Warren Throckmorton

Eve Tushnet, writing for National Review Online, reviews the June 10, Love Won Out conference near Washington DC. It’s a pretty brief article but she finds most fault with the reparative therapy tone of the day. While she acknowledged that some men do fit the reparative-theory-predicted understanding of things, others don’t. Interesting was the man, “Frank,” who said he did fit the theory, but even with all the insight, he has not lost his same-sex attractions.

On the whole, she is unimpressed with the emphasis on causation. Reading further on her blog, she writes:

But there are all kinds of cases where family dynamics don’t explain very much. And honestly–family dynamics are often a reductive and boring explanation for homosexuality. Plus, the Love Won Out speakers were super defensive on the subject of origins, hammering on and on about how homosexuality isn’t genetic. Why on earth does this even matter? All kinds of things have a genetic component. Even from the ex-gay perspective, there shouldn’t be anything threatening about acknowledging that homosexuality has some kind of complex relation to genetics. People wouldn’t avoid treatment for anxiety disorders, or stop going to AA, or give up on controlling their tempers, just because anxiety or alcoholism or anger has a genetic component. So I really have no idea why the idea of an inborn predisposition to homosexuality wigged these people out so bad.

Yeah, I wonder that too. I suspect it is a reaction to those who say, “don’t tamper with someone’s feelings, they’re genetic!” However, I don’t think one overreaction deserves another.

From the Journal of Health and Social Behavior (Dec., 2005), pp. 307-22 comes this interesting abstract:

Title: Geneticization of deviant behavior and consequences for stigma: the case of mental illness.
Author: Phelan JC. of the Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, Department of Sociomedical Sciences, 722 W. 168th Street, New York, NY 10032, USA. [email protected]

Abstract: One likely consequence of the genetics revolution is an increased tendency to understand human behavior in genetic terms. How might this “geneticization” affect stigma? Attribution theory predicts a reduction in stigma via reduced blame, anger, and punishment and increased sympathy and help. According to “genetic essentialist” thinking, genes are the basis of human identity and strongly deterministic of behavior. If such ideas are commonly accepted, geneticization should exacerbate stigma by increasing perceptions of differentness, persistence, seriousness, and transmissibility, which in turn should increase social distance and reproductive restrictiveness. I test these predictions using the case of mental illness and a vignette experiment embedded in a nationally representative survey. There was little support for attribution theory predictions. Consistent with genetic essentialism, genetic attributions increased the perceived seriousness and persistence of the mental illness and the belief that siblings and children would develop the same problem. Genetic attribution did not affect reproductive restrictiveness or social distance from the ill person but did increase social distance from the person’s sibling, particularly regarding intimate forms of contact involving dating, marriage, and having children.

Polling data about homosexuality supplied by Wayne Besen on his website seems to be counter to the impact on mental illness. I wonder if the fact that most people do not see homosexuality as a mental illness could contribute to the difference. Not going anywhere particularly, just thought the study was interesting. I am interested in this because I am concerned that the advances in genetics will erode perceptions of free will and have impact on how clients perceive a variety of clinical issues. The whole chemical imbalance thing makes it difficult to establish talk therapy with clients who want to “wait until the meds kick in.”

On the sexual identity therapy blog, I have entered an open forum to allow comments and questions regarding the guidelines. I hope bloggers from here will review the guidelines and post questions, comments and offer support.

I listened to the Alan Colmes Radio Show tonight with a debate of sorts between Richard Cohen and Wayne Besen. During the call-in segment, Chad Thompson called in and said a cheery hello. Chad, you were the most reasonable voice on the show.

I think Richard mostly got the best of Wayne. Wayne needs to learn to let people talk. He sounds like he had way too much caffiene.

Wayne’s criticisms of Richard’s marriage were in very poor taste.

Richard made a point to emphasize that homosexuals are emotionally wounded and can change if they heal their wounds.

Wayne attacked Richard on several grounds. Of course, Richard is vulnerable here due to his expulsion from the ACA. Here is the expulsion letter and below are the sections of the code violated.

A.1.a: Primary Responsibility. The primary responsibility of counselors is to respect the dignity and to promote the welfare of clients.

A.1.b: Positive Growth and Development. Counselors encourage client growth and development in ways that foster the clients’ interest and welfare; counselors avoid fostering dependent counseling relationships.

A.5.a: Personal Needs. In the counseling relationship, counselors are aware of the intimacy and responsibilities inherent in the counseling relationship, maintain respect for clients, and avoid actions that seek to meet their personal needs at the expense of clients.

A.6.a: Avoid When Possible. Counselors are aware of their influential positions with respect to clients, and they avoid exploiting the trust and dependency of clients. Counselors make every effort to avoid dual relationships with clients that could impair professional judgment or increase the risk of harm to clients. (Examples of such relationships include, but are not limited to, familial, social, financial, business, or close personal relationships with clients.) When a dual relationship cannot be avoided, counselors take appropriate professional precautions such as informed consent, consultation, supervision, and documentation to ensure that judgment is not impaired and no exploitation occurs.

C.3.b: Testimonials. Counselors who use testimonials do not solicit them from clients or other persons who, because of their particular circumstances, may be vulnerable to undue influence.

C.3.f: Products and Training Advertisements. Counselors who develop products related to their profession or conduct workshops or training events ensure that the advertisements concerning these products or events are accurate and disclose adequate information for consumers to make informed choices.

Additional note: My friend David Blakeslee got on the show and reinforced the concept of people living in alignment with their beliefs and values. Chad and David were the highlights as far as I’m concerned.

Strange thing about Wayne Besen’s Truth Wins Out website; you can’t get to it without a password. I’ll bet he just forgot to send me mine.

ADDITIONAL NOTE: The website is active now and Wayne’s favorite therapist is on the front page. I suspect many thoughtful gay folk will be uncomfortable with TWO (the loneliest number since the number ONE). I think the most offensive aspect of it is this point from his 10 point program for ridding the world of ex-gay ministries: “TWO will verify credible information and potentially create devastating consequences for the future of the ex-gay ministries. Indeed, a limited ad campaign inquiring about such leads coupled with a hotline would likely yield results. We have uncovered major scandals with no formal mechanism for doing so. Imagine the potential for success if we address this issue with a laser-like focus.”

An ex-gay hotline? I-800-Gotcha!