A college psychology professor's observations about public policy, mental health, sexual identity, and religious issues
Might make this tweet into a badge or something. It would go nicely with my “Throckmorton is a snake” award given by Scott Lively.
Except there was no “falsified news.”
Rev. Ssempa had some nasty tactics to push Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill and all of that came to light. Quite a story really.
Guess I’ll follow Rev. Ssempa and see what he’s talking about these days.
UPDATE: I’ve been blocked…
After the 9th Circuit court upheld CA’s law banning reorientation therapy for minors, NARTH issued a statement in response. For context, I reproduce the entire statement with comments to follow:
NARTH finds today’s ruling by the court to be disappointing and plans to appeal this decision. If left standing, this ruling will constitute a serious intrusion by government on the freedom of minors and their families to choose their desired form of psychological care.
At a time when adolescents who experience themselves as being the wrong biological sex are allowed to pursue sexual reassignment surgery, licensed therapists who are willing to assist youth with unwanted same-sex attraction and behaviors will be prohibited from even talking to minors in a manner that could be construed as promoting the pursuit of change.
Politicians and non-elected judges have seen fit to approve of such encroachments on personal and professional freedoms in spite of the fact that the American Psychological Association admits the exact causes of same-sex attractions are not known, virtually no research exists directly addressing the modification of same-sex behaviors and attractions with minors, and the prevalence of harm from such change efforts is unknown and has therefore not been established as being any greater than the rates of harm documented for psychotherapy in general. Furthermore, much research has documented that fluidity in sexual attractions and identity often occurs naturally and is particularly pronounced in adolescence and early adulthood, which suggests the viability of therapeutic change efforts for some youth.
These facts make it clear that science is not at the forefront of this effort to restrict freedoms. If that were the case, gaps in our knowledge of this area would be addressed through a bipartisan program of research, not by the heavy hand of government squelching professional practice in order to appease powerful interests of activists within professional associations and lobbying groups. NARTH sincerely hopes that these crucial facts will be considered by a more receptive judicial audience in the future.
Strong point of the statement: They are correct that more research is needed on minors who are in conflict over their attractions to the same sex.
Given the concerns over safety and effectiveness, it seems reasonable to take seriously adult reports about when they were minors. In one sense, retrospective (but still inadequate) research has been done by asking adults about their experiences while teens.
Weak point of the statement: Spontaneous developmental change in attractions does not “suggest the viability of therapeutic change efforts for some youth.”
Being situationally or temporarily attracted to the same sex is not the same experience as exclusive attraction to the same sex throughout adolescence. The CA law allows therapists to discuss sexual orientation issues and engage in self-discovery. However, when a youth declares a gay orientation, a therapist is not allowed to engage in therapeutic techniques designed to change orientation.
Weakest point of the statement: The hypocrisy of NARTH whining about research.
Opponents of reorientation therapy are reacting to many stories of youth and young adults who felt harmed by being dragged to the conversion therapist and asked to do something they couldn’t do. There are some studies that link parental lack of acceptance (one manifestation of which is forced attendance at conversion therapy sessions) with mental health adjustment in GLBT youth. Surely those studies are relevant and are unanswered by NARTH.
It is just as accurate to say “science is not at the forefront” of NARTH’s effort to maintain access to conversion therapy. “If that were the case (science at the forefront), gaps in our knowledge of this area would be addressed through” a program of research led by NARTH. However, this has never been the case. Despite numerous calls for such research from various sources, NARTH has done just one survey of adults since the organization was founded in 1992.
The lack of research complaint is a dodge. While I haven’t been on the inside for quite awhile, I was at one point. I actually did some research on the subject and attempted to address concerns of both sides. I did it on my own dime and worked to get it published. However, where has NARTH been? It is my settled opinion that the defense of conversion therapy is not based on science because if it was, there would be some NARTH-generated science to talk about.
Perhaps those who defend NARTH should ask why NARTH has not tested it’s claims. And perhaps NARTH should stop talking about science until it has some to talk about. If NARTH’s leaders were serious about research, they would channel all of their funds and efforts into a large multi-year study of their efforts designed by legitimate scholars instead of legal fees.
A couple of readers asked me to comment on Nick Cummings USA Today column on reorientation therapy. With some caution, I think it would be good to do so.
First I want to say that I have always liked and admired Nick. His work in managed behavioral health care was pioneering. In the 1980s, Nick promoted the idea that excellent clinical services could save businesses a lot of money and actually expand access to therapy. He was correct and helped create modern managed behavioral healthcare, which is essentially the dominant system today. In addition to the new business strategies that Nick’s company (American Biodyne) innovated, Nick was/is a gifted clinician and trainer. I learned a lot from Nick about therapy as a Biodyne clinician in the mid-1980s. I will always be grateful for his influence on me at that time.
Nick is an admirable gentleman in many ways. He seems to be indestructible and maintains an ambitious and rigorous schedule into his older age. He also reads and studies Greek (another area of common interest) and has developed a cooperative program with China that is helping to shape their behavioral health system.
Having declared a sincere admiration for Nick, I have to add that we disagree about his recent push to defend reorientation therapy as a modality. Nick is an endorser of the Sexual Identity Therapy Framework and I have heard him promote the ideals we support. Thus, I know that any person who sought change therapy from him would not get the usual reparative therapy explanations for homosexuality, nor would religion be used as a coercive tool. In other words, I don’t believe Nick wishes to defend any and all approaches to change therapy; I think he wishes to defend the right of clients to arrange their lives and seek help to do it. However, it is dismaying that his defense comes in the context of the JONAH’s court case. Much of what is done in the name of reorientation cannot be defended.
One area Nick and I disagree about is how much to emphasize the role and importance of bisexuality. Nick once told me that clients who had no prior heterosexual experience were not successful in changing orientation and so over time, the Kaiser-Permanente therapists discouraged orientation change for those clients. To me, this suggests that many of those “changed” clients were bisexuals who found ways to live with or minimize their same-sex attractions. Furthermore, to my knowledge, no one was discussing “spousosexuals” from 1959-1979. Some men and women are generally attracted to the same sex but spontaneously fall in love with one person of the opposite sex. Some of those successes could easily have been people who had the potential for that kind of fluidity. Another problem with relying on Nick’s data is that follow up was lacking for many of the clients. Nick is aware that some of his clients remained changed, but he does not have systematic data on the population.
If all reorientation therapists were like Nick, I doubt we would have the conflict and polarization we have seen over the past decade or so. I also doubt there is anybody currently vocally defending reorientation who practices as Nick did. Current reorientation therapists blame parenting and masculinity deficits for same-sex attraction, some of them put people through emotionally taxing and empirically questionable human potential exercises, still others attempt to coerce people with religion. My impression is that Nick and his crew did none of that. Certainly, in all of my dealings with American Biodyne, no one ever suggested any of that. The emphasis was always on helping the client find strategies to enhance mental health and live in accord with their aspirations.
Nick’s closing paragraph makes me think that he believes that there are some, perhaps many, therapists who work empirically and ethically with “fully informed persons.” This is where we disagree. The way reorientation is practiced as I have seen it and heard it described at various conferences and by various therapists in my travels during the last decade or so gives me no confidence that he is right this time.
Given those concerns, I continue to support the APA’s distinction between sexual orientation and sexual orientation identity; the former being durable once established and the latter being more subject to modification. I am skeptical there are many current reorientation therapists fully inform their clients about that distinction.
Two headlines from my email inbox:
Ex-Gay Movement, Alive, Strong, & Moving Forward!
Organizers Cancel ‘Ex-Gay Pride Month’ Citing Vague ‘Security Threats’
The first comes from the Illinois Family Institute and Linda Jernigan who puts on a brave front and offers her book for sale. The second comes from The Advocate and describes the cancellation of ex-gay pride month (or now “ex-gay half-month”).
From one point of view, things look rosy; from another, things are comically bad.
Just a word on the cancellation of the “ex-gay pride month:” For the cancellation to have any credibility, the organizers need to reveal the nature of the security concerns. I have a hard time believing Voice for the Voiceless would be voiceless about real concerns.
In response to claims that the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) will force military chaplains to perform gay marriages, a defense official told me today that chaplains are not required to perform marriages which violate the tenets of their religion.
The day DOMA was repealed, David Barton opined to Glenn Beck that military chaplains will now have to perform weddings for gay service members. Barton said DOMA had protected “the rights of chaplains not to have to perform gay marriage against their will.” He then predicted that chaplains would be under renewed pressure to perform these ceremonies.
However, according to a defense official, nothing has changed because of the repeal of DOMA. The official told me “a chaplain is not required to participate in or officiate a private ceremony if doing so would be in variance with the tenets of his or her religion or personal beliefs.”
Given this stance, it seems quite unlikely that gay people will join the military just to get married, as Barton predicted Monday. A more efficient route for someone who lives in a state which does not recognize gay couples would be to go to a state without a residency requirement (e.g., Massachusetts). In any case for now, DOD is on record as saying chaplains can refuse to perform private ceremonies if those activities violate the tenets of their religion.
