For our amusement and for a book I am completing this summer, I am looking into multiple roots of reparative therapy. As I noted recently, reparative therapy finds parents to be the root of homosexuality in children. Mother blaming has a long history in psychoanalysis. Reparative therapy doesn’t spare the mother but adds father for his special share of responsibility.
One of the most famous cases of mother blaming is Bruno Bettelheim’s reference to “refrigerator mothers” as culprits for autism. Bettelheim’s diagnosis was not based on empirical research but his own experiences in Nazi concentration camps, or at least that is what Bettelheim claimed. In any case, a couple of generations of professionals were trained to believe that autism was mom’s fault.
On the other side of the spectrum from the refrigerator mother was “Mom.” Philip Wylie coined the word “momism” to refer to overprotective mothers in a chapter of his 1943 best seller, Generation of Vipers. I will have more from that book later this week.
Wylie was a journalist who didn’t like soft moms, or soft men. Psychiatry was quite supportive of Wylie at the time, at least in the person of Edward A. Strecker. Strecker was a consultant to the Army and Navy through World War II and blamed mothers for men dismissed from the services for psychiatric reasons. Not only was mom the blame for individual pathology, but her failures threatened democracy and nation security. Here is the description of Strecker’s 1946 book, Their Mothers’ Sons
Their Mother’s Sons (From the book jacket)
This is a book about Mother, the great American “Mom,” and what she is doing to the young men of America. In its pages a world-famous psychiatrist describes in unforgettable terms a new American tragedy – the millions of young men in this country today who live in confusion and emotional chaos, condemned by millions of well-meaning and unthinking “Moms” who will not cut the apron strings between them and their sons.
During the past war, Dr. Strecker served as special consultant to the Secretary of War, and to the Surgeon Generals of the Army and Navy. In casualty hospitals, both overseas and at home, he viewed the incredible neuroses of vast numbers of American young men. At the induction centers and in the screening areas, he learned the case histories many thousands of so-called psychoneurotics. Now, in this book, he crystallizes his thinking into a timely warning concerning a system which condemns enormous numbers of men to a miserable, maladjusted life – simply because “Mom” has never weaned her son emotionally.
During the past war, 1,825,000 men were rejected for military service because of psychiatric disorders. Another 600,000 were discharged for neuropsychiatric reasons. And at least 500,000 attempted to evade the draft and all war responsibility. The handwriting of “Moms” looms large and plain.
Influenced by Sandor Rado, Irving Bieber and Elizabeth Moberly, Nicolosi extends the blame to the father with his version of reparative therapy. The overbearing, overprotective mother looms large in reparative therapy and appears to be an idea with a long history of tapping into collective fears and insecurities.
@ Charlie :
My point is really that those who do, for whatever reason (rejection/persecution by others, self-loathing, concerns about living the kind of life that fits with their ‘values system’, a desire to be what they might consider to be ‘better’), want to ‘change’ should take ‘ownership’ of that process and not base their approach on what others might have done. There is so often in practice a very fine line between ‘seeking causation’ and ‘looking for someone else to blame’.
Obviously, my own perspective on this is coloured by my strongly-held that ‘being gay’ is not, in and of itself, necessarily a ‘problem’ (or it is only a ‘problem’ inasmuch as others make it one).
Thank you, William, for the quote from Douglas Futuyma. And, I love your analogy about astrology and astrologers and the uncanny way that whatever they seem to say, seems to fit whomever cares to listen.
Segway into a similar topical quote from Herbert Spencer:
Mary stated:
The more I read and contemplate this issue, personal to me and fraught with my prejudices and biases, I’m less and less inclined to see parental mode as being a significant factor or much of a factor, at all. Environment, we must remember, has to include the important prenatal environment in the womb. The time when the most critical development, divisional and organizational processes, gene/protein expression, hormonal triggering is occurring. All maintained by the mother’s own internal feeding of the developing child through her blood. The mother’s own stressors must of necessity be transmitted to the child throughout the time in the womb.
Mary, if you’re including prenatal development, in your term ‘environment’, I’d agree with you. If however, by environment you mean post-natal parenting or socialization factors, I won’t disagree entirely; but, frankly parenting modes/socialization are at the bottom of my hit-list of causative factors for homosexuality.
Yes, it’s a tricky proposition prove one way or the other. If I were to state it more firmly, I think we will gradually hone in on environmental factors that increase the likelihood or even lead to same sex attraction. But it’s going to be slow going considering how unpopular that view is.
Teresa, it appears that some pre-natal or even hereditary aspects may play a role but my vantage point is that post-birth environment plays a larger role. It’s really hard to discount how much psychological development occurs during those first, extremely formative 10 years.
William, you call it “blame” but others might refer to it as looking for causation. Is that so bad?
Teresa, I think it’s the opposite. Humans are fundamentally heterosexual but sexual attractions can be fluid, especially when impacted by social factors. No one is saying that a certain type of parental-child relationship will or will not lead to same sex attraction. Just that some patterns have been observed. If parents do play a role, don’t you think it is OK to acknowledge that? Or are peoples’ feelings so fragile that we must avoid the truth?
Interestingly, the protective maternal figure who comes to the rescue like Sigourney Weaver in that exoskeleton-machine from Aliens, in order to save her gay son from scary hetero bullies, also looms large in gay male “coming of age” fiction and movies.
(The early Russell Crowe film The Sum of Us was a refreshing exception to this cliche — in that movie, it’s the heterosexual father who is the gay son’s #1 Fan, defender, and booster, while the Ignorant Homophobe role goes to the prospective stepmother.)
Ooops – I meant to say “But it is also just as sloppy to say they had everything to do with it”
Yes, that was flippant. But there is deadly serious point behind my flippancy: I am convinced that any human attempt to create a ‘perfected* society’ of ‘perfected* individuals’ leads ultimately to the gas chamber.
* It will always be the strongest who (imperfectly) define ‘perfection’ – and they always will do so according to their own (imperfect) prejudices and agendas. Such is human nature. We Europeans are painfully aware of this reality, given our recent violent history.
I was, not so long ago, taking about issues in human sexuality and gender identity with a(n African) Catholic priest. He told me that he always made it clear to parents that, whatever the Church might say about sexuality and gender identity, their first duty as parents was to love their offspring. Very wise.
For dexamethasone to have any effect, it must be administered before we can be sure the foetus has 21-hydroxylase CAH, or even sure of what sex it is.
So for every child that gets treated with it, it can only have “beneficial” effects – assuming preventing lesbianism is “beneficial” – in only 1 in 8 cases. But they all suffer from the additional affects in neurology. It’s even possible that some of the males may become gay as the result – as well as a general lowering of IQ.
This means that the question of whether prevention of lesbianism is a Good Thing(tm) via this method is moot.
BTW I have the late-onset non-SW 3-beta-hydroxysteroid-dehydrogenase-deficient form of CAH. Unlike the 21-hydroxylase and 17-beta-hydroxylase forms that together cover over 99% of CAH cases, this one can cause not just masculinisation of a 46XX foetus, but feminisation of a 46XY one. The mildest cases, like my own, can cause complete hormonal chaos, as well as hypercholesterolemia.
So many things can go awry in neurological development… safe use of such drugs to try to cause individual, surgically precise effects is way beyond our state of knowledge at the moment.
“So little foetus, I have some dexamethasone here. Which would you prefer: to be gay and clever or straight and stupid?”
Teresa,
If the above scenario is never good enough for many conservative Christians, then they they are the ones who need to be re-examined to determine whether they are worthy of your goodness, friendship, etc. – or even if they are using the identity of Christians in a fraudulant way by judging the value of others by their marital status. I think they feel the same about single mothers, right?
Ken, I don’t know what to tell you. My experience is that across the spectrum of heterosexuals, SSA individuals and gay people is that of those who would prefer to be heterosexual, religion is not the primary driver. Would you disagree with that? It seems reasonable to me that people would prefer to be heterosexual. Do you disagree?
Oh, I see. You’re just pointing out that I used the wrong word “adolescence”. My mistake. As I’ve stated on a few occasions, what I mean is the first 10-15 years or so. I thought that was adolescence but apparently not. Once again you guys glom on to the minutiae and miss the bigger point. Dare I say you’re worse than NARTH?
Charlie wrote:
So… how long have PET scanner been available? fMRI? When was the human genome sequenced?
I think you under-estimate the difficulties, and the time involved.
It’s only been in the last 30 years that the helicobacter organism was discovered to be the cause of stomach ulcers, rather than a psychological cause. They were still performing lobotomies without patient consent for it in 1975.
OK, here’s some of the data on Transsexuality.
Male-to-female transsexuals show sex-atypical hypothalamus activation when smelling odorous steroids. by Berglund et al Cerebral Cortex 2008 18(8):1900-1908;
…the data implicate that transsexuality may be associated with sex-atypical physiological responses in specific hypothalamic circuits, possibly as a consequence of a variant neuronal differentiation.
Male–to–female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus. Kruiver et al J Clin Endocrinol Metab (2000) 85:2034–2041
The present findings of somatostatin neuronal sex differences in the BSTc and its sex reversal in the transsexual brain clearly support the paradigm that in transsexuals sexual differentiation of the brain and genitals may go into opposite directions and point to a neurobiological basis of gender identity disorder.
Sexual differentiation of the human brain: relevance for gender identity, transsexualism and sexual orientation. Swaab Gynecol Endocrinol (2004) 19:301–312.
Solid evidence for the importance of postnatal social factors is lacking. In the human brain, structural diferences have been described that seem to be related to gender identity and sexual orientation.
A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality. by Zhou et al Nature (1995) 378:68–70.
Our study is the first to show a female brain structure in genetically male transsexuals and supports the hypothesis that gender identity develops as a result of an interaction between the developing brain and sex hormones
A sex difference in the hypothalamic uncinate nucleus: relationship to gender identity. by Garcia-Falgueras et al Brain. 2008 Dec;131(Pt 12):3132-46.
We propose that the sex reversal of the INAH3 in transsexual people is at least partly a marker of an early atypical sexual differentiation of the brain and that the changes in INAH3 and the BSTc may belong to a complex network that may structurally and functionally be related to gender identity.
The first solid evidence was only found in 1995. Since then, there’s been a lot of research in the area.
White matter microstructure in female to male transsexuals before cross-sex hormonal treatment. A diffusion tensor imaging study. – Rametti et al, J Psychiatr Res. 2010 Jun 8.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that the white matter microstructure pattern in untreated FtM transsexuals is closer to the pattern of subjects who share their gender identity (males) than those who share their biological sex (females). Our results provide evidence for an inherent difference in the brain structure of FtM transsexuals.
Most of the imaging tools and techniques didn’t exist 15 years ago.
Sexual differentiation of human behavior: Effects of prenatal and pubertal organizational hormones Sheri A. Berenbaum, Adriene M. Beltz Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology 32 (2011) 183–200
A key question concerns the extent to which sexual differentiation of human behavior is influenced by sex hormones present during sensitive periods of development (organizational effects), as occurs in other mammalian species. The most important sensitive period has been considered to be prenatal, but there is increasing attention to puberty as another organizational period, with the possibility of decreasing sensitivity to sex hormones across the pubertal transition. In this paper, we review evidence that sex hormones present during the prenatal and pubertal periods produce permanent changes to behavior.
There is good evidence that exposure to high levels of androgens during prenatal development results in masculinization of activity and occupational interests, sexual orientation, and some spatial abilities; prenatal androgens have a smaller effect on gender identity, and there is insufficient information about androgen effects on sex-linked behavior problems. There is little good evidence regarding long-lasting behavioral effects of pubertal hormones, but there is some suggestion that they influence gender identity and perhaps some sex-linked forms of psychopathology, and there are many opportunities to study this issue.
Etc etc.
From the Editorial Introduction to that issue:
Doing good sexual science in this religious-political atmosphere is like doing good astronomical science around 1600. We’ve not had the tools for long, and the conclusions that we’ve come to are likely to get us (metaphorically this time) burnt at the stake.
@Teresa, I think you are hung up on the word “trauma” is if it necessarily has to be something shocking or the equivalent of years of “bad parenting”. I think you also need to recognize that there are enough variables that what may seem like identical situations leading to different results may not really be identical situations (although the elevated concordance in twins may suggest that similar environments may increase the chance of similar results). But I don’t think that’s what Nicolosi, et al are suggesting. Instead, they surmise that something occurs during adolescence that results in a boy’s sense of masculinity not developing as expected. They have various theories on how much a distant father, smothering mother, rejection by peers, abuse or whatnot contribute.
I’m not even remotely a therapist so I guess you can discount everything I write.
Yes, I entirely agree with you, Teresa. The problem is, however, that the theory that parents do play a role, at least in some cases, can’t actually be disproved. Just look at what Charlie has written:
There we see a non-scientific theory in all its strength and glory: it runs little or no risk of being disconfirmed by facts, because it can be reconciled with almost any conceivable state of affairs. So might an astrologer say that no-one is saying that a certain conjunction of the planets at your birth will or will not lead to same sex attraction, just that some patterns have been observed. But no matter what, a competent astrologer would mange to find something in your astrological chart to “explain” why you are homosexual. Similarly, even if the general history of your life and upbringing, according to reparative therapy theories, “should” have caused you to grow up heterosexual, a good reparative therapist will find something in your relationship with your parents or in your childhood that will “explain” why things have turned out otherwise – or, if you are sufficiently suggestible, will induce you to “remember” something. (Remember that UK therapist who tried to convince journalist Patrick Strudwick that he must have been sexually abused in childhood, even though he knew that he never had been?)
I cannot do better at this point than to quote the biologist Douglas Futuyma:
I’m somewhat baffled how all this stuff about faulty parenting causes autism, schizophrenia, homosexuality, and who knows how much more. With almost 7 billion persons in the world; perhaps, 5-8% are gay, women less so. Hundreds of millions, perhaps billions (?) have had awful childhoods due to any number of conditions: war, starvation, abuse, neglect, divorce, orphaned, same sex parenting absent or abysmal, and on and on. Many of these traumatized children are above average intelligence, sensitive, etc., I imagine. How could it not be so with such a huge population base? But, they’re still str8.
The reverse side of that coin are there are any number of parents who have good parenting skills; both parents active, concerned and loving toward there children; and, they still have gay sons and daughters.
In my opinion, we don’t need some special research to determine what’s right before our eyes. There has to be some combined genetic, pre-natal hormonal activity going on that sets the foundational orientation of a person. The nature component has to trump whatever nurture factors are present.
It’s quite simply awful that both parents of gay children and the children themselves suffer from such guilt, shame, fear at the hands of “well-meaning” professionals, who also influence many others in society.
Faith beliefs may enter into chosen ethics or morality as to behavior choices for homosexuals; but, that has nothing to do with the etiology of homosexuality.
I wonder if there’s some strange ‘mom’ and ‘dad’ behavior that causes the condition known as: NARTH Therapists?
Yes, that was flippant. But there is deadly serious point behind my flippancy: I am convinced that any human attempt to create a ‘perfected* society’ of ‘perfected* individuals’ leads ultimately to the gas chamber.
* It will always be the strongest who (imperfectly) define ‘perfection’ – and they always will do so according to their own (imperfect) prejudices and agendas. Such is human nature. We Europeans are painfully aware of this reality, given our recent violent history.
I was, not so long ago, taking about issues in human sexuality and gender identity with a(n African) Catholic priest. He told me that he always made it clear to parents that, whatever the Church might say about sexuality and gender identity, their first duty as parents was to love their offspring. Very wise.
“So little foetus, I have some dexamethasone here. Which would you prefer: to be gay and clever or straight and stupid?”
@ Zoe : I must say that I would consider any attempt at ‘engineering “perfect” babies’ who grow into ‘nice straight adults’ quite appallingly scary! It smacks of eugenics and Nazism and other associated horrors.
Teresa,
If the above scenario is never good enough for many conservative Christians, then they they are the ones who need to be re-examined to determine whether they are worthy of your goodness, friendship, etc. – or even if they are using the identity of Christians in a fraudulant way by judging the value of others by their marital status. I think they feel the same about single mothers, right?
For dexamethasone to have any effect, it must be administered before we can be sure the foetus has 21-hydroxylase CAH, or even sure of what sex it is.
So for every child that gets treated with it, it can only have “beneficial” effects – assuming preventing lesbianism is “beneficial” – in only 1 in 8 cases. But they all suffer from the additional affects in neurology. It’s even possible that some of the males may become gay as the result – as well as a general lowering of IQ.
This means that the question of whether prevention of lesbianism is a Good Thing(tm) via this method is moot.
BTW I have the late-onset non-SW 3-beta-hydroxysteroid-dehydrogenase-deficient form of CAH. Unlike the 21-hydroxylase and 17-beta-hydroxylase forms that together cover over 99% of CAH cases, this one can cause not just masculinisation of a 46XX foetus, but feminisation of a 46XY one. The mildest cases, like my own, can cause complete hormonal chaos, as well as hypercholesterolemia.
So many things can go awry in neurological development… safe use of such drugs to try to cause individual, surgically precise effects is way beyond our state of knowledge at the moment.
The idea of parents trying to ‘detect’ and/or ‘dictate’ their unborn child’s sexual orientation sounds pretty scary to me! (With regard to certain medical conditions that would affect badly the quality of life of the child, I can see real potential benefits of appropriate per-natal interventions, but …)
@ Zoe : I must say that I would consider any attempt at ‘engineering “perfect” babies’ who grow into ‘nice straight adults’ quite appallingly scary! It smacks of eugenics and Nazism and other associated horrors.
This is old news as of June, 2010. The treatment is the use of dexamethasone for CAH, which this pediatrician is doing, contra regulations. Several supposed benefits, according to Dr. New, may be less masculine occupations by these women, as well as the possible avoidance of homosexuality or bisexuality.
My question regarding this is one of ethics. If science continues to unravel the physiology of the growing fetus regarding sexuality (as well as other stuff), how ethical is it to ‘treat’ conditions regarding abnormal (not used in a pejorative sense) sexual development or conditions that would lead to non-heterosexual behavior?
Since the APA removed homosexuality from the DSM, how ethical would it be for parents to pursue testing, with subsequent ‘treatment’, if so desired?
The idea of parents trying to ‘detect’ and/or ‘dictate’ their unborn child’s sexual orientation sounds pretty scary to me! (With regard to certain medical conditions that would affect badly the quality of life of the child, I can see real potential benefits of appropriate per-natal interventions, but …)
Charlie wrote :
The changes don’t happen post-nataly in experimental animals, except in certain areas.
Signs of Transsexuality are visible before the BSTc layer differentiates post-natally – we can reliably predict what the BSTc layer will grow into.
Children exposed in the womb to DES have 500 times the usual chance of being transsexual.
Some of the sexually dimorphic areas of the brain which are cross-sexed in Transsexuals differentiate in the womb. We know this from autopsies of miscarried foetusses. As far as I know, we’ve never autopsied a transsexual foetus (how would we know? if that part of the brain is cross-sexed, we’d just be assuming what we’re trying to determine). But autopsies of trans people show that section to be cross-sexed too. Unless we postulate some unknown mechanism of de-differentiation and re-differentiation post-natally, one never observed in animal experiments, then we have to assume that that differentiation in foetu happens in transsexual humans too.
There’s plenty of evidence from various Intersex conditions that some sex-differentiated neural circuitry is set in the womb. I’m thinking of the many experiments involving children with CAH:
“Prenatal hormones versus postnatal socialization by parents as determinants of male-typical toy play in girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia” Pasterski VL, Geffner ME, Brain C, Hindmarsh P, Brook C, Hines M Child Dev 76(1):264-78 2005
Please have a look at Prof Sid Ecker’s presentation to the American Psychiatric Assocn Annual Meeting in 2009. There’s a lot more to it than you think, and the organisation/activation theory of neurological behaviour is now the standard model, as it has had spectacular success in both explaining past results, and predicting results of current experiments.
This is old news as of June, 2010. The treatment is the use of dexamethasone for CAH, which this pediatrician is doing, contra regulations. Several supposed benefits, according to Dr. New, may be less masculine occupations by these women, as well as the possible avoidance of homosexuality or bisexuality.
My question regarding this is one of ethics. If science continues to unravel the physiology of the growing fetus regarding sexuality (as well as other stuff), how ethical is it to ‘treat’ conditions regarding abnormal (not used in a pejorative sense) sexual development or conditions that would lead to non-heterosexual behavior?
Since the APA removed homosexuality from the DSM, how ethical would it be for parents to pursue testing, with subsequent ‘treatment’, if so desired?
Charlie wrote :
The changes don’t happen post-nataly in experimental animals, except in certain areas.
Signs of Transsexuality are visible before the BSTc layer differentiates post-natally – we can reliably predict what the BSTc layer will grow into.
Children exposed in the womb to DES have 500 times the usual chance of being transsexual.
Some of the sexually dimorphic areas of the brain which are cross-sexed in Transsexuals differentiate in the womb. We know this from autopsies of miscarried foetusses. As far as I know, we’ve never autopsied a transsexual foetus (how would we know? if that part of the brain is cross-sexed, we’d just be assuming what we’re trying to determine). But autopsies of trans people show that section to be cross-sexed too. Unless we postulate some unknown mechanism of de-differentiation and re-differentiation post-natally, one never observed in animal experiments, then we have to assume that that differentiation in foetu happens in transsexual humans too.
There’s plenty of evidence from various Intersex conditions that some sex-differentiated neural circuitry is set in the womb. I’m thinking of the many experiments involving children with CAH:
“Prenatal hormones versus postnatal socialization by parents as determinants of male-typical toy play in girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia” Pasterski VL, Geffner ME, Brain C, Hindmarsh P, Brook C, Hines M Child Dev 76(1):264-78 2005
Please have a look at Prof Sid Ecker’s presentation to the American Psychiatric Assocn Annual Meeting in 2009. There’s a lot more to it than you think, and the organisation/activation theory of neurological behaviour is now the standard model, as it has had spectacular success in both explaining past results, and predicting results of current experiments.
Madison# ~ Jun 22, 2011 at 4:18 pm
“Well, I wasn’t specifying only “gays who where (sic) trying to become straight”. So again you distort to fit you’re own narrow view. ”
No, I did not distort anything. What you quoted from me was in response to a post Charlie made regarding gays who wanted to change to straight.
YOU never responded to my questions I posted. I’ll ask again:
And how have you determined that these (ying/yang and sexual reproduction) are “by far” the most significant reasons (people don’t want to be gay)?
” But I think if you only take that sub-set, your not being honest if you think it’s primarily societal discrimination.”
And you aren’t following what I wrote. “the sub-set” are gays who wish to convert to being straight. And for those people I believe religion is often the most significant reason for wanting to change.
“How can you possibly fail to acknowledge the overwhelming desire to reproduce or be with the opposite sex?”
gays can and do reproduce and I’m pretty sure that for gays, there is no “overwhelming desire” to be with the opposite sex.
“Further, while I don’t think discrimination is the right word (since it you probably define it negatively), but is it irrational for heterosexual to choose mainly heterosexual people as friends?”
No, and given that heterosexuals are the majority it would make sense that they mainly (mostly) have heterosexual friends. However, I do think it is irrational (and discriminatory) to refuse to have gay friends.
Well, I wasn’t specifying only “gays who where (sic) trying to become straight”. So again you distort to fit you’re own narrow view. But I think if you only take that sub-set, your not being honest if you think it’s primarily societal discrimination. How can you possibly fail to acknowledge the overwhelming desire to reproduce or be with the opposite sex? Further, while I don’t think discrimination is the right word (since it you probably define it negatively), but is it irrational for heterosexual to choose mainly heterosexual people as friends?
I said “Nicolosi, et al”. And Nicolosi doesn’t not specify age in the article. You guys are just playing gotcha and it’s not very helpful to the discussion.
Madison# ~ Jun 22, 2011 at 2:23 pm
“My experience is that across the spectrum of heterosexuals, SSA individuals and gay people is that of those who would prefer to be heterosexual, religion is not the primary driver. Would you disagree with that? It seems reasonable to me that people would prefer to be heterosexual. Do you disagree?”
No, I would say the primary driver for why people think it is better to be straight than gay is because of discrimination against gays. Just as I would say many minorities feel it would be better to be a member of the majority.
However, my comments regarding religious motivations were about gays who where trying to become straight. This is a distinct sub-set of the people you are referring to here.
Charlie# ~ Jun 22, 2011 at 2:13 pm
” As I’ve stated on a few occasions, what I mean is the first 10-15 years or so. I thought that was adolescence but apparently not. ”
However, Nicolosi does not say the “break” occurs in the 1st 10-15 years as you claimed. And Warren was pointing that out to you.
Ken, I don’t know what to tell you. My experience is that across the spectrum of heterosexuals, SSA individuals and gay people is that of those who would prefer to be heterosexual, religion is not the primary driver. Would you disagree with that? It seems reasonable to me that people would prefer to be heterosexual. Do you disagree?
@Zoe, the problem with a lot of that research, Swaab in particular, is the failure to ascribe any of the results to environment. We all know that brain chemistry changes post-birth and yet the researchers don’t even hint that it’s a possibility.
Oh, I see. You’re just pointing out that I used the wrong word “adolescence”. My mistake. As I’ve stated on a few occasions, what I mean is the first 10-15 years or so. I thought that was adolescence but apparently not. Once again you guys glom on to the minutiae and miss the bigger point. Dare I say you’re worse than NARTH?
Madison# ~ Jun 22, 2011 at 4:18 pm
“Well, I wasn’t specifying only “gays who where (sic) trying to become straight”. So again you distort to fit you’re own narrow view. ”
No, I did not distort anything. What you quoted from me was in response to a post Charlie made regarding gays who wanted to change to straight.
YOU never responded to my questions I posted. I’ll ask again:
And how have you determined that these (ying/yang and sexual reproduction) are “by far” the most significant reasons (people don’t want to be gay)?
” But I think if you only take that sub-set, your not being honest if you think it’s primarily societal discrimination.”
And you aren’t following what I wrote. “the sub-set” are gays who wish to convert to being straight. And for those people I believe religion is often the most significant reason for wanting to change.
“How can you possibly fail to acknowledge the overwhelming desire to reproduce or be with the opposite sex?”
gays can and do reproduce and I’m pretty sure that for gays, there is no “overwhelming desire” to be with the opposite sex.
“Further, while I don’t think discrimination is the right word (since it you probably define it negatively), but is it irrational for heterosexual to choose mainly heterosexual people as friends?”
No, and given that heterosexuals are the majority it would make sense that they mainly (mostly) have heterosexual friends. However, I do think it is irrational (and discriminatory) to refuse to have gay friends.
Well, I wasn’t specifying only “gays who where (sic) trying to become straight”. So again you distort to fit you’re own narrow view. But I think if you only take that sub-set, your not being honest if you think it’s primarily societal discrimination. How can you possibly fail to acknowledge the overwhelming desire to reproduce or be with the opposite sex? Further, while I don’t think discrimination is the right word (since it you probably define it negatively), but is it irrational for heterosexual to choose mainly heterosexual people as friends?
I said “Nicolosi, et al”. And Nicolosi doesn’t not specify age in the article. You guys are just playing gotcha and it’s not very helpful to the discussion.
Madison# ~ Jun 22, 2011 at 2:23 pm
“My experience is that across the spectrum of heterosexuals, SSA individuals and gay people is that of those who would prefer to be heterosexual, religion is not the primary driver. Would you disagree with that? It seems reasonable to me that people would prefer to be heterosexual. Do you disagree?”
No, I would say the primary driver for why people think it is better to be straight than gay is because of discrimination against gays. Just as I would say many minorities feel it would be better to be a member of the majority.
However, my comments regarding religious motivations were about gays who where trying to become straight. This is a distinct sub-set of the people you are referring to here.
Charlie# ~ Jun 22, 2011 at 2:13 pm
” As I’ve stated on a few occasions, what I mean is the first 10-15 years or so. I thought that was adolescence but apparently not. ”
However, Nicolosi does not say the “break” occurs in the 1st 10-15 years as you claimed. And Warren was pointing that out to you.
@Zoe, the problem with a lot of that research, Swaab in particular, is the failure to ascribe any of the results to environment. We all know that brain chemistry changes post-birth and yet the researchers don’t even hint that it’s a possibility.
Charlie wrote:
Not necessarily, no. You could have other qualifications, or an unusual degree of expertise acquired due to other circumstances.
Otherwise, your opinion would be an uneducated one, but still possibly useful if you gave citations.
?? But you’ve just told us you’re not a therapist. In order for me to know the situation, could I possibly ask just what you are? I for example have zero qualifications, though I have been invited by professors of psychology and medicine to lecture to their students as I have some special knowledge in this area. An unusual degree of expertise acquired due to other circumstances so to speak.
Charlie# ~ Jun 21, 2011 at 10:52 pm
“the other side has not come up with much in the past 40 years despite how much easier it is to discover links to biology and genetics.
How familiar are you with the research into sexual orientation that has been done in the last 20 years (let alone 40)?
” “And how have you determined that these are “by far” the most significant reasons?”
For one, because you guys always “forget” to mention them!”
Or maybe those reasons don’t get mentioned because they aren’t that significant? I hardly see not mentioning those reasons as “proof” that they are “by far the most significant” reasons for people wanting to change from gay to straight.
Now my question was directed at Madison, and I hope he (she?) does answer it, however I don’t mind others responding.
“I don’t have anything readily at hand but do you really think that the main concern is fear of intolerance?”
No, I believe the most significant reason for gays trying to convert to being straight is due to religious belief (although, some of those beliefs could be labeled as intolerant). And I think (although I’m not quite sure and it is too late in the evening for me to dig up the papers) the 2nd most common reason is the desire to raise children (or have “traditional” family).
Charlie wrote:
So… how long have PET scanner been available? fMRI? When was the human genome sequenced?
I think you under-estimate the difficulties, and the time involved.
It’s only been in the last 30 years that the helicobacter organism was discovered to be the cause of stomach ulcers, rather than a psychological cause. They were still performing lobotomies without patient consent for it in 1975.
OK, here’s some of the data on Transsexuality.
Male-to-female transsexuals show sex-atypical hypothalamus activation when smelling odorous steroids. by Berglund et al Cerebral Cortex 2008 18(8):1900-1908;
…the data implicate that transsexuality may be associated with sex-atypical physiological responses in specific hypothalamic circuits, possibly as a consequence of a variant neuronal differentiation.
Male–to–female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus. Kruiver et al J Clin Endocrinol Metab (2000) 85:2034–2041
The present findings of somatostatin neuronal sex differences in the BSTc and its sex reversal in the transsexual brain clearly support the paradigm that in transsexuals sexual differentiation of the brain and genitals may go into opposite directions and point to a neurobiological basis of gender identity disorder.
Sexual differentiation of the human brain: relevance for gender identity, transsexualism and sexual orientation. Swaab Gynecol Endocrinol (2004) 19:301–312.
Solid evidence for the importance of postnatal social factors is lacking. In the human brain, structural diferences have been described that seem to be related to gender identity and sexual orientation.
A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality. by Zhou et al Nature (1995) 378:68–70.
Our study is the first to show a female brain structure in genetically male transsexuals and supports the hypothesis that gender identity develops as a result of an interaction between the developing brain and sex hormones
A sex difference in the hypothalamic uncinate nucleus: relationship to gender identity. by Garcia-Falgueras et al Brain. 2008 Dec;131(Pt 12):3132-46.
We propose that the sex reversal of the INAH3 in transsexual people is at least partly a marker of an early atypical sexual differentiation of the brain and that the changes in INAH3 and the BSTc may belong to a complex network that may structurally and functionally be related to gender identity.
The first solid evidence was only found in 1995. Since then, there’s been a lot of research in the area.
White matter microstructure in female to male transsexuals before cross-sex hormonal treatment. A diffusion tensor imaging study. – Rametti et al, J Psychiatr Res. 2010 Jun 8.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that the white matter microstructure pattern in untreated FtM transsexuals is closer to the pattern of subjects who share their gender identity (males) than those who share their biological sex (females). Our results provide evidence for an inherent difference in the brain structure of FtM transsexuals.
Most of the imaging tools and techniques didn’t exist 15 years ago.
Sexual differentiation of human behavior: Effects of prenatal and pubertal organizational hormones Sheri A. Berenbaum, Adriene M. Beltz Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology 32 (2011) 183–200
A key question concerns the extent to which sexual differentiation of human behavior is influenced by sex hormones present during sensitive periods of development (organizational effects), as occurs in other mammalian species. The most important sensitive period has been considered to be prenatal, but there is increasing attention to puberty as another organizational period, with the possibility of decreasing sensitivity to sex hormones across the pubertal transition. In this paper, we review evidence that sex hormones present during the prenatal and pubertal periods produce permanent changes to behavior.
There is good evidence that exposure to high levels of androgens during prenatal development results in masculinization of activity and occupational interests, sexual orientation, and some spatial abilities; prenatal androgens have a smaller effect on gender identity, and there is insufficient information about androgen effects on sex-linked behavior problems. There is little good evidence regarding long-lasting behavioral effects of pubertal hormones, but there is some suggestion that they influence gender identity and perhaps some sex-linked forms of psychopathology, and there are many opportunities to study this issue.
Etc etc.
From the Editorial Introduction to that issue:
Doing good sexual science in this religious-political atmosphere is like doing good astronomical science around 1600. We’ve not had the tools for long, and the conclusions that we’ve come to are likely to get us (metaphorically this time) burnt at the stake.
Charlie# ~ Jun 21, 2011 at 10:42 pm
“what you wrote and what I wrote are pretty similar. Do you care to be any more specific on what I am missing?”
What you wrote ( Charlie# ~ Jun 21, 2011 at 8:44 pm ):
“But I don’t think that’s what Nicolosi, et al are suggesting. Instead, they surmise that something occurs during adolescence that results in a boy’s sense of masculinity not developing as expected.”
You are saying that Nicolosi believes that the age in which “something” causes a person to be homosexual “ occurs during adolescence”
Warren is saying ( Warren# ~ Jun 21, 2011 at 9:08 pm )
Nicolosi claims what determines a person’s orientation occurs during:
“The bonding phase (years 1.5-4) is the critical period.”
that is not even close to what you said.
“In any event, your request to discredit me is unprofessional and unappreciated.”
No, Warren has been quite professional in how he has countered your claims. He has given actual citations for his counter-arguments. Disagreeing with you is not “unprofessional.”
I’m not religious so can’t speak to that aspect of the matter. However I do appreciate that the religious groups seem to be leading the charge and taking the brunt of the criticism.
If Nicolosi did make those comments even roughly how they’ve been reported than that was truly an indefensible mistake and probably does reflect that Nicolosi is on the extreme side of the notion that people do not want to be gay. But again, I’m not even sure it’s controversial that people would prefer not to be gay. And can we really discount 30 years of work on 1 mis-spoken sentence? Why do we glom on to the minutiae and forget about the big picture? I think I know the reason.
Charlie, that’s not at all hard to understand. I’m a homosexual, and I understand it better than you, if you indeed are not homosexual.
What I decry about NARTH and many conservative Christians from my own perspective, is the fact that many of us cannot ‘change’, can’t be ‘fixed’. If we choose to live a life of chastity, congruence of our orientation with our faith beliefs, it’s never good enough for many conservative Christians. If we don’t beat our breasts with mea culpas, and ring the bell before these people, so they can get out of our way and not be contaminated by us, if we don’t acknowledge how ‘disordered’ we are, and say how mentally defective we are, if we don’t sit at the back of the bus, if we’re allowed on the bus at all … well, it’s best we disappear.
Dr. Nicolosi’s little joke “of dropping a baby on its head … well, maybe it would be brain damaged, but at least it wouldn’t be ‘gay’.” says exactly what he thinks about homosexuals. Perhaps, Charlie, you’d like to be talked about in this manner.
Charlie, I’m a little testy right now; but, I’m not someone’s little ‘project’ that needs to be ‘fixed’ by anyone, least of all by the likes of someone like Rekers or Nicolosi.
None of the above, Charlie, is said with you in mind or meant as a personal attack on your treatment of homosexuals. I would think that you are a person that treats each person with dignity and respect, as does Madison.
Warren, the other side has not come up with much in the past 40 years despite how much easier it is to discover links to biology and genetics.
“And how have you determined that these are “by far” the most significant reasons?”
For one, because you guys always “forget” to mention them! I don’t have anything readily at hand but do you really think that the main concern is fear of intolerance? That’s just wishful thinking on your part. A lot of people can easily come to the internal conclusion that they would prefer not to be gay. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Warren, what you wrote and what I wrote are pretty similar. Do you care to be any more specific on what I am missing? Also keep in mind that I was not limiting myself to Nicolosi. Maybe that’s the source of your confusion?
In any event, your request to discredit me is unprofessional and unappreciated.
It’s not as if they haven’t looked for it either.
I’m reminded of what Dr Paul McHugh, former advisor to the Vatican on sexual matters, said about Transsexuality:
Er… no. Sex Reassignment surgery was looked on as a last resort. It was only tried when all other things had failed. Even then, most people are subject to all sorts of psychological and religious interventions instead, and everyone who goes through surgery has at least a year, often a decade, of psychological examination and therapy first, with no evidence at all that it’s effective.
There are still continuing efforts to find the Holy Grail of coercing transsexuality into a mental illness model, just as there is with homosexuality.
The actual facts, the evidence of neuro-anatomy set at birth, while it is nowhere near as strong as I’d like, is many order of magnitude, quite literally hundreds of thousands of times, stronger than any other evidence whatsoever. Yet this has to be ignored if ideology and theology is to triumph – so it is, as being “unproven”.
Charlie wrote:
Not necessarily, no. You could have other qualifications, or an unusual degree of expertise acquired due to other circumstances.
Otherwise, your opinion would be an uneducated one, but still possibly useful if you gave citations.
?? But you’ve just told us you’re not a therapist. In order for me to know the situation, could I possibly ask just what you are? I for example have zero qualifications, though I have been invited by professors of psychology and medicine to lecture to their students as I have some special knowledge in this area. An unusual degree of expertise acquired due to other circumstances so to speak.
Well, it’s news to me, Charlie, that a smothering mother, a distant father doesn’t fit the category of “bad parenting” according to NARTH. And, I know as a personal fact, they seem to always look for sexual abuse; somewhere, sometime. Isn’t sexual abuse considered trauma?
That they have various theories, I agree with. What I find disturbing is what they do with their “theories”. These folks are not scientists. They protect their theories by a “pick and choose” method of their reviews of the literature; or, they outright distort experimental results. What drives their therapy is a faith belief, not science. If science points to something uncomfortable or seemingly irreconcilable to their faith belief, the science is thrown out.
This isn’t anything new, Charlie. The same thing happened with the new science that Copernicus and Galileo discovered. Heresy, heresy was the Church’s response, who owned the social turf at the time: metaphorically, and oftentimes literally. Geocentrism vs. Heliocentrism … we still have in some circles debate about this.
Or, take the matter brought up by Warren about schizophrenia. Some early cultures viewed people with schizophrenia as gifted, and in touch with their gods. Later, of course, in the Christian world, these persons were considered demonically possessed. Subsequent to Freud, we started that “momism” science; about the cold, distant mother. As of late, we’re beginning to understand some real neural chemical, brain anatomy factors play a significant factor in schizophrenia.
I’m a Christian, and as such, my belief, as I understand it, dictates why I do with my same sex orientation. My Christian belief does not drive the scientific research nor the results. My ethical view is that my belief seeks to harmonize what’s found in science with the expectations of my faith. Because I misunderstand or don’t understand a scientific finding doesn’t, for me, make that finding invalid or untrue.
Charlie – As this series shows, the search for these environmental factors goes back to Freud. Moms were blamed for the gay, and now with Nicolosi, dads are also on the hot seat. Professionals were once sure that autism was due to refrigerator mothers. Parents have been blamed for many things, but where is the evidence? Those who support the parental cause theory have had a century to produce the evidence and what has emerged is a mish mash of opinion and weak correlations, explainable in several different ways, but in no way pointing to a direct parental cause.
Madison# ~ Jun 21, 2011 at 8:32 pm
“Richard, you’re conveniently forgetting the, by far, most significant reasons to not want same sex attraction: 1) the yin-yang of male/female relationship (for lack of a better term) and 2) sexually reproduced off-spring. ”
And how have you determined that these are “by far” the most significant reasons?
Charlie – Since you are not informed about Nicolosi, it would be good for people to discount what you write about him.
Nicolosi says:
The bonding phase (years 1.5-4) is the critical period. Don’t get it right then and years of therapy are in your future.
Charlie# ~ Jun 21, 2011 at 10:52 pm
“the other side has not come up with much in the past 40 years despite how much easier it is to discover links to biology and genetics.
How familiar are you with the research into sexual orientation that has been done in the last 20 years (let alone 40)?
” “And how have you determined that these are “by far” the most significant reasons?”
For one, because you guys always “forget” to mention them!”
Or maybe those reasons don’t get mentioned because they aren’t that significant? I hardly see not mentioning those reasons as “proof” that they are “by far the most significant” reasons for people wanting to change from gay to straight.
Now my question was directed at Madison, and I hope he (she?) does answer it, however I don’t mind others responding.
“I don’t have anything readily at hand but do you really think that the main concern is fear of intolerance?”
No, I believe the most significant reason for gays trying to convert to being straight is due to religious belief (although, some of those beliefs could be labeled as intolerant). And I think (although I’m not quite sure and it is too late in the evening for me to dig up the papers) the 2nd most common reason is the desire to raise children (or have “traditional” family).
Charlie# ~ Jun 21, 2011 at 10:42 pm
“what you wrote and what I wrote are pretty similar. Do you care to be any more specific on what I am missing?”
What you wrote ( Charlie# ~ Jun 21, 2011 at 8:44 pm ):
“But I don’t think that’s what Nicolosi, et al are suggesting. Instead, they surmise that something occurs during adolescence that results in a boy’s sense of masculinity not developing as expected.”
You are saying that Nicolosi believes that the age in which “something” causes a person to be homosexual “ occurs during adolescence”
Warren is saying ( Warren# ~ Jun 21, 2011 at 9:08 pm )
Nicolosi claims what determines a person’s orientation occurs during:
“The bonding phase (years 1.5-4) is the critical period.”
that is not even close to what you said.
“In any event, your request to discredit me is unprofessional and unappreciated.”
No, Warren has been quite professional in how he has countered your claims. He has given actual citations for his counter-arguments. Disagreeing with you is not “unprofessional.”
@Teresa, I think you are hung up on the word “trauma” is if it necessarily has to be something shocking or the equivalent of years of “bad parenting”. I think you also need to recognize that there are enough variables that what may seem like identical situations leading to different results may not really be identical situations (although the elevated concordance in twins may suggest that similar environments may increase the chance of similar results). But I don’t think that’s what Nicolosi, et al are suggesting. Instead, they surmise that something occurs during adolescence that results in a boy’s sense of masculinity not developing as expected. They have various theories on how much a distant father, smothering mother, rejection by peers, abuse or whatnot contribute.
I’m not even remotely a therapist so I guess you can discount everything I write.
Richard, you’re conveniently forgetting the, by far, most significant reasons to not want same sex attraction: 1) the yin-yang of male/female relationship (for lack of a better term) and 2) sexually reproduced off-spring. Suggesting that the only “problem” is homophobia shows a total mental block of reality.
I’m not religious so can’t speak to that aspect of the matter. However I do appreciate that the religious groups seem to be leading the charge and taking the brunt of the criticism.
If Nicolosi did make those comments even roughly how they’ve been reported than that was truly an indefensible mistake and probably does reflect that Nicolosi is on the extreme side of the notion that people do not want to be gay. But again, I’m not even sure it’s controversial that people would prefer not to be gay. And can we really discount 30 years of work on 1 mis-spoken sentence? Why do we glom on to the minutiae and forget about the big picture? I think I know the reason.
I understand, Charlie, why you hold that position. I don’t and won’t discount your opinion, Charlie. We differ on what’s “larger” in homosexual etiology, not necessarily the component factors.
What I do find amazing, Charlie, is that millions upon millions of people can come to you for therapy and describe the exact same childhood conditions that same-sex attracted persons tell you; and, those millions upon millions are str8. Children from birth through adulthood have been traumatized beyond what’s imaginable with indescribable parenting horrors. They walk among us everyday, and, guess what, they’re str8.
Charlie, what about the number of homosexuals whose parents have been exemplary parents, doing the best they can; perhaps, as you’ve parented yourself: no trauma, no sex abuse, no smothering mothering, no distant or absent father. What then, Charlie, do we continue to ‘hunt the acorn’ trying to discover some dark, secret, parenting screw-up?
Charlie, from what you’ve disclosed, your whole occupational career is in counseling; perhaps, from a Freudian perspective, I don’t know. You’re invested in the nurture approach. You’ve seen lives changed in many instances with other psychological problems. I, too, Charlie if I was in your position, would naturally look to my discipline as the answer, which is in nurture. What I don’t understand, Charlie, is for those of us who do not have a political axe to grind, and are simply looking for answers as best we can, as impartially as we can; are as dismissed by NARTH persons, as you claim the rest of us are dismissive of you.
Charlie, that’s not at all hard to understand. I’m a homosexual, and I understand it better than you, if you indeed are not homosexual.
What I decry about NARTH and many conservative Christians from my own perspective, is the fact that many of us cannot ‘change’, can’t be ‘fixed’. If we choose to live a life of chastity, congruence of our orientation with our faith beliefs, it’s never good enough for many conservative Christians. If we don’t beat our breasts with mea culpas, and ring the bell before these people, so they can get out of our way and not be contaminated by us, if we don’t acknowledge how ‘disordered’ we are, and say how mentally defective we are, if we don’t sit at the back of the bus, if we’re allowed on the bus at all … well, it’s best we disappear.
Dr. Nicolosi’s little joke “of dropping a baby on its head … well, maybe it would be brain damaged, but at least it wouldn’t be ‘gay’.” says exactly what he thinks about homosexuals. Perhaps, Charlie, you’d like to be talked about in this manner.
Charlie, I’m a little testy right now; but, I’m not someone’s little ‘project’ that needs to be ‘fixed’ by anyone, least of all by the likes of someone like Rekers or Nicolosi.
None of the above, Charlie, is said with you in mind or meant as a personal attack on your treatment of homosexuals. I would think that you are a person that treats each person with dignity and respect, as does Madison.
@ Charlie :
My point is really that those who do, for whatever reason (rejection/persecution by others, self-loathing, concerns about living the kind of life that fits with their ‘values system’, a desire to be what they might consider to be ‘better’), want to ‘change’ should take ‘ownership’ of that process and not base their approach on what others might have done. There is so often in practice a very fine line between ‘seeking causation’ and ‘looking for someone else to blame’.
Obviously, my own perspective on this is coloured by my strongly-held that ‘being gay’ is not, in and of itself, necessarily a ‘problem’ (or it is only a ‘problem’ inasmuch as others make it one).
Warren, the other side has not come up with much in the past 40 years despite how much easier it is to discover links to biology and genetics.
“And how have you determined that these are “by far” the most significant reasons?”
For one, because you guys always “forget” to mention them! I don’t have anything readily at hand but do you really think that the main concern is fear of intolerance? That’s just wishful thinking on your part. A lot of people can easily come to the internal conclusion that they would prefer not to be gay. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Yes, it’s a tricky proposition prove one way or the other. If I were to state it more firmly, I think we will gradually hone in on environmental factors that increase the likelihood or even lead to same sex attraction. But it’s going to be slow going considering how unpopular that view is.
Teresa, it appears that some pre-natal or even hereditary aspects may play a role but my vantage point is that post-birth environment plays a larger role. It’s really hard to discount how much psychological development occurs during those first, extremely formative 10 years.
William, you call it “blame” but others might refer to it as looking for causation. Is that so bad?
Warren, what you wrote and what I wrote are pretty similar. Do you care to be any more specific on what I am missing? Also keep in mind that I was not limiting myself to Nicolosi. Maybe that’s the source of your confusion?
In any event, your request to discredit me is unprofessional and unappreciated.
I agree with you, Teresa. Actually, I would go further and say that thrashing about trying to find ‘someone to blame’ for the fact that some people are gay is a manifestation of extreme silliness. In fact, I find it quite extraordinarily annoying.
If someone wants to ‘change’ (and there are some who do), then ultimately they must take ‘ownership’ of their own situations. Blaming parents or friends or so-called ‘recruiters’ is, in the last analysis, an abrogation of personal responsibility and self-discipline.
(Of course, I don’t see ‘being gay’ as a ‘problem’; treating others with callousness and/or disrespect is a problem – whether one is gay, straight or whatever.)
It’s not as if they haven’t looked for it either.
I’m reminded of what Dr Paul McHugh, former advisor to the Vatican on sexual matters, said about Transsexuality:
Er… no. Sex Reassignment surgery was looked on as a last resort. It was only tried when all other things had failed. Even then, most people are subject to all sorts of psychological and religious interventions instead, and everyone who goes through surgery has at least a year, often a decade, of psychological examination and therapy first, with no evidence at all that it’s effective.
There are still continuing efforts to find the Holy Grail of coercing transsexuality into a mental illness model, just as there is with homosexuality.
The actual facts, the evidence of neuro-anatomy set at birth, while it is nowhere near as strong as I’d like, is many order of magnitude, quite literally hundreds of thousands of times, stronger than any other evidence whatsoever. Yet this has to be ignored if ideology and theology is to triumph – so it is, as being “unproven”.
Well, it’s news to me, Charlie, that a smothering mother, a distant father doesn’t fit the category of “bad parenting” according to NARTH. And, I know as a personal fact, they seem to always look for sexual abuse; somewhere, sometime. Isn’t sexual abuse considered trauma?
That they have various theories, I agree with. What I find disturbing is what they do with their “theories”. These folks are not scientists. They protect their theories by a “pick and choose” method of their reviews of the literature; or, they outright distort experimental results. What drives their therapy is a faith belief, not science. If science points to something uncomfortable or seemingly irreconcilable to their faith belief, the science is thrown out.
This isn’t anything new, Charlie. The same thing happened with the new science that Copernicus and Galileo discovered. Heresy, heresy was the Church’s response, who owned the social turf at the time: metaphorically, and oftentimes literally. Geocentrism vs. Heliocentrism … we still have in some circles debate about this.
Or, take the matter brought up by Warren about schizophrenia. Some early cultures viewed people with schizophrenia as gifted, and in touch with their gods. Later, of course, in the Christian world, these persons were considered demonically possessed. Subsequent to Freud, we started that “momism” science; about the cold, distant mother. As of late, we’re beginning to understand some real neural chemical, brain anatomy factors play a significant factor in schizophrenia.
I’m a Christian, and as such, my belief, as I understand it, dictates why I do with my same sex orientation. My Christian belief does not drive the scientific research nor the results. My ethical view is that my belief seeks to harmonize what’s found in science with the expectations of my faith. Because I misunderstand or don’t understand a scientific finding doesn’t, for me, make that finding invalid or untrue.
Charlie – As this series shows, the search for these environmental factors goes back to Freud. Moms were blamed for the gay, and now with Nicolosi, dads are also on the hot seat. Professionals were once sure that autism was due to refrigerator mothers. Parents have been blamed for many things, but where is the evidence? Those who support the parental cause theory have had a century to produce the evidence and what has emerged is a mish mash of opinion and weak correlations, explainable in several different ways, but in no way pointing to a direct parental cause.
Madison# ~ Jun 21, 2011 at 8:32 pm
“Richard, you’re conveniently forgetting the, by far, most significant reasons to not want same sex attraction: 1) the yin-yang of male/female relationship (for lack of a better term) and 2) sexually reproduced off-spring. ”
And how have you determined that these are “by far” the most significant reasons?
Charlie – Since you are not informed about Nicolosi, it would be good for people to discount what you write about him.
Nicolosi says:
The bonding phase (years 1.5-4) is the critical period. Don’t get it right then and years of therapy are in your future.
Richard, you’re conveniently forgetting the, by far, most significant reasons to not want same sex attraction: 1) the yin-yang of male/female relationship (for lack of a better term) and 2) sexually reproduced off-spring. Suggesting that the only “problem” is homophobia shows a total mental block of reality.
I understand, Charlie, why you hold that position. I don’t and won’t discount your opinion, Charlie. We differ on what’s “larger” in homosexual etiology, not necessarily the component factors.
What I do find amazing, Charlie, is that millions upon millions of people can come to you for therapy and describe the exact same childhood conditions that same-sex attracted persons tell you; and, those millions upon millions are str8. Children from birth through adulthood have been traumatized beyond what’s imaginable with indescribable parenting horrors. They walk among us everyday, and, guess what, they’re str8.
Charlie, what about the number of homosexuals whose parents have been exemplary parents, doing the best they can; perhaps, as you’ve parented yourself: no trauma, no sex abuse, no smothering mothering, no distant or absent father. What then, Charlie, do we continue to ‘hunt the acorn’ trying to discover some dark, secret, parenting screw-up?
Charlie, from what you’ve disclosed, your whole occupational career is in counseling; perhaps, from a Freudian perspective, I don’t know. You’re invested in the nurture approach. You’ve seen lives changed in many instances with other psychological problems. I, too, Charlie if I was in your position, would naturally look to my discipline as the answer, which is in nurture. What I don’t understand, Charlie, is for those of us who do not have a political axe to grind, and are simply looking for answers as best we can, as impartially as we can; are as dismissed by NARTH persons, as you claim the rest of us are dismissive of you.
Mary stated:
The more I read and contemplate this issue, personal to me and fraught with my prejudices and biases, I’m less and less inclined to see parental mode as being a significant factor or much of a factor, at all. Environment, we must remember, has to include the important prenatal environment in the womb. The time when the most critical development, divisional and organizational processes, gene/protein expression, hormonal triggering is occurring. All maintained by the mother’s own internal feeding of the developing child through her blood. The mother’s own stressors must of necessity be transmitted to the child throughout the time in the womb.
Mary, if you’re including prenatal development, in your term ‘environment’, I’d agree with you. If however, by environment you mean post-natal parenting or socialization factors, I won’t disagree entirely; but, frankly parenting modes/socialization are at the bottom of my hit-list of causative factors for homosexuality.
I agree with you, Teresa. Actually, I would go further and say that thrashing about trying to find ‘someone to blame’ for the fact that some people are gay is a manifestation of extreme silliness. In fact, I find it quite extraordinarily annoying.
If someone wants to ‘change’ (and there are some who do), then ultimately they must take ‘ownership’ of their own situations. Blaming parents or friends or so-called ‘recruiters’ is, in the last analysis, an abrogation of personal responsibility and self-discipline.
(Of course, I don’t see ‘being gay’ as a ‘problem’; treating others with callousness and/or disrespect is a problem – whether one is gay, straight or whatever.)
Thank you, William, for the quote from Douglas Futuyma. And, I love your analogy about astrology and astrologers and the uncanny way that whatever they seem to say, seems to fit whomever cares to listen.
Segway into a similar topical quote from Herbert Spencer:
Yes, I entirely agree with you, Teresa. The problem is, however, that the theory that parents do play a role, at least in some cases, can’t actually be disproved. Just look at what Charlie has written:
There we see a non-scientific theory in all its strength and glory: it runs little or no risk of being disconfirmed by facts, because it can be reconciled with almost any conceivable state of affairs. So might an astrologer say that no-one is saying that a certain conjunction of the planets at your birth will or will not lead to same sex attraction, just that some patterns have been observed. But no matter what, a competent astrologer would mange to find something in your astrological chart to “explain” why you are homosexual. Similarly, even if the general history of your life and upbringing, according to reparative therapy theories, “should” have caused you to grow up heterosexual, a good reparative therapist will find something in your relationship with your parents or in your childhood that will “explain” why things have turned out otherwise – or, if you are sufficiently suggestible, will induce you to “remember” something. (Remember that UK therapist who tried to convince journalist Patrick Strudwick that he must have been sexually abused in childhood, even though he knew that he never had been?)
I cannot do better at this point than to quote the biologist Douglas Futuyma:
Ooops – I meant to say “But it is also just as sloppy to say they had everything to do with it”
It would nonsense to say mom and dad had nothing to do with our present selves. But it is also just as sloppy to say they had nothing to do with it.
I really do think we are going to find a biological standard that lends itself to homosexuality when mixed with the right parental mode and environment.
Teresa asked:
The answer is yes, for the most part, in my experience with them.
You can watch here one example of just how fragile they are.
Charlie, a question back for you … if parents do not play a role, don’t you think it is OK to acknowledge that? Or are some peoples’ feeling so fragile that we must avoid the truth?
Warren and others have said exactly what I said in my previous comment, that the social factors seem to play a much smaller part in the etiology of homosexuality, given the world’s population, and the fact that those same patterns that reparative therapists like to say seems to be the causative factor for homosexuality is played out daily in hundreds of millions of lives and doesn’t bring about homosexuality … and, the added fact that parents can do pretty much all the right things, and their children are still homosexual.
I think, Charlie, the burden of proof is on the reparative therapy community to address this ‘elephant in the room’ about the etiology of homosexuality; especially the largest community of homosexuals: men. Fluidity, when it happens, has been especially attached to homosexual women, quite uncommon in men.
Chariie, I know the usual NARTH, ex-gay thought is that there is no such thing as a homosexual person … we’re all heterosexuals with a homosexual problem. Similar, I suppose, that there is no such thing as left-handed persons, just right-handed persons with a left-handed problem, caused by disordered parents.
Charlie, my feelings certainly won’t be hurt if researchers today or tomorrow find a basic nurture pattern that can be demonstrated repeatably to cause homosexuality. My argument, drawn from others, is that the current NARTH explanation doesn’t hold water, when all we have to do is look around us at the facts of life.
Are Reparative Therapists’ feelings so fragile that they must avoid the truth?
It would nonsense to say mom and dad had nothing to do with our present selves. But it is also just as sloppy to say they had nothing to do with it.
I really do think we are going to find a biological standard that lends itself to homosexuality when mixed with the right parental mode and environment.
Teresa asked:
The answer is yes, for the most part, in my experience with them.
You can watch here one example of just how fragile they are.
Charlie, a question back for you … if parents do not play a role, don’t you think it is OK to acknowledge that? Or are some peoples’ feeling so fragile that we must avoid the truth?
Warren and others have said exactly what I said in my previous comment, that the social factors seem to play a much smaller part in the etiology of homosexuality, given the world’s population, and the fact that those same patterns that reparative therapists like to say seems to be the causative factor for homosexuality is played out daily in hundreds of millions of lives and doesn’t bring about homosexuality … and, the added fact that parents can do pretty much all the right things, and their children are still homosexual.
I think, Charlie, the burden of proof is on the reparative therapy community to address this ‘elephant in the room’ about the etiology of homosexuality; especially the largest community of homosexuals: men. Fluidity, when it happens, has been especially attached to homosexual women, quite uncommon in men.
Chariie, I know the usual NARTH, ex-gay thought is that there is no such thing as a homosexual person … we’re all heterosexuals with a homosexual problem. Similar, I suppose, that there is no such thing as left-handed persons, just right-handed persons with a left-handed problem, caused by disordered parents.
Charlie, my feelings certainly won’t be hurt if researchers today or tomorrow find a basic nurture pattern that can be demonstrated repeatably to cause homosexuality. My argument, drawn from others, is that the current NARTH explanation doesn’t hold water, when all we have to do is look around us at the facts of life.
Are Reparative Therapists’ feelings so fragile that they must avoid the truth?
Teresa, I think it’s the opposite. Humans are fundamentally heterosexual but sexual attractions can be fluid, especially when impacted by social factors. No one is saying that a certain type of parental-child relationship will or will not lead to same sex attraction. Just that some patterns have been observed. If parents do play a role, don’t you think it is OK to acknowledge that? Or are peoples’ feelings so fragile that we must avoid the truth?
I’m somewhat baffled how all this stuff about faulty parenting causes autism, schizophrenia, homosexuality, and who knows how much more. With almost 7 billion persons in the world; perhaps, 5-8% are gay, women less so. Hundreds of millions, perhaps billions (?) have had awful childhoods due to any number of conditions: war, starvation, abuse, neglect, divorce, orphaned, same sex parenting absent or abysmal, and on and on. Many of these traumatized children are above average intelligence, sensitive, etc., I imagine. How could it not be so with such a huge population base? But, they’re still str8.
The reverse side of that coin are there are any number of parents who have good parenting skills; both parents active, concerned and loving toward there children; and, they still have gay sons and daughters.
In my opinion, we don’t need some special research to determine what’s right before our eyes. There has to be some combined genetic, pre-natal hormonal activity going on that sets the foundational orientation of a person. The nature component has to trump whatever nurture factors are present.
It’s quite simply awful that both parents of gay children and the children themselves suffer from such guilt, shame, fear at the hands of “well-meaning” professionals, who also influence many others in society.
Faith beliefs may enter into chosen ethics or morality as to behavior choices for homosexuals; but, that has nothing to do with the etiology of homosexuality.
I wonder if there’s some strange ‘mom’ and ‘dad’ behavior that causes the condition known as: NARTH Therapists?
Interestingly, the protective maternal figure who comes to the rescue like Sigourney Weaver in that exoskeleton-machine from Aliens, in order to save her gay son from scary hetero bullies, also looms large in gay male “coming of age” fiction and movies.
(The early Russell Crowe film The Sum of Us was a refreshing exception to this cliche — in that movie, it’s the heterosexual father who is the gay son’s #1 Fan, defender, and booster, while the Ignorant Homophobe role goes to the prospective stepmother.)