal and homeless.
William,
I was going to copy and paste parts of your comment @ 12:55 to affirm each point you made, but thought it would be easier to just say I completely agree with all your well made points in the comment. Regarding confirmation biases, etc. – I often wonder what is so lacking in a person that they must twist someone’s else’s personal story/information so it is in alignment with a pre-conceived theory. Seems at times that an IQ chip is somehow missing if this is the only theory they want to believe or understand. An intelligent person is always willing to be open to new and different information. They are also willing to say they do not know if there is no real evidence to back up a theory.
It might be interesting to do some research on how many men identify as gay and are celebate, and, who have good relationships with their fathers versus those men who identify as gay and have an active sex life with another man or other men and didn’t have or don’t have a good relationship with their father. Perhaps it could address, or at least start to address, all the questions, opining, and contention that surround the theory or fact that some men are seeking to repair their broken relationships with their fathers by having sex with other men. Women who identify as gay are not primarily seeking sex with other women, rather, an emotional connection they do not feel with men, so this kind of research might not apply to them. I am also not sure if this kind of research/study for men would be significant within any given medical or psychological or scientific organization or if it would hold any value for them so perhaps it would have to be done independantly.
David Blakeslee# ~ Jul 31, 2011 at 12:04 pm
“I have known and spoken to many people at NARTH since 2001 (Kendall’s treatment takes place in 1997 it appears). I have never heard any clinician say gays are unlovable.”
Have you ever heard them say that homosexuals are that way because of a broken relationship with their fathers. and that because of this broken relationship they are constantly seeking acceptance from men by having sex with them. However, because these sexual relationships don’t provide the healing they need, they can never have a truly commited intimate relationship with another man. Or something similar?
Given the narrative coming out of NARTH for the last 30 years, it really isn’t that hard to believe Nicolosi sent Ryan the message that gays are unlovable. Regardless of whether Nicolosi used those exact words or not.
@ Craig:
This is apparently based on the assumption that the sole and exclusive function of human sexuality is reproduction, and that everyone, but everyone, needs to be reproducing.
That is not an assumption which the evidence requires us to make.
To answer SG, homosexuality is clearly a disorder. It disrupts, in a fairly significant way, reproduction. I’m not sure how anyone could consider that a “normal variation”. Would not you consider the various forms of infertility disorders? Any of these folks can learn to live happily but that doesn’t mean they aren’t disordered.
Whether an illness or disorder is also considered a disease is open to discussion.
@ Craig:
This is apparently based on the assumption that the sole and exclusive function of human sexuality is reproduction, and that everyone, but everyone, needs to be reproducing.
That is not an assumption which the evidence requires us to make.
To answer SG, homosexuality is clearly a disorder. It disrupts, in a fairly significant way, reproduction. I’m not sure how anyone could consider that a “normal variation”. Would not you consider the various forms of infertility disorders? Any of these folks can learn to live happily but that doesn’t mean they aren’t disordered.
Whether an illness or disorder is also considered a disease is open to discussion.
StraightGrandmother,
Thanks – no need to apologize, I just didn’t understand but now I do 🙂
Anne I was responding to this question in your comments
Sorry, I guess I didn’t answer your question very well, I jumped in with my personal experience. So to answer your question, yes the mother should let her little boy paint his fingernails/toenails if the boy wants to. Furthermore I guess it is not ironic that you posted your comments in this Sissy Boy topic as they do align with the topic. I guess I got carried away, please excuse me.
StraightGrandmother,
What question and how is it ironic?
As to your other comments, I am not sure if you are addressing something specific in my post or commenting in general.
Theresa-
SG- Huh? Why would that question be to personal? I mean that is what this forum is more or less about isn’t it? If you are here and participating you have interest in the subject matter and if you are commenting with opinions you should have no qualms about being asked this question.
Here I will answer it. No I do not believe that homosexuality, b-sexuality or transgender is a mental illness or disease that needs to be cured. I believe it is what Mark Yarhouse said, they are simply sexual minorities. Since reading that latest report from Yarhouse that is how I refer to people who are gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender, they are simply sexual minorities. To me it is no different than people being left handed or who have red hair. They are simply a minority of the population but there is nothing wrong with it.
I do not believe it is a sin either. It is not a sin, as Mohler would have us to believe, that to simply exist as a sexual minority is a sin. Nor to I believe it is a sin to engage in same sex intimacies although I sure wish we would have Marriage Equality so that those intimacies can take place on the marriage bed. I am Christain however I am one of those 7 out of 10 Christians who do NOT believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. I believe it was written by men of a certain era and we have to reject that which in our era does not make sense, like I reject the Biblical justification of slavery and that women need to subjugate themselves to men. I do not believe that men are to be the head of the household but are merely an EQUAL partner to the woman. I also do not believe the world is flat.
Anne, I have a very dear friend, quite a bit younger than myself, and she said since her son was about 2 that he was probably gay, and in fact her son grew up and is gay. It is not that she wanted that, or pushed that, but she realized extremely early on that he would probably turn out gay.
I don’t think it is anything a mother aspires to, “Oh I hope my son is gay” or directs the boy down that path. The younger generations are much more in tune with this than my generation and thankfully so. So yes mothers do know. And if you just “know” and are accepting that this is a “possibility” what a wonderful chance in life the young child has. I support the mother and everyone else should just back off. It is kind of ironic that you would pose that question in this topic, don’t you think?
I met my first transgender boy aged 6, about 3 years ago. Now I am a grandmother and I have seen more than one generation born and grow up so I know some things. I have seen girls who grow up to be lesbains and boys who grow up to be gay, as well as straight. You cna’t always tell when they are little but sometimes you can. This little boy I met is not gay, the child is transgender. Thankfully he has loving parents and grandparents who will love and support him no matter what. I often times think of that little boy and his parents and I do feel sorry for them as they will have a harder time in life than raising a heterosexual or gay child. They hav a tough row to hoe as my grandmother would say. But having loving supportive parents and grandparents, the boy is going to have a better chance in life than if he were born to parents who were in denial. Oh yes Anne, parents can tell even at 2 years old that something is not quite heterosexual about their child. They can have an inclination (inclination is not the right word but I can’t think of it, it is almost inclination) , not always, but some parents can see it that early.
David, my comment was not about you, and your feelings about the loveableness or unloveableness of homosexuals or mentally ill persons. I apologize if I didn’t word my comment better, and caused a misunderstanding.
I understand, David, that we’re looking at Kendall’s narrative, retrospectively; but, that can’t be understood unless we try to understand NARTH and certain clinicians within NARTH; especially, Nicolosi, and how that has affected gay clients.
David, it’s a very short walk from the Christian saying/attitude of “loving the sinner, and hating the sin” to “hating the sinner, as well as the sin”.
What I’ve just stated in the latter sentence, David, is not meant for you, at all.
BTW, David, do you personally share the opinion with Nicolosi that homosexuality is a “mental illness/disease”? No need to respond if you think this question is to personal?
I very much agree with SG’s statement here, and I would add Ken and Timothy Kincaid to this group. Thanks SG for recognizing these gentlemen’s contributions.
I recall reading on Box Turtle Bulletin an essay by Timothy that spoke about ‘studies”; and, how these writings are misused by most of us (str8 or gay). Timothy has most of the books, or studies that are commonly quoted or footnoted by any number of persons. Then, of course, a single person’s use/misuse of quotes from a study, then become the primary source of most everything downstream … ala, people using quotes from articles who quote other articles … and, on and on. Few, very few, persons take the time to read the original work, digest it, and further understand it.
All of us have biases and prejudices, on any number of issues. The best we can do is acknowledge our biases and prejudices, note them, and do the best we can to set them aside, and try to see, hear and understand as objectively as possible … even when it hurts, or threatens our dearly held positions. Peer review is one way of overcoming bias … but, even that is not perfect.
So, thank you, Jayhuck, William, Ken, and Timothy for performing the “due diligence” you have.
Of course, as always, Warren, still heads the list in getting to the bottom of things, and bringing to our attention truly pertinent info … even at personal cost to him, I’m sure.
Teresa,
I am trying to deal with the actual quotations, rather than innuendo.
There are many differences between a client and a peer. Therapeutic tools are designed to make the relationship for the client much more optimal for that client than the interactions we have with a peer.
I don’t agree that mentally ill people are unloveable…or that therapists routinely convey that to their clients. Homosexuality, even if one sees it like a mental illness (Nicolosi), does not require that someone convey that they are unloveable.
The narrative is sparse and I am just asking that we “flesh it out.”
It is data from about 1997 that is told retrospectively.
David, can we pursue this line of reasoning a bit more?
I, certainly, believe what you said here, to a point. However, couldn’t there be a subtle, underlying animus that ‘gays are unloveable’ in a clinician’s manner? Wasn’t this ‘gays are unloveable’ demonstrated by Nicolosi when he made a ‘joke’ about a child being dropped on his head, and he might be brain-damaged, but at least he wouldn’t be ‘gay’?
Further, David, you aren’t’t Kendall, and I assume you’re not gay. You’ve never undergone treatment for being gay. Isn’t there a world of difference between being a ‘client’ in treatment, and someone who’s talking to a fellow peer?
Because you, David, haven’t heard a clinician ever say to you “gays are unloveable”, are you dismissing Kendall’s narrative, entirely? Certainly Kendall would be especially sensitive to casual remarks about being gay, and could misconstrue them … but, there certainly could be some truth in what he states.
Isn’t the whole mantra of Nicolosi, there’s no such thing as homosexuals … “homosexuals are really heterosexuals with a homosexual problem” … and, if we never become heterosexuals, isn’t that by default saying … “we’re still mentally ill” … and, in some sense “unloveable”?
Here is more of the narrative:
and
Found here:
Continue reading on Examiner.com Exclusive: Prop 8 trial witness Ryan Kendall speaks out for equality – National International LGBT Issues | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/international-lgbt-issues-in-national/exclusive-prop-8-trial-witness-ryan-kendall-speaks-out-for-equality#ixzz1ThQGbAZK
I have known and spoken to many people at NARTH since 2001 (Kendall’s treatment takes place in 1997 it appears). I have never heard any clinician say gays are unlovable.
Remarkably, some clinicians openly hired gay affirmative therapists to work alongside them in their clinics.
It is implausible that Nicolosi is the “cause.” It is possible that he became an extension of much more powerful causes–his parents, a religion, a culture.
Interested in getting a more complete narrative.
David, my comment was not about you, and your feelings about the loveableness or unloveableness of homosexuals or mentally ill persons. I apologize if I didn’t word my comment better, and caused a misunderstanding.
I understand, David, that we’re looking at Kendall’s narrative, retrospectively; but, that can’t be understood unless we try to understand NARTH and certain clinicians within NARTH; especially, Nicolosi, and how that has affected gay clients.
David, it’s a very short walk from the Christian saying/attitude of “loving the sinner, and hating the sin” to “hating the sinner, as well as the sin”.
What I’ve just stated in the latter sentence, David, is not meant for you, at all.
BTW, David, do you personally share the opinion with Nicolosi that homosexuality is a “mental illness/disease”? No need to respond if you think this question is to personal?
gayat should be gay at 🙂
Jayhuck,
This was my thought as well. It was a little surprising to me that a mother would describe him as gayat such a young age and, especially in front of his little friends and the adults that were there. Putting on nail polish does not show or cause one to be gay, as William said. It was the mother’s reaction and encouragement to continue playing with the nail polish, based solely on her belief that is was gay, that didn’t seem quite right to me. I actually thought she could have handled it, as well as everyone else, in a better way.
I very much agree with SG’s statement here, and I would add Ken and Timothy Kincaid to this group. Thanks SG for recognizing these gentlemen’s contributions.
I recall reading on Box Turtle Bulletin an essay by Timothy that spoke about ‘studies”; and, how these writings are misused by most of us (str8 or gay). Timothy has most of the books, or studies that are commonly quoted or footnoted by any number of persons. Then, of course, a single person’s use/misuse of quotes from a study, then become the primary source of most everything downstream … ala, people using quotes from articles who quote other articles … and, on and on. Few, very few, persons take the time to read the original work, digest it, and further understand it.
All of us have biases and prejudices, on any number of issues. The best we can do is acknowledge our biases and prejudices, note them, and do the best we can to set them aside, and try to see, hear and understand as objectively as possible … even when it hurts, or threatens our dearly held positions. Peer review is one way of overcoming bias … but, even that is not perfect.
So, thank you, Jayhuck, William, Ken, and Timothy for performing the “due diligence” you have.
Of course, as always, Warren, still heads the list in getting to the bottom of things, and bringing to our attention truly pertinent info … even at personal cost to him, I’m sure.
Teresa,
I am trying to deal with the actual quotations, rather than innuendo.
There are many differences between a client and a peer. Therapeutic tools are designed to make the relationship for the client much more optimal for that client than the interactions we have with a peer.
I don’t agree that mentally ill people are unloveable…or that therapists routinely convey that to their clients. Homosexuality, even if one sees it like a mental illness (Nicolosi), does not require that someone convey that they are unloveable.
The narrative is sparse and I am just asking that we “flesh it out.”
It is data from about 1997 that is told retrospectively.
Here is more of the narrative:
and
Found here:
Continue reading on Examiner.com Exclusive: Prop 8 trial witness Ryan Kendall speaks out for equality – National International LGBT Issues | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/international-lgbt-issues-in-national/exclusive-prop-8-trial-witness-ryan-kendall-speaks-out-for-equality#ixzz1ThQGbAZK
I have known and spoken to many people at NARTH since 2001 (Kendall’s treatment takes place in 1997 it appears). I have never heard any clinician say gays are unlovable.
Remarkably, some clinicians openly hired gay affirmative therapists to work alongside them in their clinics.
It is implausible that Nicolosi is the “cause.” It is possible that he became an extension of much more powerful causes–his parents, a religion, a culture.
Interested in getting a more complete narrative.
David Blakeslee# ~ Jul 31, 2011 at 1:15 am
“So, I am baffled as to Nicolosi’s cause of his subsequent problems.”
Are you serious, David? While Nicolosi wasn’t the sole cause of Ryan’s problems, he did contribute significantly. Ryan has said Nicolosi’s therapy contributed to self-loathing and that if he stayed in therapy he would have probably committed suicide.
“Did the parents abandon him for not pursuing change? Or did he seek adult status through the court early to be protected from change therapy?”
Ryan went to court to be protected from his parents and the therapy they were forcing him into.
gayat should be gay at 🙂
William,
I agree, and I hate that there is so much homophobia left in this world to cause the men in Ann’s story to overreact like they did. People just need to, forgive the phrase, chill a little bit when kids do these things. The actions may not have anything to do with the child’s sexuality and causing him to feel bad (or shame) in front of his peers and other adults will not help.
@ Jayhuck
This can be understood in two ways:
(1) I don’t think that painting his nails shows that a boy is gay.
(2) I don’t think that painting his nails causes a boy to be gay.
Whichever, I would agree with both. I would add that, whether or not it be desirable on other grounds to stop the boy from painting his nails, I see no reason to suppose that either doing so or not doing so will determine his sexual orientation, whatever that may ultimately turn out to be.
William,
I agree, and I hate that there is so much homophobia left in this world to cause the men in Ann’s story to overreact like they did. People just need to, forgive the phrase, chill a little bit when kids do these things. The actions may not have anything to do with the child’s sexuality and causing him to feel bad (or shame) in front of his peers and other adults will not help.
@ Jayhuck
This can be understood in two ways:
(1) I don’t think that painting his nails shows that a boy is gay.
(2) I don’t think that painting his nails causes a boy to be gay.
Whichever, I would agree with both. I would add that, whether or not it be desirable on other grounds to stop the boy from painting his nails, I see no reason to suppose that either doing so or not doing so will determine his sexual orientation, whatever that may ultimately turn out to be.
It sounds like the therapy was a year long; age 14 to 15? This would have been in 1997? Rekers research was still intact. And that Ryan was on the street for about 10 years after being made a ward of the court.
The narrative is compelling, but none if it has to do with doubt about his sexual identity or attempting to change himself to heterosexual. So, I am baffled as to Nicolosi’s cause of his subsequent problems.
Did the parents abandon him for not pursuing change? Or did he seek adult status through the court early to be protected from change therapy?
I have google searched his name and know he testified in PROP 8 trial, maybe that transcript has a more thorough narrative. Although he testified there that he could not change his attractions, here is sounds like that was never something he wanted to pursue.
Ann# ~ Jul 30, 2011 at 12:50 pm
“what do you or anyone else think about how the mother views her son and her choice to label him at this early age?”
1st, she didn’t label her son gay, she said he might be gay and clearly she was fine with that. I think that is admirable.
“Do you think it is ok for her to allow him to engage in an activity that encourages effeminate behavior or brings unwanted attention to him?”
I think if this boy does turn out to be transgendered (or gay or both) he will be much better off, because he has at least one parent who loves and supports him for who he is.
Ann,
That is honestly a very difficult situation. I by no means think that what the men wanted to do was appropriate – at least from what I’ve gleaned about their actions from your description. It would probably be damaging for the child to shame him by merely telling him that he can’t engage in this activity. I’m not sure the best way to handle something like this. I also have a friend who has a child who engages in behavior that is not always common for his gender, but he has genuine gender identity issues and I don’t know from this one situation if that is what is going on with this boy or not. I don’t think that simply painting ones nails makes a boy gay, so I can’t say that I agree with the mother’s assumption here. I think the best course of action would be to just let him paint the nails, and if that kind of behavior continues and really worries the parents, I think that they should seek out professional help. Perhaps seek out someone who has some expertise in gender identity issues.
Ann,
That is honestly a very difficult situation. I by no means think that what the men wanted to do was appropriate – at least from what I’ve gleaned about their actions from your description. It would probably be damaging for the child to shame him by merely telling him that he can’t engage in this activity. I’m not sure the best way to handle something like this. I also have a friend who has a child who engages in behavior that is not always common for his gender, but he has genuine gender identity issues and I don’t know from this one situation if that is what is going on with this boy or not. I don’t think that simply painting ones nails makes a boy gay, so I can’t say that I agree with the mother’s assumption here. I think the best course of action would be to just let him paint the nails, and if that kind of behavior continues and really worries the parents, I think that they should seek out professional help. Perhaps seek out someone who has some expertise in gender identity issues.
Jayhuck,
Several years ago I was at an afternoon get-together with some friends in Venice Beach, which included children. The little boy who lived at the home of the host brought out a bottle of nail polish and started painting his nails. Two of the little girls joined him. When some of the guests inquired of his mother if that was ok, she said – yes, I think he is gay anyway so I let him do it. The little boy was, I think, maybe 6 or 7. Several of the men spoke up and said to take it away from him but she stayed firm with her opinion and allowing him to do it. Needless to say, harmony did not follow as other people chimed in and voiced their opinion, several supporting his mother while others had contrary views. Aside from the opinions that were unfortunately and inappropriately voiced from others, what do you or anyone else think about how the mother views her son and her choice to label him at this early age? Do you think it is ok for her to allow him to engage in an activity that encourages effeminate behavior or brings unwanted attention to him?
Jayhuck and William,
I am MOST appreciative of your efforts to look up the information and post it here.
It was really annoying to converse with George Ribble when he would simply cut and paste and not ever speak in his own voice to answer a very simply question. You have showed his biased in his cut and paste by providing the full context of the quote. We all have opinions, but fair minded people arrive at their opinions based on current knowledge not on animus.
Jayhuck and William,
I am MOST appreciative of your efforts to look up the information and post it here.
It was really annoying to converse with George Ribble when he would simply cut and paste and not ever speak in his own voice to answer a very simply question. You have showed his biased in his cut and paste by providing the full context of the quote. We all have opinions, but fair minded people arrive at their opinions based on current knowledge not on animus.
wow – I often wish I could edit some of my posts as well. I did mean to say “world is flat” LOL 🙂
wow – I often wish I could edit some of my posts as well. I did mean to say “world is flat” LOL 🙂
Teresa,
I meant to add this to my last post: LOL 😉
Teresa,
I agree. As people are entitled to hold various disparaging views about other minorities or to believe the world is round, etc. However, the science, at least what we have to date, does not support his views.
Here is a further quotation from Thomas Szasz. In Chapter 10 of The Manufacture of Madness (1971), after a discussion of the then prevalent view among American psychiatrists that homosexuality was some kind of disease and of the curious way in which some psychiatrists (e.g. Karl Menninger) mixed medical and religious terminology when writing on the topic, he wrote:
Jayhuck# ~ Jul 28, 2011 at 4:42 pm
“I understand these are legitimate books George, but they are also the opinions to a great degree of the authors who wrote those books. They also focus on the politics as their title suggests and from your posting I gather they don’t tend to dwell on the other legitimate scientific reasons why homosexuality was removed from the DSM.”
What George isn’t telling you about Bayer’s book is that Bayer believed that BOTH sides of the issue (whether to leave it in OR take it out) was a “political” decision. From the introduction of “Homosexuality and American Psychiatry” p. 5:
George Ribble# ~ Jul 27, 2011 at 9:16 am
“I take my cue concerning homosexuality from psychiatrist Dr. Thomas Szasz who understood homosexuality to be an expression of “psychosexual immaturity”–his words, not mine–meaning that he saw homosexuality as a developmental issue (Bayer, p. 223, note #51). ”
1st, that statement was made in 1965. Further, here is the ENTIRE text of the foot note:
(and it is from Bayer p. 200 note 223 – the book is only 216 pages)
and now lets look at the actual text that the footnote was too (Bayer pp 57-58):
So to be clear, while Szasz personally believed in 1965 homosexuality to be a developmental disorder, he did not believe his beliefs should be imposed on others (and likely that they were not conclusive enough do so).
George Ribble# ~ Jul 28, 2011 at 4:29 pm
“I understand homosexuality to be a developmental disorder where psycho-social growth has gone off the track from its normal progression. ”
Based on a quote from 1965 you took out of context from a footnote to a book written in 1981.
Do you also advocate drilling holes in the heads of the mentally ill in order to release the demons causing their madness?
@ StraightGrandmother (SG) and George Ribble:
SG, I believe ‘disorder’ and ‘illness’ and ‘disease’ are the same. An analogy might be helpful here. Diabetes can be called a ‘pancreatic disorder’ or an ‘hormonal disorder’, or simply an ‘ill’ness … a ‘dis’ ease. And, certainly we’ve heard people say: I’m a diabetic, or I have diabetes. Diabetes is a pathology of the body.
So, I think George is saying, yes, homosexuality is a mental illness. George, is saying, homosexuality is a disease. The DSM was/is concerned with mental pathology, mental illness, mental diseases. That’s its purpose. George would like to see homosexuality (not simply same sex sexual behavior) put back into the DSM, and he thinks ‘the gay agenda’ played the most significant part in having this ‘disease’ removed from the DSM.
‘Psycho-sexual immaturity’ is a pathology, SG … a disease.
George, correct me here if I’m wrong. Have I stated your views correctly?
BTW, I think George is perfectly entitled to this position. I’m sure many persons agree with this position. I, personally, don’t adhere to this point of view; but, that may simply be because I’m too mentally ill to see it … or, not. 🙂
Teresa,
I meant to add this to my last post: LOL 😉
Teresa,
I agree. As people are entitled to hold various disparaging views about other minorities or to believe the world is round, etc. However, the science, at least what we have to date, does not support his views.
Here is a further quotation from Thomas Szasz. In Chapter 10 of The Manufacture of Madness (1971), after a discussion of the then prevalent view among American psychiatrists that homosexuality was some kind of disease and of the curious way in which some psychiatrists (e.g. Karl Menninger) mixed medical and religious terminology when writing on the topic, he wrote:
Jayhuck# ~ Jul 28, 2011 at 4:42 pm
“I understand these are legitimate books George, but they are also the opinions to a great degree of the authors who wrote those books. They also focus on the politics as their title suggests and from your posting I gather they don’t tend to dwell on the other legitimate scientific reasons why homosexuality was removed from the DSM.”
What George isn’t telling you about Bayer’s book is that Bayer believed that BOTH sides of the issue (whether to leave it in OR take it out) was a “political” decision. From the introduction of “Homosexuality and American Psychiatry” p. 5:
@ StraightGrandmother (SG) and George Ribble:
SG, I believe ‘disorder’ and ‘illness’ and ‘disease’ are the same. An analogy might be helpful here. Diabetes can be called a ‘pancreatic disorder’ or an ‘hormonal disorder’, or simply an ‘ill’ness … a ‘dis’ ease. And, certainly we’ve heard people say: I’m a diabetic, or I have diabetes. Diabetes is a pathology of the body.
So, I think George is saying, yes, homosexuality is a mental illness. George, is saying, homosexuality is a disease. The DSM was/is concerned with mental pathology, mental illness, mental diseases. That’s its purpose. George would like to see homosexuality (not simply same sex sexual behavior) put back into the DSM, and he thinks ‘the gay agenda’ played the most significant part in having this ‘disease’ removed from the DSM.
‘Psycho-sexual immaturity’ is a pathology, SG … a disease.
George, correct me here if I’m wrong. Have I stated your views correctly?
BTW, I think George is perfectly entitled to this position. I’m sure many persons agree with this position. I, personally, don’t adhere to this point of view; but, that may simply be because I’m too mentally ill to see it … or, not. 🙂
George Ribble-
StraightGrandmother- But George, your response is not an answer to the question that was asked of you. I don’t get it, why are you so coy? It seems to me that you have an opinion on this, why are you so coy about simply answering the question? Here one more time, pick ONE of these two sentences as to what your beliefs are-
Homosexuality IS a Disease
Homosexuality IS NOT a Disease.
I am not interested in the word “Disorder” I simply want to know if you feel it is a “Disease” or not, just man up and answer the question. Why is this so hard for you, I seriously don’t get it.
I wonder if anyone has counted the number of times we have revisited this exact topic on this blog?
Here is a good review of some of the “science” and theory that was used to promote homosexuality as a disorder, as well as how that science failed in the end. It provides some historical background and briefly discusses the removal of homosexuality from the DSM:
From the UC Davis Psychology Department:
Facts About Homosexuality and Mental Health
George,
I have to say I love it when people throw up a single (or a few authors) that may be progressive but seem, for whatever reason, to support a more conservative view, and suggest that this somehow makes the opinion balanced or relative. LOL. What does “liberal persuasion” mean anyway?
George,
I’m not sure what you would have had them do. It took nearly a year of debate and discussion for homosexuality to be removed. The science was reviewed and it could not support maintaining same sex orientation as a disorder. Your attempts at distracting from the facts by using words like “politics” and “fraudulent” to describe the entire process, are just that, distractions
George,
I understand these are legitimate books George, but they are also the opinions to a great degree of the authors who wrote those books. They also focus on the politics as their title suggests and from your posting I gather they don’t tend to dwell on the other legitimate scientific reasons why homosexuality was removed from the DSM. AS I said before, focusing on the politics only gives you a glimpse at what happened and doesn’t reveal the real complexity of the issue at the time.
I’ll ask you this question again – do you know why homosexuality was included in the DSM in the first place?
No current research supports your position that homosexuality is a disorder for the majority of gay people.
Jayhuck–No “…far end of the religious right…” propaganda here. The three sources I listed exposing the illegitimate manner homosexuality was deletited from the DSM are reliable references (see below). If you’re going to remove a diagnosis from the DSM do it correctly, not fraudulently.
I would emphasize that one of the contributors, Dr. Nicholas A. Cummings, is a Ph.D. clinical psychologist of liberal persuasion. He is a mentor to Warren, meaning that Warren holds Dr. Cummings in highest esteem.
References:
Ronald Bayer, “Homosexuality And American Psychiatry: The Politics Of Diagnosis”, Princton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Charles W. Socarides, “Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far”, Adam Margrave Books, Phoenix, AZ.
Rogers H. Wright and Nichollas A. Cummings, eds., “Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well-Intentioned Path To Harm”, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, New York.
All of the above books are available at amazon.com.
StraightGrandmother–I understand homosexuality to be a developmental disorder where psycho-social growth has gone off the track from its normal progression. The terms “developmental issue” and “developmental disorder” are used interchangeably in the mental health field. They are considered to be Axis II diagnoses. Sorry for the confusion.
George Ribble-
StraightGrandmother- But George, your response is not an answer to the question that was asked of you. I don’t get it, why are you so coy? It seems to me that you have an opinion on this, why are you so coy about simply answering the question? Here one more time, pick ONE of these two sentences as to what your beliefs are-
Homosexuality IS a Disease
Homosexuality IS NOT a Disease.
I am not interested in the word “Disorder” I simply want to know if you feel it is a “Disease” or not, just man up and answer the question. Why is this so hard for you, I seriously don’t get it.
I wonder if anyone has counted the number of times we have revisited this exact topic on this blog?
Jayhuck–No “…far end of the religious right…” propaganda here. The three sources I listed exposing the illegitimate manner homosexuality was deletited from the DSM are reliable references (see below). If you’re going to remove a diagnosis from the DSM do it correctly, not fraudulently.
I would emphasize that one of the contributors, Dr. Nicholas A. Cummings, is a Ph.D. clinical psychologist of liberal persuasion. He is a mentor to Warren, meaning that Warren holds Dr. Cummings in highest esteem.
References:
Ronald Bayer, “Homosexuality And American Psychiatry: The Politics Of Diagnosis”, Princton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Charles W. Socarides, “Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far”, Adam Margrave Books, Phoenix, AZ.
Rogers H. Wright and Nichollas A. Cummings, eds., “Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well-Intentioned Path To Harm”, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, New York.
All of the above books are available at amazon.com.
Hi there,
I have lurked here for a while. First of all let me state that I am gay and in a relationship. So I hope my words will be taken the right way. StraightGrandmother, while I share your uneasiness with George Ribble’s statements, I don’t think the duality you want to nail him down to is really helpful, either. I mean… what is a “disease”? Is everything where therapy can be helpful a disease? For example I wouldn’t consider sex addiction a disease necessarily, but it might still be an “issue” (to use George’s words) where some individuals might go to therapy to deal with.
George Ribble –
What does that mean George? Is it a disorder that is part of a disease? What is the medical terminology for an “issue?”
Please state if homosexuality is a disease or not.
What you do is use a lot of words in order to avoid answering a simple question.
I simply wish for you to answer the question, and no you are not clear. To be clear the 2 choices are
Homosexuality IS a disease
Homosexuality IS NOT a disease.
Thank you George Ribble I await a short answer from you.
Hi there,
I have lurked here for a while. First of all let me state that I am gay and in a relationship. So I hope my words will be taken the right way. StraightGrandmother, while I share your uneasiness with George Ribble’s statements, I don’t think the duality you want to nail him down to is really helpful, either. I mean… what is a “disease”? Is everything where therapy can be helpful a disease? For example I wouldn’t consider sex addiction a disease necessarily, but it might still be an “issue” (to use George’s words) where some individuals might go to therapy to deal with.
George,
Did you ever ask yourself why homosexuality was included in the first place? Your extreme bias is showing in almost everything you post on this subject.
From wikipedia:
There was more at work in the removal of homosexuality from the DSM than simply politics, but focusing on the politics, as most fringe religious conservatives like to do, helps them to ignore the science and the more legitimate academic arguments for its removal.
George,
I don’t know about CNN, but NPR did do such a story in the last few years showing what was going on with the APA and homosexuality before activists started making their appeal, what went on during the year long process which ended in homosexuality finally being removed from the DSM and what happened immediately after. My understanding is the story/process is/were complex and cannot be summed up with words like “fallacious”.
George,
You apparently don’t have even a basic understanding of the process by which homosexuality was removed from the DSM. I’m guessing you just ate up the story fed you by some on the far end of the religious right and that made it somehow reasonable/easy for you to simply dismiss all research since then – how convenient 😉
George Ribble# ~ Jul 27, 2011 at 9:16 am
“You can not ignore the fallacious manner homosexuality was removed from the DSM.”
Sure you can, because it isn’t true. However, you seem to have no problem ignoring all the research and observations about sexual orientation for the last 50 years. Or anything else that doesn’t support your views on homosexuality.
“Are the findings informed by science, or the thought police? Who knows?”
I do. the findings are informed by science.
StraightGrandmother and Teresa–I thought I was quite clear concerning my position on homosexuality in my postings dated Jul 22, 2011 at 4:10 pm, and Jul 16, 2011 at 2:12 pm. However, I’ll give it one last shot.
I take my cue concerning homosexuality from psychiatrist Dr. Thomas Szasz who understood homosexuality to be an expression of “psychosexual immaturity”–his words, not mine–meaning that he saw homosexuality as a developmental issue (Bayer, p. 223, note #51). Nothing from the 1973 Committee on Normenclature ever disproved Dr. Szasz’s position.
Therefore, George Ribble believes today that: (1) homosexuality is a developmental issue where psycho-social growth has gone off the track from its normal progression; (2) homosexuals may accept a gay identity if they so wish; (3) homosexuals struggling with unwanted same-sex attractions should have the freedom to seek treatment to modify or eliminate such unwanted attractions; (4) the offering of therapeutic help should not be declared “unethical” by national mental health associations.
You can not ignore the fallacious manner homosexuality was removed from the DSM. What happened back then places a cloud of suspicision today over all research related to homosexuality. Are the findings informed by science, or the thought police? Who knows? CNN should do an expose news story on that 1973, APA, debacle. They would be doing the nation a great favor.
Reference: Ronald Bayer, “Homosexuality And American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis”, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., available at amazon.com
George,
I don’t know about CNN, but NPR did do such a story in the last few years showing what was going on with the APA and homosexuality before activists started making their appeal, what went on during the year long process which ended in homosexuality finally being removed from the DSM and what happened immediately after. My understanding is the story/process is/were complex and cannot be summed up with words like “fallacious”.
George,
You apparently don’t have even a basic understanding of the process by which homosexuality was removed from the DSM. I’m guessing you just ate up the story fed you by some on the far end of the religious right and that made it somehow reasonable/easy for you to simply dismiss all research since then – how convenient 😉
George Ribble# ~ Jul 27, 2011 at 9:16 am
“You can not ignore the fallacious manner homosexuality was removed from the DSM.”
Sure you can, because it isn’t true. However, you seem to have no problem ignoring all the research and observations about sexual orientation for the last 50 years. Or anything else that doesn’t support your views on homosexuality.
“Are the findings informed by science, or the thought police? Who knows?”
I do. the findings are informed by science.
StraightGrandmother and Teresa–I thought I was quite clear concerning my position on homosexuality in my postings dated Jul 22, 2011 at 4:10 pm, and Jul 16, 2011 at 2:12 pm. However, I’ll give it one last shot.
I take my cue concerning homosexuality from psychiatrist Dr. Thomas Szasz who understood homosexuality to be an expression of “psychosexual immaturity”–his words, not mine–meaning that he saw homosexuality as a developmental issue (Bayer, p. 223, note #51). Nothing from the 1973 Committee on Normenclature ever disproved Dr. Szasz’s position.
Therefore, George Ribble believes today that: (1) homosexuality is a developmental issue where psycho-social growth has gone off the track from its normal progression; (2) homosexuals may accept a gay identity if they so wish; (3) homosexuals struggling with unwanted same-sex attractions should have the freedom to seek treatment to modify or eliminate such unwanted attractions; (4) the offering of therapeutic help should not be declared “unethical” by national mental health associations.
You can not ignore the fallacious manner homosexuality was removed from the DSM. What happened back then places a cloud of suspicision today over all research related to homosexuality. Are the findings informed by science, or the thought police? Who knows? CNN should do an expose news story on that 1973, APA, debacle. They would be doing the nation a great favor.
Reference: Ronald Bayer, “Homosexuality And American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis”, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., available at amazon.com
So, George, you’re saying that since I’m a homosexual, I’m mentally ill? Is that correct?
George,
Okay I read what you wrote. Let me try cutting to the chase, again. I’ll restate what I think you said in a nice short sentences.
George Ribble Believes-
Homosexuality is a disease.
Diseased homosexuals are free to live a homosexual oriented life if they want to.
Diseased homosexuals who want to change their sexual orientation should be able to find therapists who will help them change their sexual orientation.
I really don’t care about the politics of who when what and where. I just care about what you believe TODAY, and I think I have accurately stated your stance, have I not?
Warren–Thank you for your rebuke. I have decided that I do not wish to remain agnostic on this issue. Our yea is to be yea, and our nay, nay. To be crystal clear, I wish to state that for the reasons I outlined in my posting for Ken and StraightGrandmother (Jul 21, 2011 at 11:53 am) I believe homosexuality, a legitimate diagnosis, should not have been removed from the DSM. The entire delition process was fraudulent from beginning to end.
I also believe that if a person desires to accept a gay identity that is that person’s freedom to do so without fear of intimidation, isolation, or ridicule. Likewise, individuals who are struggling with unwanted same-sex attractions should have the freedom of choice to seek treatment to modify or eliminate such unwanted attractions without fear of intimidation, isolation, or ridicule.
You’re correct in stating that those days of yesteryear are not coming back. They’re “gone with the wind”. However, I believe you to be in error when stating that, “What happen then is less important now”. The process followed back then that removed homosexuality from the DSM established forever that psychiatric diagnoses could be negotiated by political fiat. This reality has serverely damaged the integrity of organized mental health. Consequently, no one today can speak with any authority concerning homosexuality. Are the researchers/practitioners informed by science or by political correctness? Who can say with certainty? This is a main theme in Dr. Cummings’ book, “Destructive Trends in Mental Health”.
Reference: Roger H. Wright & Nicholas A. Cummings, eds., “Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well-Intentioned Path To Harm”, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, New York, available at amazon.com.
So, George, you’re saying that since I’m a homosexual, I’m mentally ill? Is that correct?
George,
Okay I read what you wrote. Let me try cutting to the chase, again. I’ll restate what I think you said in a nice short sentences.
George Ribble Believes-
Homosexuality is a disease.
Diseased homosexuals are free to live a homosexual oriented life if they want to.
Diseased homosexuals who want to change their sexual orientation should be able to find therapists who will help them change their sexual orientation.
I really don’t care about the politics of who when what and where. I just care about what you believe TODAY, and I think I have accurately stated your stance, have I not?
Warren–Thank you for your rebuke. I have decided that I do not wish to remain agnostic on this issue. Our yea is to be yea, and our nay, nay. To be crystal clear, I wish to state that for the reasons I outlined in my posting for Ken and StraightGrandmother (Jul 21, 2011 at 11:53 am) I believe homosexuality, a legitimate diagnosis, should not have been removed from the DSM. The entire delition process was fraudulent from beginning to end.
I also believe that if a person desires to accept a gay identity that is that person’s freedom to do so without fear of intimidation, isolation, or ridicule. Likewise, individuals who are struggling with unwanted same-sex attractions should have the freedom of choice to seek treatment to modify or eliminate such unwanted attractions without fear of intimidation, isolation, or ridicule.
You’re correct in stating that those days of yesteryear are not coming back. They’re “gone with the wind”. However, I believe you to be in error when stating that, “What happen then is less important now”. The process followed back then that removed homosexuality from the DSM established forever that psychiatric diagnoses could be negotiated by political fiat. This reality has serverely damaged the integrity of organized mental health. Consequently, no one today can speak with any authority concerning homosexuality. Are the researchers/practitioners informed by science or by political correctness? Who can say with certainty? This is a main theme in Dr. Cummings’ book, “Destructive Trends in Mental Health”.
Reference: Roger H. Wright & Nicholas A. Cummings, eds., “Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well-Intentioned Path To Harm”, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, New York, available at amazon.com.
George,
You have repeated the same falsehoods, straw men, and half-truths about homosexuality and the DSM that NARTH has been spewing out for decades. At 1st, I was willing to believe that you were simply deceived by what NARTH was putting out. However, now I’ve come to suspect you know full well that these claims are mis-information designed to obfuscate the issue, and not advance any real debate.
Even if 40 years ago, they had flipped a coin to decide whether or not to remove homosexuality from the DSM, it would be irrelevant today. There has been nearly 40 years of research into sexual orientation, sexuality and specifically homosexuality. Because if this research, and decades of seeing gays living ordinary lives, it is possible to judge whether they made the correct decision in 1973. However, you want to pretend it doesn’t exist, to pretend your mis-representations of what happened nearly 40 years ago are sufficient to invalidate everything that is known about sexual orientation.
As I said, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt when you 1st started posting, but I have little respect for you now.
George,
You have repeated the same falsehoods, straw men, and half-truths about homosexuality and the DSM that NARTH has been spewing out for decades. At 1st, I was willing to believe that you were simply deceived by what NARTH was putting out. However, now I’ve come to suspect you know full well that these claims are mis-information designed to obfuscate the issue, and not advance any real debate.
Even if 40 years ago, they had flipped a coin to decide whether or not to remove homosexuality from the DSM, it would be irrelevant today. There has been nearly 40 years of research into sexual orientation, sexuality and specifically homosexuality. Because if this research, and decades of seeing gays living ordinary lives, it is possible to judge whether they made the correct decision in 1973. However, you want to pretend it doesn’t exist, to pretend your mis-representations of what happened nearly 40 years ago are sufficient to invalidate everything that is known about sexual orientation.
As I said, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt when you 1st started posting, but I have little respect for you now.
It sounds as though you are saying that you are incapable of forming an opinion yourself on this matter but have to rely on the ex cathedra pronouncement of the APA – except that you can’t rely even on that in this case because of the circumstances which you think invalidated the APA’s decision.
Presumably you’re equally unable to determine whether homosexuality should have been included in the DSM in the first place?
George – What happened then is less important now. You can remain agnostic on it if it makes you feel better, but those days are not coming back.
The decision to remove this is almost 40 years old .. get over it..
I find it hard to believe that the whole world is walking forward in massive delusion due to this removal and has never recovered or been able to come to a conclusion apart from it (as you are inferring). Your statement discredits Dr. Throckmorton .. his work .. and the work of many many skilled professionals since then.
The process of how it was removed is rather irrelevant to me .. if it was a mistake to do so you would think someone would have corrected it by now or that experience would have revealed major flaws in the idea of it not being a mental illness.
IMO its time to stop living in the past and start living in the present. If you have current evidence to present that shows this to be a mental disorder than present it now. But please stop complaining about decisions that are almost 40 years old and have stood the test of time
Dave
Do you, George Ribble, believe homosexuality is a mental disorder? Do you believe it should be in the DSM, and that anyone who is gay should be considered to be psychologically disturbed?
StraightGrandmother# ~ Jul 16, 2011 at 6:28 pm
Please do cut tot he chase, I am interested in the answer to this
Do you, George Ribble, believe homosexuality is a mental disorder? Do you believe it should be in the DSM, and that anyone who is gay should be considered to be psychologically disturbed?
Ken and StraightGrandmother–Because of the dynamics that were in play within the APA in 1973, I’m unable to say if homosexuality is, or is not, a paychiatric disorder. This is because I’m not able to determine if homosexuality should have been removed from the DSM in the first place. I’m skeptical for the following reasons: (1) the nomenclature committee was staffed by psychiatrist who had no competence in the theoretical or clinical dimensions of homosexuality; (2) the nomenclature committee never officially approved any position on the status of homosexuality because it was “completely divided”; (3) Dr. Spitzer–was not the chairperson but a committee member–on his own initiative submitted his own, not the committee’s, personal proposal for the deletion of homosexuality from the DSM; (4) to the APA leadership this “hot potato” was too hot to handle, and they were only too glad to propel this to completion without any call for scientific discussion or input from those having a track record in treating homosexuality; (5) the Board’s letter to the APA membership seeking support for its decision was co-authored by the National Gay Task Force, a gay activist group. Because of these irregularities I’m unable to say if homosexuality is, or is not, a disorder.
Dr. Cummings supported the elimination of homosexuality from the DSM. He was, however, appalled by the process followed that resulted in its deletion. Because of those unprecedented removal procedures, organized mental health is today tethered to political correctness. Consequently no one, including Warren, can speak with any authority concerning homosexuality. Are their comments guided by science or political correctness? Likewise, no report related to homosexuality released by either of the APAs, NASW, or ACA can be trusted. Are their conclusions guided by science, or agenda driven political correctness? Who can say for sure?
It sounds as though you are saying that you are incapable of forming an opinion yourself on this matter but have to rely on the ex cathedra pronouncement of the APA – except that you can’t rely even on that in this case because of the circumstances which you think invalidated the APA’s decision.
Presumably you’re equally unable to determine whether homosexuality should have been included in the DSM in the first place?
George – What happened then is less important now. You can remain agnostic on it if it makes you feel better, but those days are not coming back.
The decision to remove this is almost 40 years old .. get over it..
I find it hard to believe that the whole world is walking forward in massive delusion due to this removal and has never recovered or been able to come to a conclusion apart from it (as you are inferring). Your statement discredits Dr. Throckmorton .. his work .. and the work of many many skilled professionals since then.
The process of how it was removed is rather irrelevant to me .. if it was a mistake to do so you would think someone would have corrected it by now or that experience would have revealed major flaws in the idea of it not being a mental illness.
IMO its time to stop living in the past and start living in the present. If you have current evidence to present that shows this to be a mental disorder than present it now. But please stop complaining about decisions that are almost 40 years old and have stood the test of time
Dave
Do you, George Ribble, believe homosexuality is a mental disorder? Do you believe it should be in the DSM, and that anyone who is gay should be considered to be psychologically disturbed?
StraightGrandmother# ~ Jul 16, 2011 at 6:28 pm
Please do cut tot he chase, I am interested in the answer to this
Do you, George Ribble, believe homosexuality is a mental disorder? Do you believe it should be in the DSM, and that anyone who is gay should be considered to be psychologically disturbed?
Ken and StraightGrandmother–Because of the dynamics that were in play within the APA in 1973, I’m unable to say if homosexuality is, or is not, a paychiatric disorder. This is because I’m not able to determine if homosexuality should have been removed from the DSM in the first place. I’m skeptical for the following reasons: (1) the nomenclature committee was staffed by psychiatrist who had no competence in the theoretical or clinical dimensions of homosexuality; (2) the nomenclature committee never officially approved any position on the status of homosexuality because it was “completely divided”; (3) Dr. Spitzer–was not the chairperson but a committee member–on his own initiative submitted his own, not the committee’s, personal proposal for the deletion of homosexuality from the DSM; (4) to the APA leadership this “hot potato” was too hot to handle, and they were only too glad to propel this to completion without any call for scientific discussion or input from those having a track record in treating homosexuality; (5) the Board’s letter to the APA membership seeking support for its decision was co-authored by the National Gay Task Force, a gay activist group. Because of these irregularities I’m unable to say if homosexuality is, or is not, a disorder.
Dr. Cummings supported the elimination of homosexuality from the DSM. He was, however, appalled by the process followed that resulted in its deletion. Because of those unprecedented removal procedures, organized mental health is today tethered to political correctness. Consequently no one, including Warren, can speak with any authority concerning homosexuality. Are their comments guided by science or political correctness? Likewise, no report related to homosexuality released by either of the APAs, NASW, or ACA can be trusted. Are their conclusions guided by science, or agenda driven political correctness? Who can say for sure?
Please do cut tot he chase, I am interested in the answer to this
George Ribble# ~ Jul 16, 2011 at 2:12 pm
And you don’t think it odd that no where in any of your citations does it discuss the actual research that had occurred regarding homosexuality? Specifically, the research on homosexuals who where NOT in therapy at the time the research was done.
However, rather than go through this back and forth, lets cut to the chase:
Do you, George Ribble, believe homosexuality is a mental disorder? Do you believe it should be in the DSM, and that anyone who is gay should be considered to be psychologically disturbed?
Please do cut tot he chase, I am interested in the answer to this
Ken–In 1973,the Nomenclature Committee on Homosexuality was established within the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to review as to whether or not homosexuality should remain in the DSM. Appointies to this committee were not selected on the basis of their expertise of homosexuality. No one on the nomenclature committee had any experience in treating homosexuality. None considered themselves as having expert knowledge concerning the theoretical or clinical dimensions of homosexuality. No one opposed to the deletion of homosexuality from the DSM was ever called before the committee to provide testimony. Because the committee was “completely divided”, its membership never formally approved any posiition on the status of homosexuality. Instead Dr. Robert Spitzer, a committee member, on his own initiative by-passed the Nomenclature Committee and submitted his personal proposal for the deletion of homosexuality to APA higher ups. Because this was a “hot potato” his proposal sailed through the APA’s chain of command without any call for scientific discussion or input from those who had a track record in treating homosexuals (Bayer, pp. 120,123, 129-131, 133-136; Socarides, pp. 165-166, 169-170).
On December 15, 1973, three psychiatrists who opposed the DSM change were permitted to address the APA Board of Trustees. They were gived five minuates each to express their views. Within minuates of their presentations, the Board voted unanimously in favor of deletion, with two abstenitions (Bayer, pp. 135-137; Socarides, pp. 171-172).
Because those having the most experience concerning the question of homosexuality were excluded from the nomenclature committee, and because psychiaterists having oppisite views to that of Dr. Spitzer’s personal proposal had been systematically denied an opportunity to express their position, a call for a referendum on the Board’s decision was intiated. To the decenters, the Board had violated the standards of scientific inquiry. As a result an unwarranted intrusion of paraprofessionals from patient populations were determining matters of serious consequences to the integrity of the APA. Therefore, a complete vote of the membership (i.e., a referendum) was demanded on the Board’s position (Bayer, pp. 138-143; Socarides, pp. 173-175).
Fearing a possible reversal of their decision, the Board of Trustees mailed to all APA members a statement urging them to vote in favor of the deletion of homosexality from the DSM. The letter was drafted by Dr. Spitzer and Ronald Gold of the National Gay Task Force (NGTF). The letter emphasized the need for organizational and professional unity, but made no memtion of the substantive issues concerning the conflict over homosexuality. Mr. Gold submitted the letter to each of the five signers for their signatures (Bayer, pp. 144-145; Socarides, p.175).
The NGTF devised a process of obtaining signed copies of the letter, purchased address lables from the APA, and paid for the full expense of the mailing to the APA membership. Although the NGTF played a key role in this effort; it was not reveaed on the letter that it was co-authored by the NGTF, and that its distribution was funded by the NGTF. The letter appeared to be conceived and mailed by those who signed it. The voters had no idea as to what was going on behind their backs (Bayer pp. 145-149; Socarides, pp. 176-179).
So, to answer your question, “would you still think Cummings gave an accurate representation of the removal of homosexuality from the DSM?” (Wright, Cummings, p.9), my answer is a resounding yes. The entire process lacked legitimacy from the get-go.
References:
Ronald Bayer, “Homosexuality And American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis”, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Available at amazon.com.
Charles W. Socarides, “Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far”, Adam Margrave Books, Phoenix, AZ. Available at amazon.com.
Rogers H. Wright and Nichollas A. Cummings, eds., “Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well-Intentioned Path To Harm”, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, New York. Available at amazon.com.
Ken–In 1973,the Nomenclature Committee on Homosexuality was established within the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to review as to whether or not homosexuality should remain in the DSM. Appointies to this committee were not selected on the basis of their expertise of homosexuality. No one on the nomenclature committee had any experience in treating homosexuality. None considered themselves as having expert knowledge concerning the theoretical or clinical dimensions of homosexuality. No one opposed to the deletion of homosexuality from the DSM was ever called before the committee to provide testimony. Because the committee was “completely divided”, its membership never formally approved any posiition on the status of homosexuality. Instead Dr. Robert Spitzer, a committee member, on his own initiative by-passed the Nomenclature Committee and submitted his personal proposal for the deletion of homosexuality to APA higher ups. Because this was a “hot potato” his proposal sailed through the APA’s chain of command without any call for scientific discussion or input from those who had a track record in treating homosexuals (Bayer, pp. 120,123, 129-131, 133-136; Socarides, pp. 165-166, 169-170).
On December 15, 1973, three psychiatrists who opposed the DSM change were permitted to address the APA Board of Trustees. They were gived five minuates each to express their views. Within minuates of their presentations, the Board voted unanimously in favor of deletion, with two abstenitions (Bayer, pp. 135-137; Socarides, pp. 171-172).
Because those having the most experience concerning the question of homosexuality were excluded from the nomenclature committee, and because psychiaterists having oppisite views to that of Dr. Spitzer’s personal proposal had been systematically denied an opportunity to express their position, a call for a referendum on the Board’s decision was intiated. To the decenters, the Board had violated the standards of scientific inquiry. As a result an unwarranted intrusion of paraprofessionals from patient populations were determining matters of serious consequences to the integrity of the APA. Therefore, a complete vote of the membership (i.e., a referendum) was demanded on the Board’s position (Bayer, pp. 138-143; Socarides, pp. 173-175).
Fearing a possible reversal of their decision, the Board of Trustees mailed to all APA members a statement urging them to vote in favor of the deletion of homosexality from the DSM. The letter was drafted by Dr. Spitzer and Ronald Gold of the National Gay Task Force (NGTF). The letter emphasized the need for organizational and professional unity, but made no memtion of the substantive issues concerning the conflict over homosexuality. Mr. Gold submitted the letter to each of the five signers for their signatures (Bayer, pp. 144-145; Socarides, p.175).
The NGTF devised a process of obtaining signed copies of the letter, purchased address lables from the APA, and paid for the full expense of the mailing to the APA membership. Although the NGTF played a key role in this effort; it was not reveaed on the letter that it was co-authored by the NGTF, and that its distribution was funded by the NGTF. The letter appeared to be conceived and mailed by those who signed it. The voters had no idea as to what was going on behind their backs (Bayer pp. 145-149; Socarides, pp. 176-179).
So, to answer your question, “would you still think Cummings gave an accurate representation of the removal of homosexuality from the DSM?” (Wright, Cummings, p.9), my answer is a resounding yes. The entire process lacked legitimacy from the get-go.
References:
Ronald Bayer, “Homosexuality And American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis”, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Available at amazon.com.
Charles W. Socarides, “Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far”, Adam Margrave Books, Phoenix, AZ. Available at amazon.com.
Rogers H. Wright and Nichollas A. Cummings, eds., “Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well-Intentioned Path To Harm”, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, New York. Available at amazon.com.
George Ribble# ~ Jul 11, 2011 at 9:26 pm
“I don’t understand, however, why so many folks are puzzled as to why ex-gays call themselves ex-gays. ”
the confusion isn’t about why they call themselves “ex-gay”, the confusion is about what they mean by it.
does it mean:
1) they are straight?
2) they are bi?
3) they are only attracted to one specific opposite gender person, but are still attracted to many people of the same sex?
4) they are still attracted to the same sex but are celibate (or trying to be)?
5) something else?
Teresa# ~ Jul 10, 2011 at 9:58 pm
I now understand where you got the gay population figure of 2%.However, I wouldn’t take the fact the CNN Reporter or Anderson Cooper did not challenge the 2% figure as any assurance of its validity. Their focus for the interview was entirely different, and with only so much time, getting into debate about ‘incidentals’ to the topic is non-germane to the whole.
George Ribble# ~ Jul 11, 2011 at 9:26 pm
“I don’t understand, however, why so many folks are puzzled as to why ex-gays call themselves ex-gays. ”
the confusion isn’t about why they call themselves “ex-gay”, the confusion is about what they mean by it.
does it mean:
1) they are straight?
2) they are bi?
3) they are only attracted to one specific opposite gender person, but are still attracted to many people of the same sex?
4) they are still attracted to the same sex but are celibate (or trying to be)?
5) something else?
George, in the menu bar above the text box that you enter in your comment, the 4th from the left, is ‘bquote’. Choose that tab, and continue your text. Hit it again when your quoted text is complete ‘/bquote’. Or, you could type the ‘html’ code for quotes. You should be able to see your text as it will be displayed in Comments, below the Submit Comment button.
George, I now understand where you got the gay population figure of 2%. However, I wouldn’t take the fact the CNN Reporter or Anderson Cooper did not challenge the 2% figure as any assurance of its validity. Their focus for the interview was entirely different, and with only so much time, getting into debate about ‘incidentals’ to the topic is non-germane to the whole.
Teresa# ~ Jul 7, 2011 at 5:42 pm
Also, for anyone out there, I’m confused about the ability to say what percentage of a given population is gay. George, you commented as 2%. I’ve seen 5%, 3%, as much as 7% … now we have 2%. Where are we getting any of these numbers?
________________________
Teresa–I got the 2% figure from the CNN ‘Sissy Boy Experiment, Part 3…” news story. During that segment Dr. Nicolosi stated that gays represent 2% of the population. Neither the CNN reporter or Anderson Cooper challenged the 2% statistic. So, I took it at face value.
Teresa# ~ Jul 8, 2011 at 9:55 pm
George, I find it difficult to follow your comments, differentiating your comments from others you include. Is there a way to use the ‘quote’ feature to help with this.
______________________
Teresa–I don’t know what you mean by the “quote feature”. Can you assist me with that?
George Ribble# ~ Jul 7, 2011 at 5:37 pm
“Ken–You’re in error. It was Warren’s post to me dated Jun 21, 2011 at 10:01 pm that repressed memory therapy was first introduced as a comparison to reparative thearpy.”
No I’m not in error. From YOUR post (which Warren responded to in the 10:01pm post):
George Ribble# ~ Jun 21, 2011 at 9:45 pm
I understand the significance of the Rekeres debacles. They are scandalous. Equally scandalous was a psychotherapeutic procedure once used by certain psychologists who stated that repressed incest memories could be recovered through their special techniques.
(emphasis added).
_________________
Ken–You’re correct. Thanks for reminding me of this. I included repressed memory therapy not as a practice issue, but as a scandalous issue within organized psychology. This debacle inflicted horrific injury upon many inocent people. Warren’s response to me was to make it a practice issue, completely ignoring the damage done directly to people. He, not me, went off on a tangent attempting to make a comparison between repressed memory therapy and reparative therapy. I thought his approach to be inaccurate (i.e., comparing apples to oranges), and challenged him. That’s all. If you need to scold someone, scold Warren, not me.
It’s interesting to note that because of political correctness professional psychology was not able to deal with the repressed memory debacle. The matter was settled by the courts, not pstchology. Interestingly, there are still psychologists today who support repressed memory therapy.
Reference: Rogers H. Wright and Nicholas A. Cummings, eds., “Destructive Trends in Mental Health–The Well-Intentioned Path To Harm”, Taylor & Frances Group, New York, pp. 15, 16. Available at amazon.com.
…
George, in the menu bar above the text box that you enter in your comment, the 4th from the left, is ‘bquote’. Choose that tab, and continue your text. Hit it again when your quoted text is complete ‘/bquote’. Or, you could type the ‘html’ code for quotes. You should be able to see your text as it will be displayed in Comments, below the Submit Comment button.
George, I now understand where you got the gay population figure of 2%. However, I wouldn’t take the fact the CNN Reporter or Anderson Cooper did not challenge the 2% figure as any assurance of its validity. Their focus for the interview was entirely different, and with only so much time, getting into debate about ‘incidentals’ to the topic is non-germane to the whole.
George Ribble# ~ Jul 7, 2011 at 5:37 pm
“Ken–You’re in error. It was Warren’s post to me dated Jun 21, 2011 at 10:01 pm that repressed memory therapy was first introduced as a comparison to reparative thearpy.”
No I’m not in error. From YOUR post (which Warren responded to in the 10:01pm post):
George Ribble# ~ Jun 21, 2011 at 9:45 pm
I understand the significance of the Rekeres debacles. They are scandalous. Equally scandalous was a psychotherapeutic procedure once used by certain psychologists who stated that repressed incest memories could be recovered through their special techniques.
(emphasis added).
_________________
Ken–You’re correct. Thanks for reminding me of this. I included repressed memory therapy not as a practice issue, but as a scandalous issue within organized psychology. This debacle inflicted horrific injury upon many inocent people. Warren’s response to me was to make it a practice issue, completely ignoring the damage done directly to people. He, not me, went off on a tangent attempting to make a comparison between repressed memory therapy and reparative therapy. I thought his approach to be inaccurate (i.e., comparing apples to oranges), and challenged him. That’s all. If you need to scold someone, scold Warren, not me.
It’s interesting to note that because of political correctness professional psychology was not able to deal with the repressed memory debacle. The matter was settled by the courts, not pstchology. Interestingly, there are still psychologists today who support repressed memory therapy.
Reference: Rogers H. Wright and Nicholas A. Cummings, eds., “Destructive Trends in Mental Health–The Well-Intentioned Path To Harm”, Taylor & Frances Group, New York, pp. 15, 16. Available at amazon.com.
…
William# ~ Jul 10, 2011 at 5:54 am
“But that still doesn’t explain why anyone would want to use “ex-gay” in preference to “heterosexual” as a defining label for their present sexuality,”
There could be many reasons. Most significantly (to the court case), say you wanted to rent space to hold an “ex-gay support group meeting”, any places that rent rooms to the public would not be allowed to deny you the space because you are “ex-gay”.
Or maybe they are just proud of their accomplishment. Maybe they just want the world to know they exist. Maybe they want to find others like themselves. Maybe they just want to upset people who don’t like them.
and keep in mind, the ruling was based on a DC law (the human rights act) that protected many attributes, that included sexual behaviour. So a celibacy club or a swinger’s club have the same protections.
Well, yes, I can see that that would certainly make sense in the context of a discussion about whether a change of sexual orientation is possible and/or desirable or whether being heterosexual is better – no matter what “better” might be taken to mean – than being homosexual.
But that still doesn’t explain why anyone would want to use “ex-gay” in preference to “heterosexual” as a defining label for their present sexuality, even to the extent of demanding that ex-gays be recognized as “another sexual minority”, especially since people who claim to be ex-gay are almost invariably at pains to stress that their previous gay status was unwanted.
William# ~ Jul 10, 2011 at 5:54 am
“But that still doesn’t explain why anyone would want to use “ex-gay” in preference to “heterosexual” as a defining label for their present sexuality,”
There could be many reasons. Most significantly (to the court case), say you wanted to rent space to hold an “ex-gay support group meeting”, any places that rent rooms to the public would not be allowed to deny you the space because you are “ex-gay”.
Or maybe they are just proud of their accomplishment. Maybe they just want the world to know they exist. Maybe they want to find others like themselves. Maybe they just want to upset people who don’t like them.
and keep in mind, the ruling was based on a DC law (the human rights act) that protected many attributes, that included sexual behaviour. So a celibacy club or a swinger’s club have the same protections.
Well, yes, I can see that that would certainly make sense in the context of a discussion about whether a change of sexual orientation is possible and/or desirable or whether being heterosexual is better – no matter what “better” might be taken to mean – than being homosexual.
But that still doesn’t explain why anyone would want to use “ex-gay” in preference to “heterosexual” as a defining label for their present sexuality, even to the extent of demanding that ex-gays be recognized as “another sexual minority”, especially since people who claim to be ex-gay are almost invariably at pains to stress that their previous gay status was unwanted.
William# ~ Jul 9, 2011 at 5:01 am
“That still doesn’t explain why, if people are now heterosexual, they would describe themselves as ex-gay rather than heterosexual.”
If a person were to actually change from gay to straight, then identifying as “ex-gay” would indicate that he wasn’t an average straight man. This person has a perspective that the average straight person doesn’t.
However, the term “ex-gay” has been (mis)used to apply to so many different cases, it has little meaning.
William# ~ Jul 9, 2011 at 5:01 am
“That still doesn’t explain why, if people are now heterosexual, they would describe themselves as ex-gay rather than heterosexual.”
If a person were to actually change from gay to straight, then identifying as “ex-gay” would indicate that he wasn’t an average straight man. This person has a perspective that the average straight person doesn’t.
However, the term “ex-gay” has been (mis)used to apply to so many different cases, it has little meaning.
@ George Ribble
Whether or not Szasz considered homosexuality to be an expression of “psychosexual immaturity”, he was correct in his statement that homosexuality was not put into the DSM in 1952 because it had been discovered to be a disease – it hadn’t – but simply because many psychiatrists had decided to define it as a disease.
They describe themselves as ex-marines presumably because they are proud of having served their country in this way. That still doesn’t explain why, if people are now heterosexual, they would describe themselves as ex-gay rather than heterosexual. Nor does it explain why people who are now, as far as their sexuality is concerned, very definitely in the majority (or allegedly so) should be categorized as “another sexual minority”.
@ George Ribble
Whether or not Szasz considered homosexuality to be an expression of “psychosexual immaturity”, he was correct in his statement that homosexuality was not put into the DSM in 1952 because it had been discovered to be a disease – it hadn’t – but simply because many psychiatrists had decided to define it as a disease.
They describe themselves as ex-marines presumably because they are proud of having served their country in this way. That still doesn’t explain why, if people are now heterosexual, they would describe themselves as ex-gay rather than heterosexual. Nor does it explain why people who are now, as far as their sexuality is concerned, very definitely in the majority (or allegedly so) should be categorized as “another sexual minority”.
George, I find it difficult to follow your comments, differentiating your comments from others you include. Is there a way to use the ‘quote’ feature to help with this.
William:
By the way, I find your statement that ex-gays are “another sexual minority” slightly curious. People don’t normally categorize any aspect of their lives, whether chosen or not, in terms of what it used to be. If, for instance, I were to change my religion, I would call myself a Presbyterian, Mormon, Buddhist or whatever, not an “ex-Catholic” (even though the description would not be inaccurate). If asked my age, I would not say that I was an “ex-ten-year-old”. If asked my occupation, I would not say that I was an “ex-student”. Are you implying that the sexual orientation of the “sexual minority” whom you call ex-gays is not heterosexual, but something else? If so, what exactly?
Teresa:
It seems you stated in a prior comment that ex-gay means, having been gay … now being str8. How is str8 being a minority, and why oh why, would someone continue to label themselves something they no longer are, especially if they’re now heterosexual.
___________________
William and Teresa–See my post to William dated Jul 7, 2011 at 4:45 pm for my definition of ex-gay.
Many veterans will describe themselves as being an ex-marine (i.e., former marine “…something they no longer are…”). It’s quite common.
The point here, surely, is that it was not the removal of homosexuality from the DSM that required to be justified by scientific findings, but its continued inclusion, and there were no such scientific findings. It was not scientific evidence but merely the political correctness of an earlier era (1952), which regarded homosexuality as not socially acceptable, that had led to its inclusion in the DSM in the first place. As the late Hungarian-American psychiatrist Dr Thomas Szasz noted, the psychiatric establishment of that era had not discovered that homosexuality was a disease; they had merely chosen to define it as a disease.
_________________________
William–It is true that much of the ammunition used by gay activists in their assault against psychiatry came from the theories of Dr. Thomas Szasa. That’s common knowledge. What isn’t generally known is that Dr. Szasa considered homosexuality to be an expression of “psychosexual immaturity”.
Reference: Ronald Bayer, “Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis”, Princeton University Press, 1987, p. 223, Note #51. Available at amazon.com.
George, I find it difficult to follow your comments, differentiating your comments from others you include. Is there a way to use the ‘quote’ feature to help with this.
The point here, surely, is that it was not the removal of homosexuality from the DSM that required to be justified by scientific findings, but its continued inclusion, and there were no such scientific findings. It was not scientific evidence but merely the political correctness of an earlier era (1952), which regarded homosexuality as not socially acceptable, that had led to its inclusion in the DSM in the first place. As the late Hungarian-American psychiatrist Dr Thomas Szasz noted, the psychiatric establishment of that era had not discovered that homosexuality was a disease; they had merely chosen to define it as a disease.
_________________________
William–It is true that much of the ammunition used by gay activists in their assault against psychiatry came from the theories of Dr. Thomas Szasa. That’s common knowledge. What isn’t generally known is that Dr. Szasa considered homosexuality to be an expression of “psychosexual immaturity”.
Reference: Ronald Bayer, “Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis”, Princeton University Press, 1987, p. 223, Note #51. Available at amazon.com.
@ Maddeson
No, people do not generally do this, unless there is some particular reason to do so. I can imagine, for instance, two Catholics, both above a certain age, discussing the liturgy and one of them saying, “Well, I can still remember when the Tridentine Mass was the norm,” and the other saying, “Well, I don’t remember that because I used to be a Protestant in those days; I became a Catholic only some time after the vernacular was introduced.” (Even so, the latter, if asked his or her religion, would reply “Catholic”, not “ex-Protestant”.)
I can also imagine being in a pub and a mate saying to me, “Whatever you do, don’t go leaving your wallet on the bar when you go to the loo. That guy just along the bar from us is an ex-convict. He’s already been to prison several times for nicking people’s money.”
What would the particular reason be in this case?
@ Teresa:
Yes, Teresa, that’s precisely the question that I have kept asking, but Mr Ribble seems to be either unable or unwilling to answer it.
@ George Ribble:
I must say that I’m surprised. I thought that I had made my point pretty clearly. Since, however, that is apparently not the case, I will endeavour to re-state it so as to make it clearer still.
Let us begin by accepting the definition, of which you approve, of ex-gay as indicating “individuals who previously practiced gayness, and now prefer to practice heterosexuality.” If, then, an employer, for example, were to discriminate against an employee for being ex-gay, as defined above, that would imply that either
(1) the employer did not believe that the employee was really heterosexual and was discriminating against the employee for still being gay; or
(2) the employer believed that the employee was now heterosexual – or perhaps even suspected that the employee had really been heterosexual all along – and was discriminating because he didn’t like heterosexual people; or
(3) the employer believed that the employee, having been gay, was now indeed heterosexual and was discriminating because he resented the employee changing his or her sexual orientation and/or behaviour.
It seems obvious to me that regulations protecting against discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation would automatically cover all the above cases without the need for any special ruling to that effect. The questions that I was asking were simply: (1) Do you know of any case(s) where such discrimination as I have described has actually taken place, and if so, where and when? (2) Do you know of anyone who has maintained that such discrimination would be legitimate, and if so, who?
I can’t see anything big about it at all. It is simply spelling out what, as I have already indicated, is patently clear without the need for any explicit ruling, viz. that it is illegitimate to discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation, and that even if their sexual orientation has been a different one at some time in the past, that is neither here nor there. In the same way, here in the UK – and I presume that the situation is similar in America – it is illegal to discriminate against someone because of their religion, and it makes no difference whether it was always their religion or whether they are a convert from some other religion. I’ve never heard of anyone going to court to obtain a ruling to this effect, nor have I ever heard of anyone demanding that ex-Catholics, ex-Anglicans, ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses or ex-Muslims be recognized as “another religious minority”.
@ Teresa:
Yes, Teresa, that’s precisely the question that I have kept asking, but Mr Ribble seems to be either unable or unwilling to answer it.
@ George Ribble:
I must say that I’m surprised. I thought that I had made my point pretty clearly. Since, however, that is apparently not the case, I will endeavour to re-state it so as to make it clearer still.
Let us begin by accepting the definition, of which you approve, of ex-gay as indicating “individuals who previously practiced gayness, and now prefer to practice heterosexuality.” If, then, an employer, for example, were to discriminate against an employee for being ex-gay, as defined above, that would imply that either
(1) the employer did not believe that the employee was really heterosexual and was discriminating against the employee for still being gay; or
(2) the employer believed that the employee was now heterosexual – or perhaps even suspected that the employee had really been heterosexual all along – and was discriminating because he didn’t like heterosexual people; or
(3) the employer believed that the employee, having been gay, was now indeed heterosexual and was discriminating because he resented the employee changing his or her sexual orientation and/or behaviour.
It seems obvious to me that regulations protecting against discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation would automatically cover all the above cases without the need for any special ruling to that effect. The questions that I was asking were simply: (1) Do you know of any case(s) where such discrimination as I have described has actually taken place, and if so, where and when? (2) Do you know of anyone who has maintained that such discrimination would be legitimate, and if so, who?
I can’t see anything big about it at all. It is simply spelling out what, as I have already indicated, is patently clear without the need for any explicit ruling, viz. that it is illegitimate to discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation, and that even if their sexual orientation has been a different one at some time in the past, that is neither here nor there. In the same way, here in the UK – and I presume that the situation is similar in America – it is illegal to discriminate against someone because of their religion, and it makes no difference whether it was always their religion or whether they are a convert from some other religion. I’ve never heard of anyone going to court to obtain a ruling to this effect, nor have I ever heard of anyone demanding that ex-Catholics, ex-Anglicans, ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses or ex-Muslims be recognized as “another religious minority”.
Teresa, there are zillions of labels that people put on each other and themselves for past characteristics. Do you really think it so odd to do so in just this one case?
George Ribble# ~ Jul 7, 2011 at 5:37 pm
“Ken–You’re in error. It was Warren’s post to me dated Jun 21, 2011 at 10:01 pm that repressed memory therapy was first introduced as a comparison to reparative thearpy.”
No I’m not in error. From YOUR post (which Warren responded to in the 10:01pm post):
George Ribble# ~ Jun 21, 2011 at 9:45 pm
(emphasis added).
…
#
George Ribble# ~ Jul 7, 2011 at 5:41 pm
“As to your Cummings quote, you never answered my question:
Do you believe Cummings gave an accurate representation of the removal of homosexuality from the DSM?
_________________
Ken–Yes!”
And what if you were to learn that there was research indicating homosexuality was not a disorder in 1973 when the APA board decided to remove it from the DSM?
what if you were to learn that the vote, Cumming’s referred to in his book, wasn’t held until after the board had already decided to remove homosexuality from the DSM?
what if you were to learn that the members who wanted a vote on the issue where those psychologist where opposed to the removal of homosexuality from the DSM?
would you still think Cumming’s gave an accurate representation of the removal of homosexuality from the DSM?
Teresa, there are zillions of labels that people put on each other and themselves for past characteristics. Do you really think it so odd to do so in just this one case?
George, I was wondering about this, and not the ruling, but the term ex-gay. It seems you stated in a prior comment that ex-gay means, having been gay … now being str8. How is str8 being a minority, and why oh why, would someone continue to label themselves something they no longer are, especially if they’re now heterosexual. It seems to me, ex-gay is trying to have their cake and eat it, too. Just my opinion, though.
Also, for anyone out there, I’m confused about the ability to say what percentage of a given population is gay. George, you commented as 2%. I’ve seen 5%, 3%, as much as 7% … now we have 2%. Where are we getting any of these numbers?
As to your Cummings quote, you never answered my question:
Do you believe Cummings gave an accurate representation of the removal of homosexuality from the DSM?
_________________
Ken–Yes!
It was you who brought up repressed memory in this thread, not Warren. then you go off on some pointless tangent about whether reparative therapy is or isn’t psychoanalytic (which btw, Nicolosi HAS claimed it IS).
____________________
Ken–You’re in error. It was Warren’s post to me dated Jun 21, 2011 at 10:01 pm that repressed memory therapy was first introduced as a comparison to reparative thearpy. My comments thereafter were nothing more then a rebuttal to his position. That’s all.
William# ~ Jun 28, 2011 at 2:40 pm
According to the “Washington City Paper” ex-gay is defined as individuals who previously practiced gayness, and now prefer to practice heterosexuality.
Thank you, Mr Ribble. I’ve now got the answer for which I’ve been waiting. This makes it clear (“That definition works for me”) that when you say that ex-gays are “another sexual minority”, this does not refer to people’s sexual orientation, i.e. to whom they are erotically attracted, but to their sexual behaviour, i.e. with whom they are having sex. So, for example, it is not permissible to discriminate against a man because he is now having sex with a woman (or women) instead of with a man (or men) like he used to. Quite right. That’s how it should be.
This raises a number of (to me) intriguing questions.
1. Is the instance of discrimination that I have described above purely hypothetical, or has such an instance actually occurred? If so, where and when? If not, has anyone seriously suggested that discrimination of this kind would be defensible? If so, who?
2. Quite a large number of men who are now exclusively heterosexual in orientation (or as near as damn it) and in behaviour have at some time in the past “practiced gayness”, i.e. have engaged in homosexual behaviour. Do heterosexual men who, for example, ever took part in same-sex experimentation behind the bike sheds when they were at school count as ex-gays? Or does the same-sex behaviour have to have been post-18, post-21 or post- some other age? Does having “practiced gayness” on just one occasion in the past suffice to make a heterosexual man an ex-gay? If not, how many of these experiences does he need to have had in order to qualify? And is there some kind of cut-off point in terms of time? In other words, is a heterosexual man an ex-gay if he “practised gayness” within the past 5 years, 7 years, 10 years…?
3. If a man who “previously practiced gayness” and now prefers to “practice heterosexuality” is living, in Madison’s words, “a satisfying non gay life”, then that is absolutely fine. But if he continues to insist on classifying himself as a member of “another sexual minority”, viz. ex-gays, that would seem to suggest that the fact that he “previously practiced gayness” is more important to him than the fact that he now “practices heterosexuality”. Why would this be?
_________________________
William-The definition provided by the “Washington City Paper” was a legal definition handed down by a judge. That definition works for me. I’ll leave it to the academics to rangle among themselves as to the gradations of gayness and ex-gayness in each group.
You first have to be gay (2% of the population) before you can be ex-gay–a minority taken from an existing manority. So, ex-gay is another sexual minority.
I did not understand your reference to discrimination. The real issue here is that ex-gay is legally recognized and protected by law within the Nation’s Capitol. That’s a big, big, deal. It should be exstended to all fifty states.
By the way, I noticed that you did not place ex-gay in quotes. Thank you. That was very thoughtful of you.
George, I was wondering about this, and not the ruling, but the term ex-gay. It seems you stated in a prior comment that ex-gay means, having been gay … now being str8. How is str8 being a minority, and why oh why, would someone continue to label themselves something they no longer are, especially if they’re now heterosexual. It seems to me, ex-gay is trying to have their cake and eat it, too. Just my opinion, though.
Also, for anyone out there, I’m confused about the ability to say what percentage of a given population is gay. George, you commented as 2%. I’ve seen 5%, 3%, as much as 7% … now we have 2%. Where are we getting any of these numbers?
As to your Cummings quote, you never answered my question:
Do you believe Cummings gave an accurate representation of the removal of homosexuality from the DSM?
_________________
Ken–Yes!
It was you who brought up repressed memory in this thread, not Warren. then you go off on some pointless tangent about whether reparative therapy is or isn’t psychoanalytic (which btw, Nicolosi HAS claimed it IS).
____________________
Ken–You’re in error. It was Warren’s post to me dated Jun 21, 2011 at 10:01 pm that repressed memory therapy was first introduced as a comparison to reparative thearpy. My comments thereafter were nothing more then a rebuttal to his position. That’s all.
William# ~ Jun 28, 2011 at 2:40 pm
According to the “Washington City Paper” ex-gay is defined as individuals who previously practiced gayness, and now prefer to practice heterosexuality.
Thank you, Mr Ribble. I’ve now got the answer for which I’ve been waiting. This makes it clear (“That definition works for me”) that when you say that ex-gays are “another sexual minority”, this does not refer to people’s sexual orientation, i.e. to whom they are erotically attracted, but to their sexual behaviour, i.e. with whom they are having sex. So, for example, it is not permissible to discriminate against a man because he is now having sex with a woman (or women) instead of with a man (or men) like he used to. Quite right. That’s how it should be.
This raises a number of (to me) intriguing questions.
1. Is the instance of discrimination that I have described above purely hypothetical, or has such an instance actually occurred? If so, where and when? If not, has anyone seriously suggested that discrimination of this kind would be defensible? If so, who?
2. Quite a large number of men who are now exclusively heterosexual in orientation (or as near as damn it) and in behaviour have at some time in the past “practiced gayness”, i.e. have engaged in homosexual behaviour. Do heterosexual men who, for example, ever took part in same-sex experimentation behind the bike sheds when they were at school count as ex-gays? Or does the same-sex behaviour have to have been post-18, post-21 or post- some other age? Does having “practiced gayness” on just one occasion in the past suffice to make a heterosexual man an ex-gay? If not, how many of these experiences does he need to have had in order to qualify? And is there some kind of cut-off point in terms of time? In other words, is a heterosexual man an ex-gay if he “practised gayness” within the past 5 years, 7 years, 10 years…?
3. If a man who “previously practiced gayness” and now prefers to “practice heterosexuality” is living, in Madison’s words, “a satisfying non gay life”, then that is absolutely fine. But if he continues to insist on classifying himself as a member of “another sexual minority”, viz. ex-gays, that would seem to suggest that the fact that he “previously practiced gayness” is more important to him than the fact that he now “practices heterosexuality”. Why would this be?
_________________________
William-The definition provided by the “Washington City Paper” was a legal definition handed down by a judge. That definition works for me. I’ll leave it to the academics to rangle among themselves as to the gradations of gayness and ex-gayness in each group.
You first have to be gay (2% of the population) before you can be ex-gay–a minority taken from an existing manority. So, ex-gay is another sexual minority.
I did not understand your reference to discrimination. The real issue here is that ex-gay is legally recognized and protected by law within the Nation’s Capitol. That’s a big, big, deal. It should be exstended to all fifty states.
By the way, I noticed that you did not place ex-gay in quotes. Thank you. That was very thoughtful of you.
Warren# ~ Jul 3, 2011 at 1:33 pm
George – I think Nicolosi would be surprised to hear that his work is not based at least originally in psychoanalysis. Some people do reorientation therapy without a psychoanalytic base but reparative therapy — Nicolosi’s term for it — is based in the reparative drive which is a psychoanalytic concept. A quick read of Nicolosi’s first book will be all anyone needs to see that.
__________________
Warren–In today’s world most therapists working with individuals desiring to ameliorate their gayness do not practice psychoanalysis. They do practice psychodynamic psychotherapy based on mainstream psychodynamic concepts as they are understood today. Be that as it may, I guess on this subject we will have to agree to disagree.
_________________
RE: research – you can either keep cursing the darkness or light a candle. Whining about the political situation in the 90s will not change the situation currently. The situation is much different than even when Nick edited his book. His voice actually had something to do with that change. Things have changed but NARTH keeps fighting old battles with the straw men they set up.
I agree that the ACA, and NASW are hostile places for evangelicals but if NARTH would see what has changed within APA, they might find conditions which are fair. However, they keep flailing away.
In other words, research is possible for those who want to do it. For those who want to live in the past, just keep doing what you’re doing.
_______________
Warren–We need some clarification. Dr. Cummings’ book was published in 2005, not in the 1990s. He’s up front in stating that he is in agreement with many of the APA’s official positions, adding that he has lobbied hard for their implementation. That’s fine. However, he is alarmed by the manner in which organized mental health has arrived at its various positions. He believes that such posturing has undermined the validity and integrity of psychology. Dr. Cummings writes that the intent of his book is to acquaint the reader with the well-meaning, but frequently destructive trends that permeate the mental health profession–hence, the book’s title. Note that the very first chapter of the book, co-authored by Dr. Cummings, is: “Psychology’s Surrender To Political Correctness”. So, why am I a whiner, but Dr. Cummings isn’t a whiner? I don’t understand.
You have an uncanny way of focusing on organizations that you disagree with, while turning a blind eye toward the damaging short comings within your own profession (psychology). Amazing. Simply amazing. Dr. Cummings isn’t like that.
I don’t understand your reference to ACA, NASW, or evangelicals. I have not injected them into our conversations.
I doubt that legitimate research is possible as long as the the political correctness virus has not been purged from the mental health profession. As far as I know, Dr. Cummings has not retracted any chapter in his book.
Warren# ~ Jul 3, 2011 at 1:33 pm
George – I think Nicolosi would be surprised to hear that his work is not based at least originally in psychoanalysis. Some people do reorientation therapy without a psychoanalytic base but reparative therapy — Nicolosi’s term for it — is based in the reparative drive which is a psychoanalytic concept. A quick read of Nicolosi’s first book will be all anyone needs to see that.
__________________
Warren–In today’s world most therapists working with individuals desiring to ameliorate their gayness do not practice psychoanalysis. They do practice psychodynamic psychotherapy based on mainstream psychodynamic concepts as they are understood today. Be that as it may, I guess on this subject we will have to agree to disagree.
_________________
RE: research – you can either keep cursing the darkness or light a candle. Whining about the political situation in the 90s will not change the situation currently. The situation is much different than even when Nick edited his book. His voice actually had something to do with that change. Things have changed but NARTH keeps fighting old battles with the straw men they set up.
I agree that the ACA, and NASW are hostile places for evangelicals but if NARTH would see what has changed within APA, they might find conditions which are fair. However, they keep flailing away.
In other words, research is possible for those who want to do it. For those who want to live in the past, just keep doing what you’re doing.
_______________
Warren–We need some clarification. Dr. Cummings’ book was published in 2005, not in the 1990s. He’s up front in stating that he is in agreement with many of the APA’s official positions, adding that he has lobbied hard for their implementation. That’s fine. However, he is alarmed by the manner in which organized mental health has arrived at its various positions. He believes that such posturing has undermined the validity and integrity of psychology. Dr. Cummings writes that the intent of his book is to acquaint the reader with the well-meaning, but frequently destructive trends that permeate the mental health profession–hence, the book’s title. Note that the very first chapter of the book, co-authored by Dr. Cummings, is: “Psychology’s Surrender To Political Correctness”. So, why am I a whiner, but Dr. Cummings isn’t a whiner? I don’t understand.
You have an uncanny way of focusing on organizations that you disagree with, while turning a blind eye toward the damaging short comings within your own profession (psychology). Amazing. Simply amazing. Dr. Cummings isn’t like that.
I don’t understand your reference to ACA, NASW, or evangelicals. I have not injected them into our conversations.
I doubt that legitimate research is possible as long as the the political correctness virus has not been purged from the mental health profession. As far as I know, Dr. Cummings has not retracted any chapter in his book.
Warren, I’m interested to read that you consider Nicolosi’s method to be based on psychoanalysis. I watched some of a video on his site that involved whiteboards, acronyms, ‘grey areas’, etc, that looked to me like pure fantasy. But you know better than I. Certainly none of my psychiatrists behaved like that. I think that my generation of men in NYC went to psychiatrists mostly to become better adjusted to their sexuality, though many of course were still trying to ‘change’. Men in the generations before mine were desperate to become straight. I knew many who tried it, some who condemned themselves to lives of misery and some who found their way. I was in my late teens when Stonewall began the sea-change that we have seen in society’s attitude towards us. NARTH, Nicolosi, et al, seem to me to think they’ve come up with something new. Of course they haven’t. It’s merely last week’s cod served with a zesty new sauce they hope will mask the smell. It doesn’t.
It seems to me there is a great confusion about shame learned from the society in which we live and what are innate feelings and behavior. I don’t see how they can be separated. (I think this is what’s behind the idea of Gay Pride, confronting the shame imposed by the greater society to claim a place within it where one can live more freely) Shame has always been a great social organizer and source of control and not just in matters of sexuality. Reparative therapy packages shame in a wrapper of pseudo-science hence, I suppose, the whiteboard and Niclosi’s air of certainty. Clearly the man’s frame of reference is religious, his outfit is named for Thomas Aquinas and he mentioned God four or five times in just a few minutes.
Religion – most often American fundamentalism though not entirely, the Catholic church under the present pope has found it a useful distraction from its own problems – claims to provide the solution. Reparative therapy, it seems to me, fits the facts into a shape that makes that solution seem scientific. If someone wants to go along with it, fine: he or she has my sympathy. I only object when Niclosi’s fantasies are used to try to shape public policy. When the theories of amateur ‘therapists’ with no real education, working out of church basements (for example, Michelle Bachmann’s husband), are used to diminish my civil rights.
The point here, surely, is that it was not the removal of homosexuality from the DSM that required to be justified by scientific findings, but its continued inclusion, and there were no such scientific findings. It was not scientific evidence but merely the political correctness of an earlier era (1952), which regarded homosexuality as not socially acceptable, that had led to its inclusion in the DSM in the first place. As the late Hungarian-American psychiatrist Dr Thomas Szasz noted, the psychiatric establishment of that era had not discovered that homosexuality was a disease; they had merely chosen to define it as a disease.
George Ribble# ~ Jul 3, 2011 at 12:25 pm
“Warren–Call it what you will, your thinking is still flawed. Repressed memory therapy may rely on psychoanalysis, reparative therapy does not. Your comparing apples to oranges. There’s still no fit.”
It was you who brought up repressed memory in this thread, not Warren. then you go off on some pointless tangent about whether reparative therapy is or isn’t psychoanalytic (which btw, Nicolosi HAS claimed it IS).
further, I think the reason you are going off on this tangent is so you can avoid the real issue that the Boxturtle/CNN report on Reker’s research brought up, which is that it is wrong, and that calls into question all the later claims by many people (esp. those in NARTH) who held this study up as proof homosexuality could be averted/changed.
As to your Cummings quote, you never answered my question:
Do you believe Cummings gave an accurate representation of the removal of homosexuality from the DSM?
George – I think Nicolosi would be surprised to hear that his work is not based at least originally in psychoanalysis. Some people do reorientation therapy without a psychoanalytic base but reparative therapy — Nicolosi’s term for it — is based in the reparative drive which is a psychoanalytic concept. A quick read of Nicolosi’s first book will be all anyone needs to see that.
RE: research – you can either keep cursing the darkness or light a candle. Whining about the political situation in the 90s will not change the situation currently. The situation is much different than even when Nick edited his book. His voice actually had something to do with that change. Things have changed but NARTH keeps fighting old battles with the straw men they set up.
I agree that the ACA, and NASW are hostile places for evangelicals but if NARTH would see what has changed within APA, they might find conditions which are fair. However, they keep flailing away.
In other words, research is possible for those who want to do it. For those who want to live in the past, just keep doing what you’re doing.
Warren# ~ Jun 26, 2011 at 5:46 pm
No hammering here George – making an analogy which you did not refute.
Ok, so the people you know who work doing whatever they do, what is their empirical base? Can you give me 3 studies or ask them to give me 3 studies that support what they do?
______________
Warren–Call it what you will, your thinking is still flawed. Repressed memory therapy may rely on psychoanalysis, reparative therapy does not. Your comparing apples to oranges. There’s still no fit.
Currently, all empirical studies within organized mental health that address treatment services directed toward homosexuals are under a cloud of suspicion which undermines their validity and integrity. This is true whether the studies are pro-reparative therapy or anti-reparative therapy. The correctness of anybody’s findings are suspect. This atmosphere of doubt is the direct result of the manner in which homosexuality was removed from the DSM. It was decided by popular vote, not scientific evidence. Those in opposition were not refuted by scientific findings.. Rather, they were subjected to threats and intimidations (Wright, Cummings, p. 9).
We are in this predicament because psychiatry, psychology, and social work have been infected by a particularly aggressive virus known as political correctness. The progression of this corrosive disease has resulted in the usurpation of scientific concerns in favor of agenda-driven ideologues that show little regard for scientific validation. So advanced is this illness in organized psychology that the American Psychological Association, once an advocate for scientific and professional concerns, is now choosing ideology over science in its relationship to homosexual issues. This political correctness virus is a tether for all of us in any field that do clinical work (Wright, Cummings, pp. xiii, xiv, xviii).
So, what’s to be done? We have a patient before us (organized mental health) that presents with an Axis 1 diagnosis of serverely damaged credibility. This is the result of an Axis 3 diagnosis, political correctness virus. The antidote for this awful condition can be found at most university/college campuses in an oddity known as Research 101. By using the scientific method we can examine all psychotherapies currently in use in tne U.S. Such a research design would include a hypothesis, an experimental group, and a control group. The initial results would then need to be replicated by other independent researchers to ensure credibility. Some, but not all, of the therapies that might be investigated would include reperative therapy, gay affirming therapy, sexual idenity therapy, various Exodus therapies, etc. All would be held to the same standards. This is the medicine that will purge the political correctness virus from the mental health profession.
Reference: Roger H. Wright & Nicholas A. Cummings, eds., “Destructive Trends in Mental Health–The Well-Intentioned Path To Harm”, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, New York, available at amazon.com.
Warran–In the preface of this bookon, page xv, Dr. Cummings writes that some potential contributors declined to be included in this work for fear of losing tenure, status, or being subject to ridicule/vicious attacks. One colleague agreed to contribute provided her name did not appear as a chapter contributor. Good grief, why should any professional in the U.S. be afraid to express their ideas in print? It seems that a rather virile strain of the political correctness virus, with fascism in its DNA, has settled into psychology. No wonder that in organized psychology it is the thought police, not science, that is in control. Disgraceful!
Thank you, Mr Ribble. I’ve now got the answer for which I’ve been waiting. This makes it clear (“That definition works for me”) that when you say that ex-gays are “another sexual minority”, this does not refer to people’s sexual orientation, i.e. to whom they are erotically attracted, but to their sexual behaviour, i.e. with whom they are having sex. So, for example, it is not permissible to discriminate against a man because he is now having sex with a woman (or women) instead of with a man (or men) like he used to. Quite right. That’s how it should be.
This raises a number of (to me) intriguing questions.
1. Is the instance of discrimination that I have described above purely hypothetical, or has such an instance actually occurred? If so, where and when? If not, has anyone seriously suggested that discrimination of this kind would be defensible? If so, who?
2. Quite a large number of men who are now exclusively heterosexual in orientation (or as near as damn it) and in behaviour have at some time in the past “practiced gayness”, i.e. have engaged in homosexual behaviour. Do heterosexual men who, for example, ever took part in same-sex experimentation behind the bike sheds when they were at school count as ex-gays? Or does the same-sex behaviour have to have been post-18, post-21 or post- some other age? Does having “practiced gayness” on just one occasion in the past suffice to make a heterosexual man an ex-gay? If not, how many of these experiences does he need to have had in order to qualify? And is there some kind of cut-off point in terms of time? In other words, is a heterosexual man an ex-gay if he “practised gayness” within the past 5 years, 7 years, 10 years…?
3. If a man who “previously practiced gayness” and now prefers to “practice heterosexuality” is living, in Madison’s words, “a satisfying non gay life”, then that is absolutely fine. But if he continues to insist on classifying himself as a member of “another sexual minority”, viz. ex-gays, that would seem to suggest that the fact that he “previously practiced gayness” is more important to him than the fact that he now “practices heterosexuality”. Why would this be?
“Mr. Doyle’ letter did not cite the source of the Superior Court ruling. Since the editors at the “Post” did not rebuttal this piece of information, I took it at face value.”
Well, I can find no such ruling. In fact, I wasn’t able to find any rulings dealing with sexual orientation and protected classes in 2009 from the DC courts. And nothing at all dealing with “ex-gays”.
__________________
Ken–The link below will bring up a news item in the “Washington City Paper” reporting that the D.C. Superior Court ruled that ex-gays are a protected class in the Distric of Columbia. In the third paragraph of the article there is a link to the actual court opinion. The judge confirmed on page 12 of his opinion that ex-gay was a recognized, and therefore protected, group/class under the D.C. Human Rights Act. According to the “Washington City Paper” ex-gay is defined as individuals who previously practiced gayness, and now prefer to practice heterosexuality. That definition works for me.
______________
P.S. I’m not sure that after I post this comment if the link below will open. Other links that I see on this blog appear in red print, and open easily. If the link below does not open I would appreciate it very much if someone would coach me through the proper procedure to post a link on this blog. Thank you. GR
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/08/25/ex-gays-protected-under-dc-human-rights-act/
@ Madison
That is certainly the misleading impression that the adverts of ex-gay organizations like Exodus and the titles of ex-gay books (e.g. Homosexual No More, and You Don’t Have to Be Gay) aim to give, but the evidence does not support this.
The evidence indicates quite the contrary.
At best, wasted time and money which will never be recovered.
In the case of those “therapies” based on the unsubstantiated and fanciful theory that homosexuality is caused by defective parenting, the laying of false guilt on parents with consequent and totally unnecessary damage to family relationships.
Prevention of healthy acceptance of one’s natural sexuality, resulting in retardation of psychological and emotional development.
Damage (or further damage) to self-esteem, depression and guilt (or aggravation of the same), social withdrawal and intimacy avoidance, sexual dysfunction, damage to one’s sense of gender identity.
For more information, see:
http://www.beyondexgay.com/article/harm1
Douglas C. Haldeman, “Therapeutic Antidotes: Helping Gay and Bisexual Men Recover from Conversion Therapies” in Shidlo et al., Sexual Conversion Therapy (2001)
Since homosexuality is not a disease, disorder or disability, it does not need to be “addressed” in the sense that you mean, and there is no justification for attempts to do so. A justification cannot be supplied by parents’ or anyone else’s (e.g. Madison’s) dislike of people being gay. It is particularly important that this should not be permitted in the case of minors, since they are likely to be the most helpless and defenceless against abusive manipulation and attempts to play games with their lives, as well as being the most vulnerable to harm caused by such gratuitous and pernicious tampering.
Using nebulous claims of change to justify discrimination against gays is actually something that has been attempted with increasing frequency of late, although, I am gratified to note, with little success. As I have observed before, ex-gay ministries and reparative therapy programs are the only fringe movements that I know of that call for discrimination against those who don’t wish to avail themselves of their “services”.
I think that most of the gay community know little or nothing about SOCE and care less. Those in the gay community who do have knowledge of SOCE are likely to be highly critical, certainly, and the greater their knowledge, the more critical they tend to be – and rightly so. Among the most bitterly condemnatory of SOCE will be found those who have formerly been involved in the practice and have observed at first hand both its futility and its all too frequently noxious effects.
Madison I am still waiting your response in this topic,
/2011/06/21/mohler-says-evangelicals-have-not-told-the-truth-about-homosexuality-afas-bryan-fischer-proves-the-point/
Madison, I have a serious issue with this from above,”
d) not attempt to force children to change because the children’s parents don’t like that they are gay.
This is a tricky one because it certainly helps to address it earlier (but we know the gay agenda would like to delay as much as possible). The same approaches and precautions should be used as any other similar situations. (ADHD comes to mind since treatment is so common.).
I don’t agree with that AT ALL. NO do NOT treat children to change their sexual orientation, period. If you are, you are clearly doing it at the behest of the parents NOT the child. No no no no no no no no, I strongly object to that!
Madison,
I won’t sign everything with this that you wrote, “without consideration, I reject anything to do with SOCE because it compromises my political wishes.”
I have said, and I will say again, I am open to look at SOCE, that is why I am here. I am trying to learn. If it is proven that it works I will even endorse it and support spending research money on it, how to do it best. With that said, I believe it is rare to change your sexual orientation and the people who try and fail are harmed by trying. I believe that “How to do it Best” will result in a therapy where the therapy is to change your religion and keep your sexual orientation for 99.99% of people who want to change. I am prepared to be wrong. Put to together the proper research and let it speak for itself, I will listen.
Maddeson# ~ Jun 27, 2011 at 2:23 am
“a) specify exactly what is likely to change
feelings, attractions, etc
b) specify how likely is it that change (described in a)) will actually happen
For the authetically motivated, many or most.”
Do you have any peer-reviewed research to support these claims? Because from what little I’ve been able to find, changes in orientation (what you are describing in your answer to a) ) rarely (if ever) happen.
“c) be clear about potential unintended consequences of trying to change
Same as any other therapy: minimal but not zero.”
There is anecdotal evidence (again because there is little reliable research) that there can be some very severe consequences (depression, loss of religious faith, even suicide). Hopefully, the more severe consequences occur very rarely.
“d) not attempt to force children to change because the children’s parents don’t like
that they are gay.
This is a tricky one because it certainly helps to address it earlier ”
And you base this claim about addressing it earlier, on what ? I certainly hope it isn’t Reker’s research. Further, aside from the moral issues, it will likely violate the “highly motivated” criteria you gave earlier.
“e) not use nebulous claims of change to discriminate against gays.
I don’t think this happens too much.”
and I think you just don’t want to know about it. Reker’s (and others) have testified in court cases to prevent gays from becoming foster or adoptive parents. In one case (AZ I believe) he argued families with any adult male in the household shouldn’t be allowed to foster. The Prop 8 campaign also used such claims in some of their arguments. And these are just the recent cases.
“Also understand that the gay community is overly critical of SOCE.”
it is not just the gay community. And I wouldn’t say “overly” critical.
“Here’s what I askof ken and others to include a disclaimer in all posts: without consideration, I reject anything to do with SOCE because it compromises my political wishes.”
Again more false assumptions. I challenge conversion therapy because it is not based on science and makes many unfounded claims. You seem to be the only person here who doesn’t really consider what you are saying. And I would say your political views are effecting your judgment far more than mine are.
Maddeson / Madison / preston — are you ever going to stop playing games and admit, in the first person singular, that you yourself are personally feeling unwanted SSA?
Note that admitting “Hard dicks make my dick get hard” (albeit admitting only to yourself and this here collection of anonymous strangers on Throckmorton’s blog) is worlds away from publicly identifying as GAY™.
I implore you to read this link all the way to the bottom of the page, and ask yourself whether it’s describing your feelings.
@ Madison
That is certainly the misleading impression that the adverts of ex-gay organizations like Exodus and the titles of ex-gay books (e.g. Homosexual No More, and You Don’t Have to Be Gay) aim to give, but the evidence does not support this.
The evidence indicates quite the contrary.
At best, wasted time and money which will never be recovered.
In the case of those “therapies” based on the unsubstantiated and fanciful theory that homosexuality is caused by defective parenting, the laying of false guilt on parents with consequent and totally unnecessary damage to family relationships.
Prevention of healthy acceptance of one’s natural sexuality, resulting in retardation of psychological and emotional development.
Damage (or further damage) to self-esteem, depression and guilt (or aggravation of the same), social withdrawal and intimacy avoidance, sexual dysfunction, damage to one’s sense of gender identity.
For more information, see:
http://www.beyondexgay.com/article/harm1
Douglas C. Haldeman, “Therapeutic Antidotes: Helping Gay and Bisexual Men Recover from Conversion Therapies” in Shidlo et al., Sexual Conversion Therapy (2001)
Since homosexuality is not a disease, disorder or disability, it does not need to be “addressed” in the sense that you mean, and there is no justification for attempts to do so. A justification cannot be supplied by parents’ or anyone else’s (e.g. Madison’s) dislike of people being gay. It is particularly important that this should not be permitted in the case of minors, since they are likely to be the most helpless and defenceless against abusive manipulation and attempts to play games with their lives, as well as being the most vulnerable to harm caused by such gratuitous and pernicious tampering.
Using nebulous claims of change to justify discrimination against gays is actually something that has been attempted with increasing frequency of late, although, I am gratified to note, with little success. As I have observed before, ex-gay ministries and reparative therapy programs are the only fringe movements that I know of that call for discrimination against those who don’t wish to avail themselves of their “services”.
I think that most of the gay community know little or nothing about SOCE and care less. Those in the gay community who do have knowledge of SOCE are likely to be highly critical, certainly, and the greater their knowledge, the more critical they tend to be – and rightly so. Among the most bitterly condemnatory of SOCE will be found those who have formerly been involved in the practice and have observed at first hand both its futility and its all too frequently noxious effects.
Madison,
I won’t sign everything with this that you wrote, “without consideration, I reject anything to do with SOCE because it compromises my political wishes.”
I have said, and I will say again, I am open to look at SOCE, that is why I am here. I am trying to learn. If it is proven that it works I will even endorse it and support spending research money on it, how to do it best. With that said, I believe it is rare to change your sexual orientation and the people who try and fail are harmed by trying. I believe that “How to do it Best” will result in a therapy where the therapy is to change your religion and keep your sexual orientation for 99.99% of people who want to change. I am prepared to be wrong. Put to together the proper research and let it speak for itself, I will listen.
@ Maddeson :
I’m very concerned about drawing a parallel between same-sex attraction and things like ADHD. The former is not necessarily something that, in and of itself, makes life difficult for those who experience it; conditions like ADHD can – and often do – affect quite severely the ‘quality of life’ and ‘life chances’ of those affected by it, regardless of the actions and attitudes of others.
There are those whose lives are made more ‘difficult’ because of their homosexual orientation. However, I do take the view that we should look carefully at why that might be. Is it, for example, primarily because of the attitudes of others? (Of course, I would not wish to deny the right of individuals to seek ‘change’ if that is what they want to do, but – as has been said so many times on this blog – there needs to be clarity on what that ‘change’ might be and might entail, and whether it is likely to prove ‘successful’ for the person concerned as a whole. I keep going back to Michael in that NYT article: in a sense he has ‘changed’, but I’m not at all sure that the ‘change’ that has been wrought is useful – either for him personally, or for society at large.)
a) specify exactly what is likely to change
feelings, attractions, etc
b) specify how likely is it that change (described in a)) will actually happen
For the authetically motivated, many or most.
c) be clear about potential unintended consequences of trying to change
Same as any other therapy: minimal but not zero.
d) not attempt to force children to change because the children’s parents don’t like that they are gay.
This is a tricky one because it certainly helps to address it earlier (but we know the gay agenda would like to delay as much as possible). The same approaches and precautions should be used as any other similar situations. (ADHD comes to mind since treatment is so common.).
e) not use nebulous claims of change to discriminate against gays.
I don’t think this happens too much. Also understand that the gay community is overly critical of SOCE.
Here’s what I askof ken and others to include a disclaimer in all posts: without consideration, I reject anything to do with SOCE because it compromises my political wishes.
Maddeson / Madison / preston — are you ever going to stop playing games and admit, in the first person singular, that you yourself are personally feeling unwanted SSA?
Note that admitting “Hard dicks make my dick get hard” (albeit admitting only to yourself and this here collection of anonymous strangers on Throckmorton’s blog) is worlds away from publicly identifying as GAY™.
I implore you to read this link all the way to the bottom of the page, and ask yourself whether it’s describing your feelings.
@ Maddeson :
I’m very concerned about drawing a parallel between same-sex attraction and things like ADHD. The former is not necessarily something that, in and of itself, makes life difficult for those who experience it; conditions like ADHD can – and often do – affect quite severely the ‘quality of life’ and ‘life chances’ of those affected by it, regardless of the actions and attitudes of others.
There are those whose lives are made more ‘difficult’ because of their homosexual orientation. However, I do take the view that we should look carefully at why that might be. Is it, for example, primarily because of the attitudes of others? (Of course, I would not wish to deny the right of individuals to seek ‘change’ if that is what they want to do, but – as has been said so many times on this blog – there needs to be clarity on what that ‘change’ might be and might entail, and whether it is likely to prove ‘successful’ for the person concerned as a whole. I keep going back to Michael in that NYT article: in a sense he has ‘changed’, but I’m not at all sure that the ‘change’ that has been wrought is useful – either for him personally, or for society at large.)
a) specify exactly what is likely to change
feelings, attractions, etc
b) specify how likely is it that change (described in a)) will actually happen
For the authetically motivated, many or most.
c) be clear about potential unintended consequences of trying to change
Same as any other therapy: minimal but not zero.
d) not attempt to force children to change because the children’s parents don’t like that they are gay.
This is a tricky one because it certainly helps to address it earlier (but we know the gay agenda would like to delay as much as possible). The same approaches and precautions should be used as any other similar situations. (ADHD comes to mind since treatment is so common.).
e) not use nebulous claims of change to discriminate against gays.
I don’t think this happens too much. Also understand that the gay community is overly critical of SOCE.
Here’s what I askof ken and others to include a disclaimer in all posts: without consideration, I reject anything to do with SOCE because it compromises my political wishes.
Reparative therapy is the recovered memory of our time. Both entirely fraudulent.
Ken said,
“I’m not really sure where this whole thread has taken us so I’m just going to restate the obvious: people can change…let them.”
No one here is advocating that they should be prevented from changing if they can.
I (and others here) just want those who claim they can change others to:
a) specify exactly what is likely to change
b) specify how likely is it that change (described in a)) will actually happen
c) be clear about potential unintended consequences of trying to change
d) not attempt to force children to change because the children’s parents don’t like that they are gay.
e) not use nebulous claims of change to discriminate against gays.
StraightGrandmother- YES! And I would like to add this thought. I think gays and lesbians are probably better off to change their religion and leave their sexual orientation as is. Religion is a choice, sexual orientation isn’t. Which one is easier to change do you think?
Any good psychotherapist should try that first with the patient, accept yourself and change religions.
But what i see happening is that gays & lesbians who seek council from their churches are quickly bundled off to the therapy that is “Keep your religion and change your sexual orientation (or really not change it so much as learn to suppress it).”
Two Groups-
Group A – Change Religion
500 deeply religious gays who are not comfortable being gay go to therapists who help them accept themselves as gay and help them as they change religions to an accepting and affirming religion like many Lutheran, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Quaker churches etc.
Group B – Change Sexual Orientation
500 deeply religious gays who are not comfortable being gay to to “Reparitive Therapy” psychologists. They learn techniques for suppressing their natural sexual orientation and maintain their religion.
At the end of the therapy how many patients in each group would find themselves “happy” and contented for the rest of their lives and no longer need therapy. In other words they live out the therapy plan and are happy? Which group has the higher risk of experiencing actual “harm” during or after therapy as a result OF THE therapy? These are the statistics I would like to see.
If the statistics show that only 1 or 2 people in the Change Sexual Orientation Group (Group B) are successful then isn’t it kind of bad practice as a Psychologist to right away start of with Plan B? Wouldn’t you owe it to your patients to try Plan A first?
Even if you really believed in reparitive therapy can you in good conscience treat 498 people knowing that they are statistically gonna fail and you have wasted years of their life that they can never get back + the money for the therapy.
The people who are practicing, change your sexual orientation and keep your religion, are the ones with the statistics and because they don’t give out their statistics it makes you wonder. If it is so great/successful then why don’t they give out their data? Give out the data which answers Ken’s points, that he pointed out above. I believe that they do not give out their statistics because they got a good gig going, churches keep sending them gays and they are making money. It is probably a gold mine racket. And for the youth or young adults they treat, the parents gladly pay as the repairitive therapy says it is all their fault so the parents pay and pay and pay out of guilt, guilt that they made their child gay.
No hammering here George – making an analogy which you did not refute.
Ok, so the people you know who work doing whatever they do, what is their empirical base? Can you give me 3 studies or ask them to give me 3 studies that support what they do?
Warren# ~ Jun 25, 2011 at 5:37 am
George said
scientific evidence supports the efficacy/effectiveness of this approach
George, I can understand when someone who is not a professional makes a claim like that. However, as one, I expect more than just a statement. Please provide the 3 best references that you believe support that statement.
_____________
Warren–The entire quote needs to be included: “The people I know in this field advise me that they practice psychodynamic psychotherapy, not psychoanalysis, and that scientific evidence supports the efficacy/effectiveness of this approach”. It is “The people I know in this field…” who state that scientific evidence supports the efficacy/effectiveness of their approach, not me. I don’t know on what basis they make this claim. However, it’s not germane to the current issue being discussed in this posting (i.e., the comparing of repressed memory therapy to reparative therapy). You state that repressed memory theory is based on psychoanalysis. I don’t know. None-the-less, if you say so that’s good enough for me. However, the professionals I know who work with folks wanting to ameliorate their same-sex attractions do not practice psychoanalysis. You seem to be attempting to hammer a round peg (reparative therapy) into a square hole (repressed memory therapy). There’s no fit there, and this causes your position to crumble. It makes one wonder that if you are wrong here, where else might you be wrong.
By the way, with regard to the matter of homosexuality being removed from the DSM as the result of a vote, correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t it as the result of a vote that homosexuality had found its way onto the DSM in the first place?
Ken said,
“I’m not really sure where this whole thread has taken us so I’m just going to restate the obvious: people can change…let them.”
No one here is advocating that they should be prevented from changing if they can.
I (and others here) just want those who claim they can change others to:
a) specify exactly what is likely to change
b) specify how likely is it that change (described in a)) will actually happen
c) be clear about potential unintended consequences of trying to change
d) not attempt to force children to change because the children’s parents don’t like that they are gay.
e) not use nebulous claims of change to discriminate against gays.
StraightGrandmother- YES! And I would like to add this thought. I think gays and lesbians are probably better off to change their religion and leave their sexual orientation as is. Religion is a choice, sexual orientation isn’t. Which one is easier to change do you think?
Any good psychotherapist should try that first with the patient, accept yourself and change religions.
But what i see happening is that gays & lesbians who seek council from their churches are quickly bundled off to the therapy that is “Keep your religion and change your sexual orientation (or really not change it so much as learn to suppress it).”
Two Groups-
Group A – Change Religion
500 deeply religious gays who are not comfortable being gay go to therapists who help them accept themselves as gay and help them as they change religions to an accepting and affirming religion like many Lutheran, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Quaker churches etc.
Group B – Change Sexual Orientation
500 deeply religious gays who are not comfortable being gay to to “Reparitive Therapy” psychologists. They learn techniques for suppressing their natural sexual orientation and maintain their religion.
At the end of the therapy how many patients in each group would find themselves “happy” and contented for the rest of their lives and no longer need therapy. In other words they live out the therapy plan and are happy? Which group has the higher risk of experiencing actual “harm” during or after therapy as a result OF THE therapy? These are the statistics I would like to see.
If the statistics show that only 1 or 2 people in the Change Sexual Orientation Group (Group B) are successful then isn’t it kind of bad practice as a Psychologist to right away start of with Plan B? Wouldn’t you owe it to your patients to try Plan A first?
Even if you really believed in reparitive therapy can you in good conscience treat 498 people knowing that they are statistically gonna fail and you have wasted years of their life that they can never get back + the money for the therapy.
The people who are practicing, change your sexual orientation and keep your religion, are the ones with the statistics and because they don’t give out their statistics it makes you wonder. If it is so great/successful then why don’t they give out their data? Give out the data which answers Ken’s points, that he pointed out above. I believe that they do not give out their statistics because they got a good gig going, churches keep sending them gays and they are making money. It is probably a gold mine racket. And for the youth or young adults they treat, the parents gladly pay as the repairitive therapy says it is all their fault so the parents pay and pay and pay out of guilt, guilt that they made their child gay.
George Ribble# ~ Jun 26, 2011 at 1:54 pm
“You’re expressing your comments/criticisms to the wrong guy. They should be directed to Dr. Cummings.”
Cummings isn’t the person who posted misleading claims on this blog. You did.
Why did you cite Cummings in that post? Do you believe what you quoted is an accurate representation about the removal of homosexuality from the DSM?
“This was the first time in U.S. healthcare history that an official diagnosis was decided by popular vote rather then by scientific validation ”
this is not true. There was a growing body of research indicating homosexuality was not a disorder. And the research since 1974 has also supported the decision.
As for the vote: Did Dr. Cummings (or anyone else claiming the change was by “popular vote” ) produce a copy of the ballot? Did he specify who asked for a vote of the membership? Did he mention if this vote was held before or after the Board had already decided to remove homosexuality from the DSM?
_______________
Ken–You’re expressing your comments/criticisms to the wrong guy. They should be directed to Dr. Cummings. My guess is that Dr. Throckmorton could provide you with his email address.
No hammering here George – making an analogy which you did not refute.
Ok, so the people you know who work doing whatever they do, what is their empirical base? Can you give me 3 studies or ask them to give me 3 studies that support what they do?
You’re welcome, And feel free to repost those on any other groups where someone tries to characterize those with concerns about conversion therapy as just trying to stop people from changing.
@ Ken
Thank you for your posting of Jun 25, 2011 at 9:00 am.
That sums up very nicely the crux of this matter.
@ Ken : I think your reply to Madison is excellent, by the way.
Richard Willmer# ~ Jun 25, 2011 at 10:36 am
“Or, Ken, I suspect to you!”
Not particularly. However, you were commenting about NARTH’s interest in him, and my comment was in reference to that.
Or, Ken, I suspect to you!
It’s not significant to me!!!
Richard Willmer# ~ Jun 25, 2011 at 5:56 am
“Michael appeared to be an angry young man then, and appears to be an angry young man now. What kind of ‘change’ is that?”
But he has changed who he is angry at, and that is significant to the conversion therapy crowd (even if they had no hand in his change).
Madison# ~ Jun 25, 2011 at 4:18 am
“I’m not really sure where this whole thread has taken us so I’m just going to restate the obvious: people can change…let them.”
No one here is advocating that they should be prevented from changing if they can.
I (and others here) just want those who claim they can change others to:
a) specify exactly what is likely to change
b) specify how likely is it that change (described in a)) will actually happen
c) be clear about potential unintended consequences of trying to change
d) not attempt to force children to change because the children’s parents don’t like that they are gay.
e) not use nebulous claims of change to discriminate against gays.
I understand your point – and think it may be a very relevant one.
People who feel ‘vulnerable’ for whatever reason often take refuge in ‘confected identities’, and perhaps the most useful ‘change’ any of us can experience is that growth in confidence that allows us to shed such identities and be ‘true to ourselves’ as best we may. And when people are, as much as they can be, ‘true to themselves’, real opportunities for on-going personal development and genuine dialogue with others open up.
Of course, I don’t know if that Michael guy is “mindless” about his Christianity, but his past history suggests a possible tendency to immerse himself in prefab, off-the-rack identities — so he was formerly a Foucault-Believing Queer Activist™, and now he’s a Bible-Believing Christian™.
Or at least, that’s what I meant to imply.
🙂
Richard: I probably should’ve put a ™ after Bible-Believing Christian, to indicate that I was sarcastically referring to its use as a mindlessly recited “boilerplate” phrase or slogan by some people.
(Similar to the LGBT Community™, which is often thrown around without much reflection as to whether it’s really a “community” in a meaningful sense, rather than a “voting bloc” or a “loosely affiliated demographic” or whatever.)
Re. Michael: a very interesting point you’ve raise there, Throbert.
(An aside: I would obviously take issue with any suggestion that only ‘fundies’ or ‘conservative protestants’ [or whatever] are ‘bible-believing’. I ‘believe’ in the Bible; it’s just that I think it’s best to interpret the words on the page thoughtfully, and taking into account language, context and the likely provenance and purpose of the various books therein. It’s also worth considering themes that are in common with other ‘holy books’. That, of course, leaves many unanswered questions – but living honestly with questions can be a very productive exercise.)
Another argument, of course, is whether “ex gay” organizations use different definitions of change depending on the context, as best fits their needs. (E.g., using “homosexuality is curable” language that suggests total change when they’re helping to Get Out The Evangelical Vote against a gay-rights measure — but switching to “nuanced” language about people continuing to struggle with SSA when they’re cross-examined by skeptics.)
I’m curious about Michael’s upbringing prior to college age, since in NYT article his biography pretty much begins with him being a recent Dartmouth graduate. Is the Bible-Believing Christian identity of his 30s a return to his early roots after a Secular Gay Activist detour for most of his 20s, or was it something new for him?
… and also, whether those who claim to be able to bring about ‘change’ can really do so with the principles and techniques they employ.
I keep thinking about that guy Michael in that NYT article NARTH apparently ‘likes’. I’m a little surprise that they like it, if I’m honest. When I read the article, I could see no meaningful change at all: Michael appeared to be an angry young man then, and appears to be an angry young man now. What kind of ‘change’ is that?
Yes, Madison, people can ‘change’ – but much of the argument about ‘change’ on this blog is to do what is meant by ‘change’, and what kind of ‘change’ might be desirable, and for whom.
George said
George, I can understand when someone who is not a professional makes a claim like that. However, as one, I expect more than just a statement. Please provide the 3 best references that you believe support that statement.
Madison# ~ Jun 25, 2011 at 4:18 am
“I’m not really sure where this whole thread has taken us so I’m just going to restate the obvious: people can change…let them.”
No one here is advocating that they should be prevented from changing if they can.
I (and others here) just want those who claim they can change others to:
a) specify exactly what is likely to change
b) specify how likely is it that change (described in a)) will actually happen
c) be clear about potential unintended consequences of trying to change
d) not attempt to force children to change because the children’s parents don’t like that they are gay.
e) not use nebulous claims of change to discriminate against gays.
I’m not really sure where this whole thread has taken us so I’m just going to restate the obvious: people can change…let them.
I understand your point – and think it may be a very relevant one.
People who feel ‘vulnerable’ for whatever reason often take refuge in ‘confected identities’, and perhaps the most useful ‘change’ any of us can experience is that growth in confidence that allows us to shed such identities and be ‘true to ourselves’ as best we may. And when people are, as much as they can be, ‘true to themselves’, real opportunities for on-going personal development and genuine dialogue with others open up.
🙂
Richard: I probably should’ve put a ™ after Bible-Believing Christian, to indicate that I was sarcastically referring to its use as a mindlessly recited “boilerplate” phrase or slogan by some people.
(Similar to the LGBT Community™, which is often thrown around without much reflection as to whether it’s really a “community” in a meaningful sense, rather than a “voting bloc” or a “loosely affiliated demographic” or whatever.)
Re. Michael: a very interesting point you’ve raise there, Throbert.
(An aside: I would obviously take issue with any suggestion that only ‘fundies’ or ‘conservative protestants’ [or whatever] are ‘bible-believing’. I ‘believe’ in the Bible; it’s just that I think it’s best to interpret the words on the page thoughtfully, and taking into account language, context and the likely provenance and purpose of the various books therein. It’s also worth considering themes that are in common with other ‘holy books’. That, of course, leaves many unanswered questions – but living honestly with questions can be a very productive exercise.)
Another argument, of course, is whether “ex gay” organizations use different definitions of change depending on the context, as best fits their needs. (E.g., using “homosexuality is curable” language that suggests total change when they’re helping to Get Out The Evangelical Vote against a gay-rights measure — but switching to “nuanced” language about people continuing to struggle with SSA when they’re cross-examined by skeptics.)
I’m curious about Michael’s upbringing prior to college age, since in NYT article his biography pretty much begins with him being a recent Dartmouth graduate. Is the Bible-Believing Christian identity of his 30s a return to his early roots after a Secular Gay Activist detour for most of his 20s, or was it something new for him?
… and also, whether those who claim to be able to bring about ‘change’ can really do so with the principles and techniques they employ.
I keep thinking about that guy Michael in that NYT article NARTH apparently ‘likes’. I’m a little surprise that they like it, if I’m honest. When I read the article, I could see no meaningful change at all: Michael appeared to be an angry young man then, and appears to be an angry young man now. What kind of ‘change’ is that?
Yes, Madison, people can ‘change’ – but much of the argument about ‘change’ on this blog is to do what is meant by ‘change’, and what kind of ‘change’ might be desirable, and for whom.
George said
George, I can understand when someone who is not a professional makes a claim like that. However, as one, I expect more than just a statement. Please provide the 3 best references that you believe support that statement.
“This was the first time in U.S. healthcare history that an official diagnosis was decided by popular vote rather then by scientific validation ”
this is not true. There was a growing body of research indicating homosexuality was not a disorder. And the research since 1974 has also supported the decision.
As for the vote: Did Dr. Cummings (or anyone else claiming the change was by “popular vote” ) produce a copy of the ballot? Did he specify who asked for a vote of the membership? Did he mention if this vote was held before or after the Board had already decided to remove homosexuality from the DSM?
I’m not really sure where this whole thread has taken us so I’m just going to restate the obvious: people can change…let them.
George – I have compared the repressed memory scandal to reparative therapy. There are several parallels. Reparative therapy has very little empirical backing but is based on psychoanalysis as was repressed memory therapy. Psychoanalysis is resistant to testing because the concepts change with the client and the therapist. Some behaviors can mean two things at once to analysts. Analysts believe they can inferred past events from present behavior which is exactly what repressed memory therapists and reparative therapists do. Both therapists tend to use their experience versus research. They also rely on several cases to divine a general trend.
Therapists can do good things and treatment may fail. I understand the concept, however, I would say that the therapist did not successfully help his/her client. The point is to do the right kind of good things at the right time. Society demands a better answer than ‘I followed my protocols correctly and did good things.’
Nick Cummings is a mentor to me and a good friend. I have his book and have interviewed him several times and written about him in the national press. One of my great puzzles is that Nick has not written against reparative therapy. I know he believes that therapy can assist a small number to alter sexuality (about 13% from the numbers he gave me) but he does not think that reparative drive theory explains homosexuality in general. Like Nick I think a small percentage of men and women who engage in homosexual behavior are basically straight or bisexual and therapy may help them realize a more heterosexual adjustment.
_______________
Warren–I’ve not associated reparative therapy with psychoanalysis where “free association” and ” dream analysis” are part of the treatment sequence. The people I know in this field advise me that they practice psychodynamic psychotherapy, not psychoanalysis, and that scientific evidence supports the efficacy/effectiveness of this approach.
Your comment, “The point is to do the right kind of good things at the right time. Society demands a better answer than, ‘I followed my protocols correctly and did good things'”, I find confusing. What do you mean by “the right kind of good things at the right time”? Is there a wrong kind of a good thing? Is there a wrong time to do something right? Also saying,” Society demands a better answer than ‘I followed my protocols correctly and did good things'”, seems to be demeaning towards mental health practitioners in all fields. In clinical work we do not follow protocols (i.e., cookie-cutter set of rules). Most clinicians are well trained, and when working with individuals make clinical judgements informed by state-of-the-art theories–not protocols.
Dr. Cummings supports a person’s right to determine their own therapeutic goals, and select a theripist who will aid them in the endeavor to attain those goals. He opposes efforts by gay activist to prohibit the availability of psychotherapeutic services designed to ameliorate same sex attractions. His reasoning behind this is that it violates client self-determination. He reminds us that the professional data demonstrates treatments to change sexual preferences can be effective. Also, it should be noted that “Destructive Trends…” has a listing of treatments to avoid. Reparative therapy is not listed among them. In fact, reparative therapy is not memtioned anywhere in the book (Wright, Cummings, p. xxx, p. 209).
Your mentor is in agreement with homosexuality being removed from the DSM. However, he reveals a shocking revelation. The removal of homosexuality from the diagnostic mamual was the result of political correctness not scientific inquiry. Those psychiatrists who opposed its removal were demonized or threatened rather then scientifically refuted. To resolve the conflict the matter was put to a vote of the entire APA membership. This was the first time in U.S. healthcare history that an official diagnosis was decided by popular vote rather then by scientific validation (Wright, Cummings, p.9).
This is truly scandalous. The general public believes that the APA’s decision flowed from scientific evidenced. It did not. It was based on politically correct verbiage. An analogy to this would be doctors of veterinarian medicine allowing PETA to decide the contents of their diagnostic manual, and dictate to veterinarians how to conduct their practice. The politically correct virus has decimated the social sciences. Who can trust any report from either of the APAs? Are their findings based on confirmed science, or political correctness? Unfortunatly, the virus has now invaded the physical sciences by way of globle warming (Wright, Cummings, pp.5-7).
Reference: Rogers H. Wright & Nicholas A Cummings, eds., “Destructive Trends in Mental Health–The Well-Intentioned Path To Harm”, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, New York. Available at amazon.com
“This was the first time in U.S. healthcare history that an official diagnosis was decided by popular vote rather then by scientific validation ”
this is not true. There was a growing body of research indicating homosexuality was not a disorder. And the research since 1974 has also supported the decision.
As for the vote: Did Dr. Cummings (or anyone else claiming the change was by “popular vote” ) produce a copy of the ballot? Did he specify who asked for a vote of the membership? Did he mention if this vote was held before or after the Board had already decided to remove homosexuality from the DSM?
George – I have compared the repressed memory scandal to reparative therapy. There are several parallels. Reparative therapy has very little empirical backing but is based on psychoanalysis as was repressed memory therapy. Psychoanalysis is resistant to testing because the concepts change with the client and the therapist. Some behaviors can mean two things at once to analysts. Analysts believe they can inferred past events from present behavior which is exactly what repressed memory therapists and reparative therapists do. Both therapists tend to use their experience versus research. They also rely on several cases to divine a general trend.
Therapists can do good things and treatment may fail. I understand the concept, however, I would say that the therapist did not successfully help his/her client. The point is to do the right kind of good things at the right time. Society demands a better answer than ‘I followed my protocols correctly and did good things.’
Nick Cummings is a mentor to me and a good friend. I have his book and have interviewed him several times and written about him in the national press. One of my great puzzles is that Nick has not written against reparative therapy. I know he believes that therapy can assist a small number to alter sexuality (about 13% from the numbers he gave me) but he does not think that reparative drive theory explains homosexuality in general. Like Nick I think a small percentage of men and women who engage in homosexual behavior are basically straight or bisexual and therapy may help them realize a more heterosexual adjustment.
_______________
Warren–I’ve not associated reparative therapy with psychoanalysis where “free association” and ” dream analysis” are part of the treatment sequence. The people I know in this field advise me that they practice psychodynamic psychotherapy, not psychoanalysis, and that scientific evidence supports the efficacy/effectiveness of this approach.
Your comment, “The point is to do the right kind of good things at the right time. Society demands a better answer than, ‘I followed my protocols correctly and did good things'”, I find confusing. What do you mean by “the right kind of good things at the right time”? Is there a wrong kind of a good thing? Is there a wrong time to do something right? Also saying,” Society demands a better answer than ‘I followed my protocols correctly and did good things'”, seems to be demeaning towards mental health practitioners in all fields. In clinical work we do not follow protocols (i.e., cookie-cutter set of rules). Most clinicians are well trained, and when working with individuals make clinical judgements informed by state-of-the-art theories–not protocols.
Dr. Cummings supports a person’s right to determine their own therapeutic goals, and select a theripist who will aid them in the endeavor to attain those goals. He opposes efforts by gay activist to prohibit the availability of psychotherapeutic services designed to ameliorate same sex attractions. His reasoning behind this is that it violates client self-determination. He reminds us that the professional data demonstrates treatments to change sexual preferences can be effective. Also, it should be noted that “Destructive Trends…” has a listing of treatments to avoid. Reparative therapy is not listed among them. In fact, reparative therapy is not memtioned anywhere in the book (Wright, Cummings, p. xxx, p. 209).
Your mentor is in agreement with homosexuality being removed from the DSM. However, he reveals a shocking revelation. The removal of homosexuality from the diagnostic mamual was the result of political correctness not scientific inquiry. Those psychiatrists who opposed its removal were demonized or threatened rather then scientifically refuted. To resolve the conflict the matter was put to a vote of the entire APA membership. This was the first time in U.S. healthcare history that an official diagnosis was decided by popular vote rather then by scientific validation (Wright, Cummings, p.9).
This is truly scandalous. The general public believes that the APA’s decision flowed from scientific evidenced. It did not. It was based on politically correct verbiage. An analogy to this would be doctors of veterinarian medicine allowing PETA to decide the contents of their diagnostic manual, and dictate to veterinarians how to conduct their practice. The politically correct virus has decimated the social sciences. Who can trust any report from either of the APAs? Are their findings based on confirmed science, or political correctness? Unfortunatly, the virus has now invaded the physical sciences by way of globle warming (Wright, Cummings, pp.5-7).
Reference: Rogers H. Wright & Nicholas A Cummings, eds., “Destructive Trends in Mental Health–The Well-Intentioned Path To Harm”, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, New York. Available at amazon.com
Thank you to everyone who is participating
William,
I like this comparison:
and will probably be stealing it in the future 🙂
Madison, if you disagree, then you disagree. It hasn’t been proved that deliberate attempts to change people’s sexual orientation never work, nor do I see how it ever could be proved, but the evidence that they do work is no better than the evidence that, for example, Christian Science or “spirit healing” works – if, indeed, it is even as good. People who are considering following any program to change their sexual orientation have a right to know that; only then can they be in a position to make an informed decision on whether the game is worth the candle. If they still decide that it is, then that is fine. But I would make two important provisos. The first is that such activities should be rigorously restricted to consenting adults; under no circumstances should any such treatment be practised on minors. The second is that no pressure of any kind should ever be put on anyone to submit to such “therapies”.
Madison, absolute certainty about very few things is given to us in this life. Probably few of us can say that we have never had to change our opinions on things of which we had previously considered ourselves to be really sure. The weight of the evidence at present is such that I’m as sure as I can be that attempts to change people’s sexual orientation have, at most, minuscule chances of success. It’s not inconceivable that I could have reason at some time in the future to modify that judgment, but to date no such reason has come to my attention.
Nothing’s in it for me. I just don’t like to see people being cheated and deceived into wasting not only money but also precious years of their lives on a wild-goose chase. If they’re determined to be taken in, that’s up to them, but they won’t do it as the result of any advice or encouragement from me.
It depends on what you mean by progress. Perhaps you regard the kind of “change” described by Alan Chambers as progress. I don’t. Or not, at any rate, as progress worth making.
I do think that some of those who promise “change” are practising fraud, and that they know that they are, but have managed to tell themselves that it’s not “really” fraud. Others fully believe in what they are doing, although they are thoroughly misguided. But the psychology of fraud and self-deception is very complex. The categories of deceiver and deceived seem in theory to be clear cut, but in practice they shade into one another in a very curious way.
Just as many can attest to the value of angel therapy, astrotherapy, aromatherapy, magnet therapy, reincarnation therapy, ear candling, psychic surgery, the Bates Method (“better sight without glasses”), crystal healing, and just about any other form of quackery that you care to think of.
Many years ago the Victorian historian Lord Acton wrote as follows:
Replace the word “supernatural” in the above passage with “ex-gay”, and I think that you have a very fair summary of the strength of the evidence for the efficacy of attempts to change sexual orientation. Acton does indeed stipulate “if” in his letter, but whatever one’s verdict may be on the evidence for the supernatural in general, I think it can fairly be said that the “if” stage in the matter of the ex-gay phenomenon has long come and gone.
Thank you to everyone who is participating
William,
I like this comparison:
and will probably be stealing it in the future 🙂
Madison, if you disagree, then you disagree. It hasn’t been proved that deliberate attempts to change people’s sexual orientation never work, nor do I see how it ever could be proved, but the evidence that they do work is no better than the evidence that, for example, Christian Science or “spirit healing” works – if, indeed, it is even as good. People who are considering following any program to change their sexual orientation have a right to know that; only then can they be in a position to make an informed decision on whether the game is worth the candle. If they still decide that it is, then that is fine. But I would make two important provisos. The first is that such activities should be rigorously restricted to consenting adults; under no circumstances should any such treatment be practised on minors. The second is that no pressure of any kind should ever be put on anyone to submit to such “therapies”.
Madison, absolute certainty about very few things is given to us in this life. Probably few of us can say that we have never had to change our opinions on things of which we had previously considered ourselves to be really sure. The weight of the evidence at present is such that I’m as sure as I can be that attempts to change people’s sexual orientation have, at most, minuscule chances of success. It’s not inconceivable that I could have reason at some time in the future to modify that judgment, but to date no such reason has come to my attention.
Nothing’s in it for me. I just don’t like to see people being cheated and deceived into wasting not only money but also precious years of their lives on a wild-goose chase. If they’re determined to be taken in, that’s up to them, but they won’t do it as the result of any advice or encouragement from me.
It depends on what you mean by progress. Perhaps you regard the kind of “change” described by Alan Chambers as progress. I don’t. Or not, at any rate, as progress worth making.
I do think that some of those who promise “change” are practising fraud, and that they know that they are, but have managed to tell themselves that it’s not “really” fraud. Others fully believe in what they are doing, although they are thoroughly misguided. But the psychology of fraud and self-deception is very complex. The categories of deceiver and deceived seem in theory to be clear cut, but in practice they shade into one another in a very curious way.
Just as many can attest to the value of angel therapy, astrotherapy, aromatherapy, magnet therapy, reincarnation therapy, ear candling, psychic surgery, the Bates Method (“better sight without glasses”), crystal healing, and just about any other form of quackery that you care to think of.
Many years ago the Victorian historian Lord Acton wrote as follows:
Replace the word “supernatural” in the above passage with “ex-gay”, and I think that you have a very fair summary of the strength of the evidence for the efficacy of attempts to change sexual orientation. Acton does indeed stipulate “if” in his letter, but whatever one’s verdict may be on the evidence for the supernatural in general, I think it can fairly be said that the “if” stage in the matter of the ex-gay phenomenon has long come and gone.
Madison# ~ Jun 23, 2011 at 1:40 pm
‘The gay agenda benefits from the narrower definition. The heterosexual affirming agenda benefits from the broader definition. ”
Perhaps, however it was not gay rights activists who created the narrower definition of change (i.e. change means change from gay to straight). It was groups like NARTH and Exodus that claimed gays, through therapy, could become straight. And others used those claims to justify discriminatory laws against gays. It was only after exposing those claims to be false did the meaning of “change” start changing.
“Maybe think about falling head over hearls madly in love with someone, spending a dozen terrific years together and then breaking up. Ken, jayhuck, et al would have to argue either you can never love again, or if you think about your previous lover for a split-second you’re living the lie or some other silliness like that. Obviously ludicrous. But that’s what they argue.”
You were asking about examples of false assumptions you’ve made, well this is a big one. I have NEVER argued this (and neither has Jayhuck) or anything remotely like it.
I disagree. I don’t think that is supported by the facts. I think it’s wishful thinking.
No doubt about it. Practically all forms of counseling can be harmful. As can crossing the street. Total red herring. Next question, please.
Even though you aren’t really sure? Why bother stating as fact something that is mere opinion? What’s in it for you? The chances of progress are much higher than “miniscule”. I don’t think that is disputable.
Who do you think is practicing fraud? That’d be quite an accusation. Sounds like baseless rhetoric to me. I’m not going to defend the spiritual because I am not spiritual. What would you say to the secular SOCE then?
Your whole position boils down to the inaccuracy that SOCE don’t work. We know to be false as many can attest. Does it work all the time? No. Is it easy? No. Can people change to their satisfaction? Unqualified, yes.
Do you have anything else?
Madison, it does occasionally happen that people’s orientation spontaneously changes from homosexual to heterosexual and vice versa, but we don’t know why or how this happens. It occurs more often in women, far more seldom in men. That’s fine by me. But attempts to make it happen are, at best, likely to prove futile.
You seem to admit that “therapy” designed to change people’s sexual orientation can be harmful, but you speak of the risks that we all take every day. It all boils down to whether the goal which one is pursuing is sufficiently important and sufficiently likely of attainment to make the risk and trouble worthwhile. In this case my answer is that it isn’t. But each person must make his or her own decision on that. If someone decides to seek “therapy” to change their sexual orientation, they have every right to do so, and I wouldn’t try to prevent them, but that their chances of success are minuscule should not be concealed from them; it certainly won’t be concealed by me.
Do you feel those who assist such people are quacks or immoral or worse (like TWO/EGW/BTB do)?
I’m not sure that “assist” is the correct word to use here, but let that pass. I strongly suspect that some of them do indeed know that they are practising fraud, but that others sincerely believe in what they’re doing. What of it? I don’t doubt that most of the practitioners of other quack therapies also sincerely believe in what they’re doing, but that doesn’t stop it from being quackery. I’m sure that the mediums who stand up every Sunday afternoon on the platform in my local Spiritualist church sincerely believe that the messages that they give to people in the congregation are transmitted from those who have “passed over” and are now in the Spirit World, but I see no convincing evidence that this is so. But as so often with these fringe movements, the precise line between rogue and dupe is a difficult one to draw.
Madison# ~ Jun 23, 2011 at 1:40 pm
‘The gay agenda benefits from the narrower definition. The heterosexual affirming agenda benefits from the broader definition. ”
Perhaps, however it was not gay rights activists who created the narrower definition of change (i.e. change means change from gay to straight). It was groups like NARTH and Exodus that claimed gays, through therapy, could become straight. And others used those claims to justify discriminatory laws against gays. It was only after exposing those claims to be false did the meaning of “change” start changing.
“Maybe think about falling head over hearls madly in love with someone, spending a dozen terrific years together and then breaking up. Ken, jayhuck, et al would have to argue either you can never love again, or if you think about your previous lover for a split-second you’re living the lie or some other silliness like that. Obviously ludicrous. But that’s what they argue.”
You were asking about examples of false assumptions you’ve made, well this is a big one. I have NEVER argued this (and neither has Jayhuck) or anything remotely like it.
So forgetting all of the minutiae you want to parse and the personalities you want to belittle, do you think people can change to lead a satisfying non gay life? Do you think that’s a reasonable pursuit for those who wish to pursue it (knowing that it and many types of therapy can lead to “harm”)(as can crossing the street, as can eating sugar, as can almost anything in life)? Do you feel some need to discourage or prevent folks from making that decision? Do you feel those who assist such people are quacks or immoral or worse (like TWO/EGW/BTB do)? Tell me then, what are your motivations here?
Madison, I suggest that you reply to what I actually wrote. I never mentioned 100% – or any other figure. But since you have, I am willing to accept that there are plenty of people who could reasonably be described as heterosexual, but who are not 100% heterosexual, since they experience occasional, insignificant homosexual attractions. In the highly improbable event that I wished to become heterosexual and succeeded in becoming like them, I would consider that good enough to be called “the real thing”.
But I was explicitly referring to the sort of “change” that Alan Chambers describes: “And so every single morning – this is a ritual for me – I wake up and I say, ‘Dear Lord, I can’t make it today without you. I choose to deny what comes naturally to me.’ ”
And he admitted that this was what others pursuing the “ex-gay” quest could very well have to settle for. Indeed, as I have already said, he admitted that he wasn’t sure that he’d ever met an “ex-gay” for whom this wasn’t the case. If that’s what “a satisfying non gay life” looks like, then I wouldn’t advise anyone else to touch it with a barge-pole. But chacun à son goût.
As for your suggestion that I want to obfuscate the meaning of change, that’s simply ludicrous. Obfuscating the meaning of change is precisely what the ex-gay movement does and has been doing for years, and it’s what I want them to stop doing, because it’s cruel and deceitful.
Well, Madison, that makes no sense at all. It seems to imply that the alleged gay agenda is some kind of living, self-existent entity that is capable of taking thought and therefore of looking out for itself so that it can do what it wants. Which puts me in mind of Alice’s reaction when the Cheshire Cat vanished slowly, finally leaving only its grin behind.
“Well, I’ve often seen a cat without a grin,” thought Alice; “but a grin without a cat! It’s the most curious thing I ever saw in all my life!”
– LEWIS CARROLL, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland
That’s just silly. Why is this the only situation where progress is inadequate.
Change sufficient to lead a satisfying non gay life.
If you want to quibble with that fine. But I don’t care to hear any more of your complaining that it must be 100% or nothing. That’s not useful to anyone except the gay lobby. It sure as heck is not useful to the participants. Remember them? It’s obvious that you want to obfuscate the meaning of change to suit your arguments so I’m not even sure why I’m following up.
@ Madison
You take Teresa to task for saying that she’s not sure what “change” means. Well, I’m not sure what “change” means either – at least not when it’s used by advocates of the ex-gay movement. Does it mean that you’re no longer homosexual and that you’ve become heterosexual? That’s certainly the impression given by the adverts for ex-gay ministries and by the titles of many ex-gay books. But dig a little deeper and you find that it doesn’t necessarily mean that at all.
Take, for example, Alan Chambers, the current president of Exodus International. He says that he’s “changed”. But during the week before the “Love Won Out” conference in February 2007, Chambers told the Los Angeles Times that he wasn’t sure that he’d ever met an “ex-gay” who ceased to “struggle” with same-sex attractions – and he made it clear at the conference that that included himself. He said that he used to get angry with people who say that he is “in denial” but that he now agrees that they are more or less right. He said “I live a life of denial” and “I choose to deny what comes naturally to me,” and that he has to pray to God every morning when he gets up to keep him in this state of denial. Do genuinely heterosexual men have to do that? Please tell me. As Jim Burroway very nicely put it, “It depends on how the meaning of the word ‘change’ changes.”
Of one thing I am quite certain. If ever I decided that I didn’t like being gay any more and wanted to change – a highly unlikely contingency, I admit – I wouldn’t be interested in the kind of “change” exemplified by Alan Chambers. I’d want the real thing or nothing.
If “these folks” have genuinely become ex-gay – no matter what that is supposed to mean – then presumably they need no further help, having arrived at where they want to be. It’s not clear, therefore, that there is any meaningful sense in which the major professional groups can be said to have abandoned them.
@ George Ribble. The obvious interpretation of the term “ex-gays” is people who have previously been homosexual in orientation, but are now either (1) heterosexual, (2) bi-sexual or (3) asexual. But your insistence that they are “another sexual minority” [emphasis added by me] implies that the term means none of the above. What, then, does it mean exactly? You still haven’t told us.
Teresa, please point out the false assumptions. I believe all of my assumptions have a sound basis and a high degree of accuracy. But I’m happy to review any specifics.
The gay agenda benefits from the narrower definition. The heterosexual affirming agenda benefits from the broader definition. But you know who else benefits from the broader definition? The subject. We frequently forget about the actual people involved in a rush to put forth our own frequently political views. Which kind of makes sense because the gay agenda is looking out first for itself and only secondarily for the people involved. That’s not the case for the heterosexual-affirmers. They are looking out primarily for the subjects since there’s really nothing in it for us.
Maybe think about falling head over hearls madly in love with someone, spending a dozen terrific years together and then breaking up. Ken, jayhuck, et al would have to argue either you can never love again, or if you think about your previous lover for a split-second you’re living the lie or some other silliness like that. Obviously ludicrous. But that’s what they argue.
Madison, it does occasionally happen that people’s orientation spontaneously changes from homosexual to heterosexual and vice versa, but we don’t know why or how this happens. It occurs more often in women, far more seldom in men. That’s fine by me. But attempts to make it happen are, at best, likely to prove futile.
You seem to admit that “therapy” designed to change people’s sexual orientation can be harmful, but you speak of the risks that we all take every day. It all boils down to whether the goal which one is pursuing is sufficiently important and sufficiently likely of attainment to make the risk and trouble worthwhile. In this case my answer is that it isn’t. But each person must make his or her own decision on that. If someone decides to seek “therapy” to change their sexual orientation, they have every right to do so, and I wouldn’t try to prevent them, but that their chances of success are minuscule should not be concealed from them; it certainly won’t be concealed by me.
Do you feel those who assist such people are quacks or immoral or worse (like TWO/EGW/BTB do)?
I’m not sure that “assist” is the correct word to use here, but let that pass. I strongly suspect that some of them do indeed know that they are practising fraud, but that others sincerely believe in what they’re doing. What of it? I don’t doubt that most of the practitioners of other quack therapies also sincerely believe in what they’re doing, but that doesn’t stop it from being quackery. I’m sure that the mediums who stand up every Sunday afternoon on the platform in my local Spiritualist church sincerely believe that the messages that they give to people in the congregation are transmitted from those who have “passed over” and are now in the Spirit World, but I see no convincing evidence that this is so. But as so often with these fringe movements, the precise line between rogue and dupe is a difficult one to draw.
So forgetting all of the minutiae you want to parse and the personalities you want to belittle, do you think people can change to lead a satisfying non gay life? Do you think that’s a reasonable pursuit for those who wish to pursue it (knowing that it and many types of therapy can lead to “harm”)(as can crossing the street, as can eating sugar, as can almost anything in life)? Do you feel some need to discourage or prevent folks from making that decision? Do you feel those who assist such people are quacks or immoral or worse (like TWO/EGW/BTB do)? Tell me then, what are your motivations here?
George, on the other hand, do you know of anyone in NARTH who has discredited George Rekers work? Who has distanced themselves from Rekers; especially, after the rent-a-boy incident of Rekers? And, certainly, I know the usual retort about an ‘unfortunate’ happening, etc. However, if Rekers couldn’t ‘fix’ himself, how is anything he’s done credible? “Physician heal thyself” comes to mind.
Even more disturbing about Rekers and NARTH’s (Nicolosi) continued support of him is Rekers continued use of Kirk as proof of ‘change’, well after Kirk’s death, when he had to be aware of the failure of the therapy. This strikes me as very similar to John Money and The David Reimer Story, which preceded Rekers work by only 2 years, if I have my dateline correct.
I’m all for individuals seeking any sort of therapy they desire. What I find dismaying is the misrepresenting, skewing, and downright twisting of research facts by people in the sciences.
___________________________
Teresa–George Rekers resigned from the NARTH Board one year ago. Since resigning he has had no contact with NARTH.
@ Madison
You take Teresa to task for saying that she’s not sure what “change” means. Well, I’m not sure what “change” means either – at least not when it’s used by advocates of the ex-gay movement. Does it mean that you’re no longer homosexual and that you’ve become heterosexual? That’s certainly the impression given by the adverts for ex-gay ministries and by the titles of many ex-gay books. But dig a little deeper and you find that it doesn’t necessarily mean that at all.
Take, for example, Alan Chambers, the current president of Exodus International. He says that he’s “changed”. But during the week before the “Love Won Out” conference in February 2007, Chambers told the Los Angeles Times that he wasn’t sure that he’d ever met an “ex-gay” who ceased to “struggle” with same-sex attractions – and he made it clear at the conference that that included himself. He said that he used to get angry with people who say that he is “in denial” but that he now agrees that they are more or less right. He said “I live a life of denial” and “I choose to deny what comes naturally to me,” and that he has to pray to God every morning when he gets up to keep him in this state of denial. Do genuinely heterosexual men have to do that? Please tell me. As Jim Burroway very nicely put it, “It depends on how the meaning of the word ‘change’ changes.”
Of one thing I am quite certain. If ever I decided that I didn’t like being gay any more and wanted to change – a highly unlikely contingency, I admit – I wouldn’t be interested in the kind of “change” exemplified by Alan Chambers. I’d want the real thing or nothing.
If “these folks” have genuinely become ex-gay – no matter what that is supposed to mean – then presumably they need no further help, having arrived at where they want to be. It’s not clear, therefore, that there is any meaningful sense in which the major professional groups can be said to have abandoned them.
@ George Ribble. The obvious interpretation of the term “ex-gays” is people who have previously been homosexual in orientation, but are now either (1) heterosexual, (2) bi-sexual or (3) asexual. But your insistence that they are “another sexual minority” [emphasis added by me] implies that the term means none of the above. What, then, does it mean exactly? You still haven’t told us.
Madison, perhaps you could tell me what ‘change’ means? I’ve heard ex-gays tells me that now they’re heterosexuals with no same sex attractions. Others have told me that they’re heterosexuals with continued same sex attractions. Others have said that they are not heterosexual, but they have chosen to live chastely. Still others, have said that they’re not quite sure where they’re at in their journey; and, perhaps they’d like to be in committed same-sex relationships. Madison, I’m not playing word games here with you. Perhaps, you know many gays and ex-gays and the words are very clear to you as to meaning. They are not for me.
Madison, at this point, I have a satisfying life as a homosexual. I have chosen for myself to live chastely. At one point, I would have said that I had unwanted same sex attraction, now I feel I’ve been gifted. That I would consider ‘change’.
As we’re all wont to do, Madison, I think you’ve made some assumptions about homosexuals on this Blog that just aren’t true. I’m sure, however, that I do the same thing on many occasions myself. It’s just the condition of being human.
Madison# ~ Jun 21, 2011 at 10:38 pm
“Ken you realize that very little of what you write is accurate?”
I write quite a bit here. Claiming what I’ve written is inaccurate, doesn’t make it true.
“Who knows exactly Ryan Kendall came into therapy. ”
this sentence doesn’t quite parse. Perhaps you can re-state it.
“Maybe it wasn’t obvious that he was there involuntarily. ”
hmmm. you really want to defend Nicolosi by claiming he wasn’t competent enough to realize Ryan didn’t want to be in therapy?
“Maybe Nicolosi’s practices have changed. ”
And here you want to play the semantic game of: “well the statements were about future tense not past tense, therefore it wasn’t a lie”.
I cited the quotes that lead me to the conclusion that Nicolosi lied. I stand by my statement.
Oh wow, Teresa, I thought George’s insight which is apparently first or at most second-hand was interesting and useful. I’m not sure what opinions you are complaining about. Very few of the folks here that I can tell have much more to go on their personal experiences, what they read in various places and their intellect. I could express that evolution would not be kind to homosexuality and of course you would disagree and call it a mere opinion. It makes for an almost pointless conversation.
As pointless is splitting hairs on all the terminology used by both sides to obfuscate truth. It’s hard for me to believe that you aren’t sure what “change” means but there you have it. Or the reality of someone with unwanted same sex attraction going on to live a satisfying non-gay life. Again that makes for an unenlightening discussion.
But I do understand that you all are vested in the outcome so I suppose it’s not entirely shocking.
Mmm, why is it Madison that you can voice your opinions; but, those of us who disagree, in part, with what you say, are considered to have shouted you out?
Madison, I believe that ex-gays do exist. However, I have no idea what that actually means when a person tells me this. My initial inclination was to think that these persons were telling me that they once were homosexual and they are now heterosexual. But, much to my dismay, I’ve found out the term ex-gay means many different things to different people. It’s become a useless term, deliberately ambiguous, I’m afraid, in my opinion. It’s a political term from a faith belief perspective.
Ironic, isn’t it, that the word ‘gay’ is spoken of by conservative Christians as a political term, which we can’t identify with … but, the word ‘ex-gay’ has come to be just as political a word as ‘gay’. I’m afraid it’s more of “what pot is calling the kettle black”.
George, thank you so much for your contributions here. Unfortunately, this side of the equation is sadly under-represented and tends to get quickly shouted down despite its merits.
Ken, you realize that very little of what you write is accurate? Who knows exactly Ryan Kendall came into therapy. Maybe it wasn’t obvious that he was there involuntarily. Maybe Nicolosi’s practices have changed. Calling him a liar on this point is just dumb and reveals your inability to comment credibly on this topic.
This passage bears repeating and is I feel totally and shamefully indisputable:
“Like it or not, ex-gays do exist. For some reason the major professional groups have abandoned these folks.”
Warren, great point, often overlooked in results.
BTW, can a therapist tell the orientation of a client somewhere at the beginning of the process, so as to verify what the initial diagnosis actually is? Also, how do we really know if clients actually experience what they say they experience at the end of their therapeutic venture? Do clinicians do physiological testing on the clients, or is it just a clients word of mouth statement? Is there any follow-up by anyone to see if 5,10,15,20 years later what these persons are doing versus what they said at termination of therapy?
Warren–I understand the significance of the Rekeres debacles. They are scandalous. Equally scandalous was a psychotherapeutic procedure once used by certain psychologists who stated that repressed incest memories could be recovered through their special techniques. This therapy sent many innocent fathers to prison because some daughters receiving this treatment accused their fathers of sexually moslesing them. In time it was established that the therapist did not discover those abuses, but rather created those traumatic memories into their patieny’s mind. Many innocent fathers were successfully prosceuted for having incestuous relationships with their minor daughters, and were sent to prison. After this fraudulent therapy was revealed, the judicial system spent nearly a decade releasing fathers from prison and punishing practitioners who had implanted falsae memories into their client’s mind (Wright, Cummings, pp. 15-16).
Another scandle occured when the American Psychological Association was censured by the U.S. Congress for publishing in one of its journals a study of college students who were molested as children. The publication took the position that these experiences had no harmful effects on these students. This ignited a firestorm of protest which resulted in the censure by unanimous vote in both the House and Senate. For the record, the APA is the only professional society in American history to be censured by the U.S. Congress (Wright, Cummings, p. xvii).
Two of the above scandles came out of organized psychology. All of the above scandles are atypical. Nearly all mental health professionals, of whatever discipline, are honest, hard-working, shoulder-to-the-wheel practitioners who want the best for their clients. To aid them in this challenge, they rely on state of the art theories to give them understanding and guidance. None-the-less, whichever theory of therapy they choose, it will have a track record showing periods of sucessess and periods of failure. Tragically, some of those failures will result in a suicied. This is not necessarily the fault of the therapist. A practitioner can do all the right things, and the treatment may still fail.
Your comment that I have the attitude of “trust us, we are the professionals” baffles me. I can’t understand how that connects to me.
I used the Doyle piece to illuminate (1) the unconscious bias so common in the national media. The term gay has no quotation marks. The term ex-gay does. (2) For some people treatment works. Mr. Doyle stated that he has been strait nearly five years. I am fully aware of the relaps problem within all areas of the helping profession. When I was employed at an inpatient psychiatric hospital, the psychiatry department offered continuing education workshops every week. They brought in experts locally, and from other parts of the country. On more then one occasion we would hear from a guest speaker who advised us that within the U.S. the success rate for hospitalized individuals was as follow: 1/3 would be admitted once, get better, and after discharge would never be readmitted again; 1/3 who were admitted would get better, but return to the hospital sometime after discharge; 1/3 who were admitted would either not improve, or get worst, and would always need residential care. In my own experience at our hospital I found the workshop info to be rather accurate. Some patients that we discharged we never saw again. Others would return in a year or two. Some like clock work. Still others would not get any better, or become worst no matter what we did. Those poor folks would either end up on a chronic ward, or be discharged to an assisted living group home situation. So, I’m aquanted with the replas situation in the helping field. I wish Mr. Doyle all the best.
Reference: Rogers H. Wright and Nicholas A. Cummings, eds., “Destructive Trends in Mental Health–The Well-Intentioned Path To Harm”, Taylor & Frances Group, New York). Warren, this is a very good read. It should be required reading for your students. It’s available at amazon.com.
George – I have compared the repressed memory scandal to reparative therapy. There are several parallels. Reparative therapy has very little empirical backing but is based on psychoanalysis as was repressed memory therapy. Psychoanalysis is resistant to testing because the concepts change with the client and the therapist. Some behaviors can mean two things at once to analysts. Analysts believe they can inferred past events from present behavior which is exactly what repressed memory therapists and reparative therapists do. Both therapists tend to use their experience versus research. They also rely on several cases to divine a general trend.
Therapists can do good things and treatment may fail. I understand the concept, however, I would say that the therapist did not successfully help his/her client. The point is to do the right kind of good things at the right time. Society demands a better answer than ‘I followed my protocols correctly and did good things.’
Nick Cummings is a mentor to me and a good friend. I have his book and have interviewed him several times and written about him in the national press. One of my great puzzles is that Nick has not written against reparative therapy. I know he believes that therapy can assist a small number to alter sexuality (about 13% from the numbers he gave me) but he does not think that reparative drive theory explains homosexuality in general. Like Nick I think a small percentage of men and women who engage in homosexual behavior are basically straight or bisexual and therapy may help them realize a more heterosexual adjustment.
Madison, perhaps you could tell me what ‘change’ means? I’ve heard ex-gays tells me that now they’re heterosexuals with no same sex attractions. Others have told me that they’re heterosexuals with continued same sex attractions. Others have said that they are not heterosexual, but they have chosen to live chastely. Still others, have said that they’re not quite sure where they’re at in their journey; and, perhaps they’d like to be in committed same-sex relationships. Madison, I’m not playing word games here with you. Perhaps, you know many gays and ex-gays and the words are very clear to you as to meaning. They are not for me.
Madison, at this point, I have a satisfying life as a homosexual. I have chosen for myself to live chastely. At one point, I would have said that I had unwanted same sex attraction, now I feel I’ve been gifted. That I would consider ‘change’.
As we’re all wont to do, Madison, I think you’ve made some assumptions about homosexuals on this Blog that just aren’t true. I’m sure, however, that I do the same thing on many occasions myself. It’s just the condition of being human.
Oh wow, Teresa, I thought George’s insight which is apparently first or at most second-hand was interesting and useful. I’m not sure what opinions you are complaining about. Very few of the folks here that I can tell have much more to go on their personal experiences, what they read in various places and their intellect. I could express that evolution would not be kind to homosexuality and of course you would disagree and call it a mere opinion. It makes for an almost pointless conversation.
As pointless is splitting hairs on all the terminology used by both sides to obfuscate truth. It’s hard for me to believe that you aren’t sure what “change” means but there you have it. Or the reality of someone with unwanted same sex attraction going on to live a satisfying non-gay life. Again that makes for an unenlightening discussion.
But I do understand that you all are vested in the outcome so I suppose it’s not entirely shocking.
Warren, great point, often overlooked in results.
BTW, can a therapist tell the orientation of a client somewhere at the beginning of the process, so as to verify what the initial diagnosis actually is? Also, how do we really know if clients actually experience what they say they experience at the end of their therapeutic venture? Do clinicians do physiological testing on the clients, or is it just a clients word of mouth statement? Is there any follow-up by anyone to see if 5,10,15,20 years later what these persons are doing versus what they said at termination of therapy?
George Ribble# ~ Jun 20, 2011 at 6:53 pm
“However, we never knowingly abandon anyone to fend for themselves.”
the professionals aren’t saying “fend for yourselves” they are saying that there is no proven method that will make a gay person straight and they will not try. However, they are willing to help a gay person deal with the issues that make them want to be straight.
George Ribble# ~ Jun 20, 2011 at 6:53 pm
“Ken–I read the article you referred me to on VirtueOnline.org. I don’t see how Dr. Nicolosi “has lied”. Can you clarify?”
From the interview:
Ryan Kendall was in treatment involuntarily with Nicolosi for about 1 1/2 years. Nicolosi lied when he said would only treat such a child “for a session or two.”
“I believe that the general public has a clear understanding as to what ex-gay means: one who has left the homosexual life.”
I disagree. Many people unfamiliar with such therapy (less now though thanks to exposes such as the CNN series and the Boxturtle series) would assume that “ex-gay” means no longer gay, i.e. heterosexual. And specifically what do you mean by “the homosexual life?”
“Mr. Doyle’ letter did not cite the source of the Superior Court ruling. Since the editors at the “Post” did not rebuttal this piece of information, I took it at face value.”
Well, I can find no such ruling. In fact, I wasn’t able to find any rulings dealing with sexual orientation and protected classes in 2009 from the DC courts. And nothing at all dealing with “ex-gays”
Throbert: Lady B says” Ignorance is like a delicate exotic fruit. Touch it, and the bloom is gone.” One of my favorite plays and Algy was one of my favorite parts.
BTW. Has anyone pointed out how very effeminate Rekers himself is?
Ken–I read the article you referred me to on VirtueOnline.org. I don’t see how Dr. Nicolosi “has lied”. Can you clarify?
I believe that the general public has a clear understanding as to what ex-gay means: one who has left the homosexual life. The person complaining about the quoation marks wasn’t me, but Christopher Doyle. Mr. Doyle stated that he was a former homosexual, and identified himself as ex-gay–his term, not mine. He was upset enough over this issue that he submitted a letter to “The Washington Post”. The “Post” thought it worthy enough to publish.
Mr. Doyle’ letter did not cite the source of the Superior Court ruling. Since the editors at the “Post” did not rebuttal this piece of information, I took it at face value.
“Because in many cases, the claims of no longer being gay, turned out to not be true…”
So what? Relaps is a continuing problem in the helping field. Ask any practitioner. However, we never knowingly abandon anyone to fend for themselves.
George Ribble# ~ Jun 20, 2011 at 6:53 pm
“Ken–I read the article you referred me to on VirtueOnline.org. I don’t see how Dr. Nicolosi “has lied”. Can you clarify?”
From the interview:
Ryan Kendall was in treatment involuntarily with Nicolosi for about 1 1/2 years. Nicolosi lied when he said would only treat such a child “for a session or two.”
“I believe that the general public has a clear understanding as to what ex-gay means: one who has left the homosexual life.”
I disagree. Many people unfamiliar with such therapy (less now though thanks to exposes such as the CNN series and the Boxturtle series) would assume that “ex-gay” means no longer gay, i.e. heterosexual. And specifically what do you mean by “the homosexual life?”
“Mr. Doyle’ letter did not cite the source of the Superior Court ruling. Since the editors at the “Post” did not rebuttal this piece of information, I took it at face value.”
Well, I can find no such ruling. In fact, I wasn’t able to find any rulings dealing with sexual orientation and protected classes in 2009 from the DC courts. And nothing at all dealing with “ex-gays”
Throbert: Lady B says” Ignorance is like a delicate exotic fruit. Touch it, and the bloom is gone.” One of my favorite plays and Algy was one of my favorite parts.
BTW. Has anyone pointed out how very effeminate Rekers himself is?
Ken–I read the article you referred me to on VirtueOnline.org. I don’t see how Dr. Nicolosi “has lied”. Can you clarify?
I believe that the general public has a clear understanding as to what ex-gay means: one who has left the homosexual life. The person complaining about the quoation marks wasn’t me, but Christopher Doyle. Mr. Doyle stated that he was a former homosexual, and identified himself as ex-gay–his term, not mine. He was upset enough over this issue that he submitted a letter to “The Washington Post”. The “Post” thought it worthy enough to publish.
Mr. Doyle’ letter did not cite the source of the Superior Court ruling. Since the editors at the “Post” did not rebuttal this piece of information, I took it at face value.
“Because in many cases, the claims of no longer being gay, turned out to not be true…”
So what? Relaps is a continuing problem in the helping field. Ask any practitioner. However, we never knowingly abandon anyone to fend for themselves.
George: It is, I submit, beyond reasonable dispute that the “therapy” practised by George Rekers on Kirk Murphy did him serious and lasting psychological damage. It interfered with his ability both to come to terms with his natural sexuality and to form human relationships generally, and by the age of eighteen he had already made one suicide attempt. That, in my view, is sufficient condemnation. The further supposition that this damage was also an important, although maybe not sufficient, cause of the state of mind leading to his eventual successful suicide, while it cannot indeed be proved, is by no means an unreasonable one.
By the way, I find your statement that ex-gays are “another sexual minority” slightly curious. People don’t normally categorize any aspect of their lives, whether chosen or not, in terms of what it used to be. If, for instance, I were to change my religion, I would call myself a Presbyterian, Mormon, Buddhist or whatever, not an “ex-Catholic” (even though the description would not be inaccurate). If asked my age, I would not say that I was an “ex-ten-year-old”. If asked my occupation, I would not say that I was an “ex-student”. Are you implying that the sexual orientation of the “sexual minority” whom you call ex-gays is not heterosexual, but something else? If so, what exactly?
George: You are correct that Rekers used a behavioral model. How odd then to hear Nicolosi laud Rekers since he does not use that model. Nicolosi has been using oranges to promote his apples treatment for years
George: It is, I submit, beyond reasonable dispute that the “therapy” practised by George Rekers on Kirk Murphy did him serious and lasting psychological damage. It interfered with his ability both to come to terms with his natural sexuality and to form human relationships generally, and by the age of eighteen he had already made one suicide attempt. That, in my view, is sufficient condemnation. The further supposition that this damage was also an important, although maybe not sufficient, cause of the state of mind leading to his eventual successful suicide, while it cannot indeed be proved, is by no means an unreasonable one.
By the way, I find your statement that ex-gays are “another sexual minority” slightly curious. People don’t normally categorize any aspect of their lives, whether chosen or not, in terms of what it used to be. If, for instance, I were to change my religion, I would call myself a Presbyterian, Mormon, Buddhist or whatever, not an “ex-Catholic” (even though the description would not be inaccurate). If asked my age, I would not say that I was an “ex-ten-year-old”. If asked my occupation, I would not say that I was an “ex-student”. Are you implying that the sexual orientation of the “sexual minority” whom you call ex-gays is not heterosexual, but something else? If so, what exactly?
You’re assuming he made the slightest good-faith effort to do any long-term follow up. Rekers may indeed have been “unaware” of the failure, because he worked tirelessly at keeping himself unaware.
“Ignorance is like a delicate hothouse flower; touch it, and the bloom is gone.”
— Lady Bracknell, The Importance of Being Earnest
George: You are correct that Rekers used a behavioral model. How odd then to hear Nicolosi laud Rekers since he does not use that model. Nicolosi has been using oranges to promote his apples treatment for years
George, on the other hand, do you know of anyone in NARTH who has discredited George Rekers work? Who has distanced themselves from Rekers; especially, after the rent-a-boy incident of Rekers? And, certainly, I know the usual retort about an ‘unfortunate’ happening, etc. However, if Rekers couldn’t ‘fix’ himself, how is anything he’s done credible? “Physician heal thyself” comes to mind.
Even more disturbing about Rekers and NARTH’s (Nicolosi) continued support of him is Rekers continued use of Kirk as proof of ‘change’, well after Kirk’s death, when he had to be aware of the failure of the therapy. This strikes me as very similar to John Money and The David Reimer Story, which preceded Rekers work by only 2 years, if I have my dateline correct.
I’m all for individuals seeking any sort of therapy they desire. What I find dismaying is the misrepresenting, skewing, and downright twisting of research facts by people in the sciences.
William: My comments were only in response to “Sissy Boy Experiment, Part 3–Nicolosi defends reparative therapy”. A point I wanted to get across was that the connection between Kirt Murphy’s suicide and his treatment was, at best, weak. There were many other factors in play that may have triggered the suicide (see David Blakeslee’s post at: the-roots-of-preventing-homosexuality-george-rekers-uncovered-at-boxturtlebulletin). You seem willing to accept this possibility. The balance of your comment concentraits on the therapy offered by George Rekers. His was a behavioral-shock model. I know of no one in NARTH who advocates for a behavioral model like Rekers’. This CNN segment focused on reparative therapy, a psycho-dynamic model. You’re comparing apples to oranges.
You’re assuming he made the slightest good-faith effort to do any long-term follow up. Rekers may indeed have been “unaware” of the failure, because he worked tirelessly at keeping himself unaware.
“Ignorance is like a delicate hothouse flower; touch it, and the bloom is gone.”
— Lady Bracknell, The Importance of Being Earnest
George, on the other hand, do you know of anyone in NARTH who has discredited George Rekers work? Who has distanced themselves from Rekers; especially, after the rent-a-boy incident of Rekers? And, certainly, I know the usual retort about an ‘unfortunate’ happening, etc. However, if Rekers couldn’t ‘fix’ himself, how is anything he’s done credible? “Physician heal thyself” comes to mind.
Even more disturbing about Rekers and NARTH’s (Nicolosi) continued support of him is Rekers continued use of Kirk as proof of ‘change’, well after Kirk’s death, when he had to be aware of the failure of the therapy. This strikes me as very similar to John Money and The David Reimer Story, which preceded Rekers work by only 2 years, if I have my dateline correct.
I’m all for individuals seeking any sort of therapy they desire. What I find dismaying is the misrepresenting, skewing, and downright twisting of research facts by people in the sciences.
William: My comments were only in response to “Sissy Boy Experiment, Part 3–Nicolosi defends reparative therapy”. A point I wanted to get across was that the connection between Kirt Murphy’s suicide and his treatment was, at best, weak. There were many other factors in play that may have triggered the suicide (see David Blakeslee’s post at: the-roots-of-preventing-homosexuality-george-rekers-uncovered-at-boxturtlebulletin). You seem willing to accept this possibility. The balance of your comment concentraits on the therapy offered by George Rekers. His was a behavioral-shock model. I know of no one in NARTH who advocates for a behavioral model like Rekers’. This CNN segment focused on reparative therapy, a psycho-dynamic model. You’re comparing apples to oranges.
Murieann: Use the search function for this blog, you will find a wealth of information relevant to your questions.
George: In my view, you avoid the significance of the Rekers debacles by placing them in the norm – “All therapies have successes and failures.” There are fatal flaws revealed by Rekers personal choices and the fudging of data and objectivity demonstrated by the Murphy case. How do we know any of what Rekers wrote is true? When you have such a discrepant result from what is writting in the literature, how can you trust the literature? If professionals are not appropriately skeptical, we will miss important signs of how wrong we can be. Your reaction is in the category of “trust us, we are the professionals.” Sorry, that is a non-starter.
You may not know that the phrase, I Do Exist in relation to ex-gays was coined by the video documentary that I produced and released in 2004. Two of the five people who said they had changed later said they had not fully changed and one is now living openly gay. Another person divorced her ex-gay husband and has disappeared from public view, having left the church. You believe Doyle because you want to, I assume. I wanted to believe the stories I was being told and did so because they were people from my religious tradition. I was sloppy as a researcher and psychologist. Having given all of this some time, reviewed the big picture and asked the hard questions, I have changed my views.
I was a NARTH award winner in 2002, a member for one year but then refused to join again when I saw the organization up close. I was offered a seat on the board but declined. Eventually, it became clear that there was no flexibility, nor interest in really examining the research or even doing any. At NARTH, science and research are cherry picked and used to further a narrow worldview. If the science doesn’t fit, then it is ignored or attacked.
Elena# ~ Jun 19, 2011 at 1:06 am
“CNN did a great job of manipulating viewers and shaping the production so that others believe that Kendall’s problems were caused by the therapy.”
Many of Kendall’s problems were caused by his therapy. However, his parents where the major cause of his problems. Nicolosi was just an enabler for his parents.
“He is playing the victim and looking blaming others. ”
Ryan Kendall WAS a victim. And he is correct in blaming others, including Nicolosi, for what happened to him.
George Ribble# ~ Jun 17, 2011 at 12:31 pm
“I do not believe that “Sissy Boy Experiment, Part 3? establishes a strong connection between the tragic death by suicide of Kurt Murphy, then living in India, and reparative therapy.”
No it doesn’t. And really only Kirk’s family is making that claim. David Blakeslee posted a list of other significant factors that probably contributed to Kirk’s suicide here:
the-roots-of-preventing-homosexuality-george-rekers-uncovered-at-boxturtlebulletin
“Dr. Nicolosi’s failure to remember Ryan Kendall as a former cliente is not that that unusual. ”
whether Nicolosi remembers Kendall or not isn’t the issue (although, as Timothy has pointed out, a child turning himself in to child services to get away from his parents and therapist seems like a case he should remember). The issue is how Nicolosi treats his patients. And the Kendall case proves Nicolosi has lied about his treatment. In this interview Nicolosi claims he would never treat a child who was only in treatment because his parents forced him into treatment.
“He advises that all therapies are reparative. ”
However, Reparative therapy, as practiced by Nicolosi et. al., refers to a specific type of therapy. A therapy based on an unproven (and many say incorrect) theory on the development of homosexuality.
“put quotation marks around “ex-gay”, but no quotation marks in reference to gay members of the House of Delegates. ”
The general population has a fairly clear understanding of what the term, gay, means. However, “ex-gay” is a term that does not have such a clear understanding. Many have argued this lack of clarity is by design. Further, many others do not believe what the term “ex-gay” implies (a person who is no longer gay) isn’t true in the majority (all) of the cases it is used.
“in 2009 the D.C. Superior Court ruled that ex-gays are a protected sexual orientation class in the Distric of Columbia.”
Do you have a cite for this case?
“For some reason the major professional groups have abandoned these folks.”
Because in many cases, the claims of no longer being gay, turned out to not be true or to be a case of re-defining the word gay. For the record (yet again), I do believe it may be possible for a person’s orientation to change (more likely with women than men), but that such change is extremely rare and that there are no proven therapeutic methods to cause that change.
@ George Ribble
No, certainly such a connection cannot be conclusively proved. But there is no improbability in the supposition. Homophobic abuse – in which category I would certainly include any form of involuntary “treatment” either to “cure” or to prevent homosexuality – is not dissimilar to child sexual abuse, in that it can have serious and lasting repercussions that can be felt years and even decades later. What is beyond reasonable doubt is that the “therapy” that Rekers practised on Kirk Murphy not only failed to stop Kirk from growing up gay but also did him serious and lasting damage. When Kirk was interviewed by Richard Green at the age of eighteen, it emerged that he was attracted by people of the same sex, that he was deeply conflicted over it, that he had already made one suicide attempt, and that Rekers’s “therapy” had instilled in him a fear of appearing feminine which inhibited his ability to make friends. That this was the case is also confirmed by the testimony of Kirk’s brother and sister. That the shadows cast by this were at least a significant factor in the chain of events leading to his tragic end is a proposition that it requires more credulity to reject than to accept.
That certainly wasn’t a choice that was given to poor Kirk. On the contrary, an attempt was made to remove it years before Kirk even realised that he had it.
@ Elena
No doubt you could say the same about people describing the deleterious effects that sexual abuse in childhood has had on their lives.
The fact that he had to separate from his family is further evidence of the devastating effects that the “ex-gay” mindset can have on families.
Murieann: Use the search function for this blog, you will find a wealth of information relevant to your questions.
Elena# ~ Jun 19, 2011 at 1:06 am
“CNN did a great job of manipulating viewers and shaping the production so that others believe that Kendall’s problems were caused by the therapy.”
Many of Kendall’s problems were caused by his therapy. However, his parents where the major cause of his problems. Nicolosi was just an enabler for his parents.
“He is playing the victim and looking blaming others. ”
Ryan Kendall WAS a victim. And he is correct in blaming others, including Nicolosi, for what happened to him.
George Ribble# ~ Jun 17, 2011 at 12:31 pm
“I do not believe that “Sissy Boy Experiment, Part 3? establishes a strong connection between the tragic death by suicide of Kurt Murphy, then living in India, and reparative therapy.”
No it doesn’t. And really only Kirk’s family is making that claim. David Blakeslee posted a list of other significant factors that probably contributed to Kirk’s suicide here:
the-roots-of-preventing-homosexuality-george-rekers-uncovered-at-boxturtlebulletin
“Dr. Nicolosi’s failure to remember Ryan Kendall as a former cliente is not that that unusual. ”
whether Nicolosi remembers Kendall or not isn’t the issue (although, as Timothy has pointed out, a child turning himself in to child services to get away from his parents and therapist seems like a case he should remember). The issue is how Nicolosi treats his patients. And the Kendall case proves Nicolosi has lied about his treatment. In this interview Nicolosi claims he would never treat a child who was only in treatment because his parents forced him into treatment.
“He advises that all therapies are reparative. ”
However, Reparative therapy, as practiced by Nicolosi et. al., refers to a specific type of therapy. A therapy based on an unproven (and many say incorrect) theory on the development of homosexuality.
“put quotation marks around “ex-gay”, but no quotation marks in reference to gay members of the House of Delegates. ”
The general population has a fairly clear understanding of what the term, gay, means. However, “ex-gay” is a term that does not have such a clear understanding. Many have argued this lack of clarity is by design. Further, many others do not believe what the term “ex-gay” implies (a person who is no longer gay) isn’t true in the majority (all) of the cases it is used.
“in 2009 the D.C. Superior Court ruled that ex-gays are a protected sexual orientation class in the Distric of Columbia.”
Do you have a cite for this case?
“For some reason the major professional groups have abandoned these folks.”
Because in many cases, the claims of no longer being gay, turned out to not be true or to be a case of re-defining the word gay. For the record (yet again), I do believe it may be possible for a person’s orientation to change (more likely with women than men), but that such change is extremely rare and that there are no proven therapeutic methods to cause that change.
CNN did a great job of manipulating viewers and shaping the production so that others believe that Kendall’s problems were caused by the therapy. He is playing the victim and looking blaming others. The fact that he had to separate from his family is evidence enough of the lack of support that he experienced.
CNN did a great job of manipulating viewers and shaping the production so that others believe that Kendall’s problems were caused by the therapy. He is playing the victim and looking blaming others. The fact that he had to separate from his family is evidence enough of the lack of support that he experienced.
Dr. Throckmorton–I do not believe that “Sissy Boy Experiment, Part 3” establishes a strong connection between the tragic death by suicide of Kurt Murphy, then living in India, and reparative therapy. The treatment ended 24 years prior to his unfortunate death. Any number of things could have triggered the suicide. Dr. Nicolosi’s failure to remember Ryan Kendall as a former cliente is not that that unusual. One can not possibly remember all the clients he/she worked with in a career. It should be remembered that all therapies, of whatever theoretical orientation, have their successes and have their failures. Everyone in clinical work knows this. Should a suicide end up on one’s case load we grieve for the loss of that life.
To my way of thinking, if a person desires to accept a gay idenitity that is that person’s freedom to do so without fear of intimidation, isolation, or ridicule. Likewise, individuals who are struggling with unwanted same-sex attractions should have the freedom of choice to seek treatment to modify or eliminate such unwanted attractions. To this I would add the counsel given me by a professional friend, an experienced Ph.D. clinical psychologist and APA member, who works with men wishing to develop their heterosexual potential. He advises that all therapies are reparative. Regardless of which theory of treatment one uses on whatever diagnosis, hopefully something somewhere in the human psyche/brain is being repaired.
In a letter to the editor (“Singling out ex-gays in a way not applied to gays”, Washington Post, March 4, 2011), Christopher Doyle, board member, Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays, noticed that a recent “Post” article concerning a gay marriage vote in the Maryland House of Delegtes put quotation marks around “ex-gay”, but no quotation marks in reference to gay members of the House of Delegates. Mr. Doyle complained–correctly–that putting “exgay-gay” in quotes conveyed the message that such a sexual orientation was not valid. He advised the “Post” that thousands of former homosexuals collectively identify themselves as ex-gay, and reminded the “Post” that in 2009 the D.C. Superior Court ruled that ex-gays are a protected sexual orientation class in the Distric of Columbia.
Treatment evidently works. Mr. Doyle ended his letter by stating that not everyone who experience same-sex attractions choose to live a gay lifestyle. Many individals voluntarily leave the homosexual life through either therapeutic work or individual choice. Mr. Doyle shared that he has left the gay life, and has been happily married to a woman for nearly five years. He’s now the father of two. He states that he no longer experiences same-sex attractions, and has no desire to return to the homosexual life. He asked the “Post” to please respect his choice by not placing ex-gay in quotes.
Like it or not, ex-gays do exist. They are another sexual minority. For some reason the major professional groups have abandoned these folks.
In the interest of full disclosure I wish to reveal that I’m a Christian guy who completed undergraduate work in psychology at Asbury University, Wilmore, KY, and graduate work in social work at the University of Tennessee. I am a member of NARTH. It should be noted that not all NARTH members practice reparative therapy. The organization is open to a variety of treatment modalities. I have twenty years experience as a clinical social worker in private practice (four years) and on a speciality ward at an accredited inpatient psychiatric hospital for adults (sixteen years).
Thank you for your attention. George
George Ribble, MSSW,LMSW,LMFT,CAADC
Clinical Social Worker (Retired)
I am very interested in being linked to research into this area. I would love it if someone would just post a comment below as to where I could find this research. I am very curious as to the research to both sides of the arguement. If any research you would highlight for either side follows strict academic guidelines I would be most grateful.
On another note, an interesting interview and an intriguing approach to modern debates.
He does have a responsibility to do long-term follow-up when treatment is experimental. But he’s not alone in that failing, it’s one of the great scandal of the profession IMHO.
Timothy Kincaid# ~ Jun 10, 2011 at 6:20 pm.
“Who would not recall the patient who turned themselves over to Child Services just to get away from you? How often does that happen – even to Nicolosi?”
I imagine Nicolosi has had countless cases where he’s ruined the lives of innocent teens. And I’m sure it would be far easier to recall all of his “successes.”
I find it odd that Nicolosi would be unfamiliar with Kendall’s name.
Who would not recall the patient who turned themselves over to Child Services just to get away from you? How often does that happen – even to Nicolosi?
And I’m sure that had someone testified about me during the Perry v. Schwarzenegger trial that I would recall their name, even if I didn’t recall them before that.
Slightly off-topic — I can’t look at the cover of that book Shaping Your Child’s Sexual Identity (shown in the video) without singing:
“I’m a lumberjack, and I’m okay!
I sleep all night and I work all day!
I cut down trees, I skip and jump,
I like to press wild flowers…”
I’m sure that Nicolosi’s office has a room set aside (not necessarily a huge room, however), for records of patients whose treatment sessions were apparently successful, so that their case histories can be waved around by NARTH as Scientific Proof!! that homosexuality is curable.
But in the case of someone like Kendall, who went to extraordinary legal lengths to get away from his family and the therapy, I would guess that Nicolosi shreds the records just as soon as he is legally able to do so.
firefox. It is showing up now.
Are you using Int Explorer or Firefox? It is not showing up for me on Firefox.
Nor for me.
No, it doesn’t show up for me.
I see the video – do you all not see it?
Keep in mind, when asking how long Nicolosi has to keep the records, you need to know what the requirements were 10-15 years ago (when Kendall was a patient), not what they are today. However, if anyone does know how to get in touch with Ryan Kendall, might be enlightening to have him put in an official request for his records.
You can see the CNN Nicolosi interview here:
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/10/video-sissy-therapy-still-has-influence/?hpt=hp_c1
Jim and Warren,
Great question: It varies based upon the age of the client.
Adult records need to be kept 7 years after termination.
Child records depend by state or the APA: I think it is 11 years, or 7 years after age 18, whichever is greater.
Where is the video?
Warren,
Why do you think Nicolosi is so resistant to moderating his views based on experience and new evidence?
I don’t believe Nicolosi. A review of his past work shows it to be inconsistent with the views expressed on camera.
And like everyone else, even though my Gaydar is myopic, Rekers is most obviously attempting his own form of Behavioural control. An Iron will, admitting nothing, and a facade that is impenetrable to mere facts.
As was mine. Had my body not started changing, I’d still be doing the boy act, my conscious mind suppressing inconvenient facts that were unacceptable if I wanted to live.
I didn’t hurt anyone else though. Had I been forced to do so – I wouldn’t be around now. I would have killed myself without actually being aware of why I was doing it.
I fear for him. I’m not sure it’s possible to help him, either, not without destroying him. For those who believe in Justice, Retribution… he’s already in Hell. While I hate the sin, all the children he has damaged, right now I feel nothing but compassion. Justice is over-rated anyway, it needs tempering with Mercy.
Nicolosi’s just lying – perhaps to himself too. He doesn’t want to be a monster.
firefox. It is showing up now.
Are there any requirements or guidelines for records retention? I would imagine that keeping an entire career’s worth of records may be a huge challenge, but I know when I went to my physician’s office back before they went paperless, they had a huge room set aside for records. I don’t believe mental health professionals follow those kinds of practices. Is that correct?
Practice records go back 7 years and patient charts 10 years (right David B?). I have been out of the full time practice world for awhile so things may have changed.
However, to completely forget you saw someone when given a name and a time frame is unusual to me. Especially someone you talked to on the phone first and then saw in person.
I think it would be helpful if more of Nicolosi’s former clients came forward to discuss his therapy. According to Kendall (from the Prop. 8 testimony) his parents 1st sent him local “christian” therapist. And it is possible (and certainly what Nicolosi would argue) that Kendall is confusing which therapist said what to him.
On the other hand, it is pretty clear Nicolosi’s claim he would not treat a patient who didn’t want to change is false.
I don’t believe Nicolosi. A review of his past work shows it to be inconsistent with the views expressed on camera.
And like everyone else, even though my Gaydar is myopic, Rekers is most obviously attempting his own form of Behavioural control. An Iron will, admitting nothing, and a facade that is impenetrable to mere facts.
As was mine. Had my body not started changing, I’d still be doing the boy act, my conscious mind suppressing inconvenient facts that were unacceptable if I wanted to live.
I didn’t hurt anyone else though. Had I been forced to do so – I wouldn’t be around now. I would have killed myself without actually being aware of why I was doing it.
I fear for him. I’m not sure it’s possible to help him, either, not without destroying him. For those who believe in Justice, Retribution… he’s already in Hell. While I hate the sin, all the children he has damaged, right now I feel nothing but compassion. Justice is over-rated anyway, it needs tempering with Mercy.
Nicolosi’s just lying – perhaps to himself too. He doesn’t want to be a monster.