Category: Professional issues

Year in review – Top ten stories from 2006

As much for my own reference and recollection as anything else, I compiled this top ten list of stories from 2006. Since I am the only voter, the list is subjective and regular readers might arrange them differently or think I should have included another story over one of these. I am interested to hear any reactions along those lines. They are arranged in the order of the interest the story seemed to create here on the blog, not their actual importance in the real world.

I first note the topic which is a link to all relevant blog posts and then describe the story briefly. It’s been an eventful year, eh?

1. Gerald Schoenewolf’s NARTH article – This issue was reported widely on blogs as well as the mainstream press and seemed to generate the most interest of any of the issues I blogged about. The article on political correctness, Dr. Schoenewolf’s angry defense, and NARTH’s handling of it (removed it from the website but then allowed Dr. Schoenewolf to defend it) figured prominently in my decision not to attend the 2006 NARTH conference and the resignations of David Blakeslee and Ned Stringham from NARTH’s Scientific Advisory Board. A popular YouTube video also came about as a result. I wish a better and wiser 2007 to NARTH.

2. Richard Cohen’s media appearances – This series of posts garnered much interest from readers, with critics of ex-gay efforts delighting in Mr. Cohen’s decisions to take his reparative drive theories and techniques to the mainstream media. His appearances bewildered and divided people who support those who seek to live out conservative views of sexuality. I severed ties with PFOX over the matter due to Mr. Cohen’s association with them.

3. Joseph Berger’s NARTH article – This story preceded the controversy over Dr. Schoenewolf’s article. Reacting on the NARTH website to a San Francisco Chronicle article, Dr. Berger said that gender variant children might do well to face teasing in school in order to move them toward reality. With encouragement from Exodus and others, NARTH issued a retraction and removed the article. Much damage was done however, as Dr. Berger’s article was repeatedly and at times erroneously referred to by opponents of the Palm Springs Love Won Out conference.

4. Ted Haggard’s resignation – I did quite a few posts on this sad story and was quoted in a Denver Post article regarding the aftermath. Along with the revelation of fellow Colorado pastor, Paul Barnes, the disclosures of Rev. Haggard have prompted many in the evangelical world to reflect on how the church responds to homosexuality.

5. The return of the co-founders of Exodus – About half way through the year, I began receiving emails from Michael Bussee. Michael, one of the co-founders of Exodus International, took exception to my account of the early days of Exodus. Through some spirited and pointed exchanges, Michael and I forged a good connection via the blog and email. These exchanges eventually led to the establishment of wonderful discussions with other early movers and shakers (e.g., Robbi Kenney, Ed Hurst, Lori Rentzel) including helpful reflection on the term ex-gay.

6. Re-evaluation of the term “ex-gay” – As an aspect of the co-founders of Exodus discussion, Exodus Executive Director, Alan Chambers publicly expressed his desire to retire the term ex-gay. The discussion that ensued about the term took many tangents including the common ground discussion and built on an earlier post about what change of sexuality means. At present, it seems to me that the discussion is taking a break for the holidays. I hope to see these topics revived in the new year.

7. Swedish pheromone study and press coverage – The study was certainly news in itself as the Swedish team led by Ivanka Savic, found large differences in how the brains of lesbians and straight women were activated by what the researchers proposed were pheromone-like substances. I got involved by noting the incorrect reporting of the study from both the Associated Press and the United Press International. After I made several contacts with Dr. Savic and then the wire services, both the AP and UPI issued corrections.

8. APA President Koocher’s remarks about client self-determination – In an APA town hall meeting, guest blogger, David Blakeslee asked APA president Gerald Koocher for guidance in helping religiously conservative people who were in conflict over same-sex attraction. Dr. Koocher raised some eyebrows with his answer and subsequent clarification, published on this blog. This exchange led to an invitation from Dr. Koocher to submit my sexual identity therapy framework to the APA for a review. The entire APA convention and a NARTH inspired protest led to several posts, including the comments of APA luminary Nicholas Cummings.

9. Sexual identity therapy – I launched a blog dedicated to providing a framework for mental health interventions with people in conflict over same-sex attractions and chosen values and beliefs. The guidelines differ on several key points from gay affirmative and reparative therapy models. Related to this topic, the paper, “I am not a reparative therapist,” generated much discussion.

10. Abortion and mental health articles – In January, I wrote two articles regarding mental health consequences of abortion. These reports featured interviews with David Fergusson, David Reardon, and Nancy Russo, all prominent researchers in the field. The impetus was a report from David Fergusson’s team demonstrating some mental health risks associated with having an abortion. The interviews and attention to this topic led the APA to remove an outdated public policy information page from their website (NARTH, take note). The page is still being updated but is archived here. These reports were, as far as I can determine, the most widely distributed pieces I have written. Over 15,000 news sources worldwide ran one or both of them.

Honorable mention – The birth order effect research by Anthony Bogaert and subsequent research reports that did not find such an effect occupied my time and several posts. Research from Bearman and Bruckner and most recently the research of Frisch and Hviid found no support for the birth order effect in large and varied groups of respondents. Other issues such as the Equality Ride, Brokeback Mountain, the 60 Minutes report, Gay or Straight?, and the Foley debacle were also important. But one must stop reviewing sometime and say thanks to those who read and comment here.

Happy new year!

Top ten posts, by number of comments, 2006

I am working on a post summarizing the highlights for the year and in so doing reviewed the number of comments each post received. And here they are:

Top ten posts with number of comments in parentheses:

1. Alan Colmes radio show: Wayne Besen vs. Richard Cohen (76)

2. Ex-ex-gay? (53)

3. Big day at the NEA convention in Orlando (52)

4. Australian TV documentary about gay conversion (50)

5. Michael Bussee speaks out about Exodus (49)

6. I am not a reparative therapist (48)

7. LA Times reports on NARTH Schoenewolf controversies (42)

8. CNN segment involving Richard Cohen (39)

9. APA President speaks about a clients right to self-determination (38)

10. Mental health status and homosexuality (37)

NARTH pulls the Melonakos article

Recently, I took some exception to the outdated article, “Why Isn’t Homosexuality Considered A Disorder On The Basis Of Its Medical Consequences?” by Kathleen Melonakos. It was posted on the NARTH website and reprinted at Lifesite News but has now been pulled from the site. You can still read it at the Lifesite News page. I commend Dave Pruden and the NARTH leaders who are taking seriously these concerns for accuracy.

UPDATE: 1/5/06 – A commenter pointed out that the Melonakos article has now been pulled from the Lifesite News site. So this link does not work. For future reference, one can find it on other sites around the web.

The controversy over Dr. Dobson’s Time editorial

Old news by now, there is a dust up over Dr. Dobson’s column regarding Mary Cheney and subsequent complaints by writers Dobson quotes. While not much is happening on this story in the mainstream press, blogs are all over it.

I have not looked into the matter much and am undecided how much time I am going to spend on it. It seems to me as I read the column that Dr. Dobson cites aspects of the work of these researchers but does not say they agree with his position. This happens all the time in academia. You quote people to make points with which they themselves might disagree. Data are, but how one interprets the data is another matter and certainly influenced by one’s presuppositions. First blush reaction; if I get into it more perhaps I would see it differently.

One article and discussion that I found interesting (and perhaps worth getting into) is at the website Inside Higher Ed. Many of the discussants there seem to echo my current point of view. The dialogue is spirited but on point most of the time.

One provocative comment from the Inside Higher Ed page that caught my eye was made by Stanislaus Dundon who wrote:

Using research data independently of conclusions

If Carol Gilligan has a complex argument in which the data of important distinct advantageous contributions of father and mother is somehow over-ridden by the unique advantages of same-sex or single parent homes, or at least equaled by them, let her prove that via additional data or highlighting the contrary data she has already presented. The idea of refusing to let Dobson use her data sounds a bit like the Catholic Cardinals who did not want people to look through Galileo’s telescope.

Dr. Dundon is Professor Emeritus in Philosophy at California State University – Sacramento.

UPDATE: Here are two reactions from Focus on the Family that I do not think are widely circulated. The first rebuts an article from Jennifer Chrisler who was given space by Time to respond to Dr. Dobson’s earlier op-ed. The second provides supporting documentation for Dr. Dobson’s initial op-ed.