Warren Throckmorton – Page 553 – A college psychology professor's observations about public policy, mental health, sexual identity, and religious issues

O Come, O Come Emmanuel

Recorder artist Victoria Rigel plays two recorders at once in this 2008 version of O Come, O Come Emmanuel. Yours truly played the accompaniment.

If the widget doesn’t work, try this link.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all.

Uganda Watch: Bahati questioned about death of MP; Museveni outlines position on gays

Bahati under scrutiny

David Bahati finds himself in the spotlight again but this time not for his Anti-Homosexuality Bill. Rather he is under some scrutiny over his alleged relationship with a murder suspect. The Observer has the story:

Almost a week after Cerinah Nebanda’s death, David Bahati, the anti-gay bill sponsor, finds himself thrust into the unviable limelight as a person of interest in the death of the Butaleja woman Member of Parliament.

Until now, Bahati was known and has struggled to keep attention on his anti-gay draft legislation that has caused an uproar in the international community.

But on Wednesday, Nebanda’s family fingered Bahati as the link between Cerinah and her alleged boyfriend Adam Kalungi, who is a key suspect and still on the run. Bahati, in a statement issued yesterday, roundly denied that claim. Here is how Bahati’s name came to the fore.

Read the rest of the story at the link above. It appears that President Museveni and Bahati are giving different accounts of Bahati’s knowledge of the suspect. It is hard to say whether this development will hamper the author of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill.

Museveni outlines position on gays

President Yowari Museveni outlined his position on gays in Uganda earlier this week. At the installation of Catholic Archbishop Ntagali, Museveni said

“I have been telling these people (pro gay activists) that nobody will kill or prosecute them for being homosexual, but there should be no promotion of homosexuality,”

It is not clear what Museveni means by promotion. However, in the current Anti-Homosexuality Bill this section relates to promotion:

13. Promotion of homosexuality.

(1) A person who –

(a) participates in production. procuring, marketing, broadcasting, disseminating, publishing pornographic materials for purposes of promoting homosexuality;

(b) funds or sponsors homosexuality or other related activities;

(c) offers premises and other related fixed or movable assets for purposes of homosexuality or promoting homosexuality;

(d) uses electronic devices which include internet, films, mobile phones for purposes of homosexuality or promoting homosexuality and;

(e) who acts as an accomplice or attempts to promote or in any way abets homosexuality and related practices;

commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a line of live thousand currency points or imprisonment of a minimum of five years and a maximum of seven years or both fine and imprisonment.

(2) Where the offender is a corporate body or a business or an association or a non-governmental organization, on conviction its certificate of registration shall be cancelled and the director or proprietor or promoter shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for seven years.

The free speech implications of this section are clear. Ugandans will have to watch what they say and it is easy to see how the section could be abused by those in power.

Reparative Therapy Makeover Continues: JONAH Responds to SPLC Suit

A group called Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund has taken on the defense of Jews Offering New Alternatives to Healing (JONAH) against a suit filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The SPLC complaint alleges that JONAH violated New Jersey’s consumer fraud law by promising sexual reorientation to clients without success. The complaint is here.

It is very discouraging to see the JONAH complaint framed as a freedom of conscience case. As the complaint outlines, the techniques alleged by the plaintiffs have been discredited within the mainstream mental health community and as such should be confronted. Please see this post on the “oranges therapy” and this one on the use of nudity by JONAH counselors.

Furthermore, it is misleading for JONAH to describe what it does in the following manner:

For over twelve years, JONAH has helped hundreds of people live the lives that they want, consistent with their personal values. JONAH’s mission is to give all people the opportunity to explore their internal conflicts around sexuality and other values in a caring, non-judgmental environment.

As I have noted elsewhere, reparative therapists are beginning to use the language of the sexual identity therapy framework to describe what they do. However, reparative therapy is inconsistent with the SIT Framework.

NARTH, the New Epigenetic Model and Confirmation Bias

Last week, I wrote briefly about the new paper from William Rice et al which describes an epigenetic model of homosexuality. In that post I reported a quote from National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) spokesman David Pruden regarding the study. Here is Pruden’s statement which was cited in the Christian Post:

“The theoretical model itself attributes only 10-14 percent of the factors to genetics or epigenetics. That leaves the remaining 85 percent or so of the factors to environmental influences,” said Pruden.

That assessment did not sound right to me so I contacted William Rice who informed me that his model accounted for homosexuality generally speaking, not just for “10-14 percent.” The Christian Post rightly printed the correction at the end of the article.

So where did the 10-14 percent figure come from? According to an email from Pruden, that range came from NARTH Scientific Advisory Board member, Neil Whitehead. Whitehead has speculated in the past that the maximum genetic contribution is between 10-14%. While I believe his assessment is low, he has referred to various studies to provide support. However, in the case of the new study, it appears no one at NARTH has even read the paper.

If Pruden read it, he didn’t refer to it. Rather he referred to Whitehead who yesterday placed a brief article on the NARTH website about the paper. Here is the body of Whitehead’s statement:

(A fuller evaluation will appear here on this site: www.mygenes.co.nz when the full paper is available)

Recently (Anonymous, 2012) a summation of a published paper (Rice, W.R., Friberg, U. Gavrilets, 2012) has achieved attention as being an explanation for homosexuality.

Readers should note this is a theoretical model only and that historically many theories have been put forward as the single overriding factor causing homosexuality. The current best consensus is that there is no single over-riding factor – the trait is multifactorial and overwhelmingly environmental. The Rice paper is quite unlikely to be “critical”. Like previous theories, the current epigenetic one may well have a small contribution, but this remains to be established. The authors themselves note that laboratory work has yet to be done. The paper built on previously published work (Rice, Gavrilets, & Friberg, 2008).

Apparently, Whitehead has not read the paper because he said the “full paper” was not available. On the contrary, the paper is freely available online here.

What is striking is what Whitehead says about the topic of the paper before seeing it. He says homosexuality is “overwhelmingly environmental” and opines that the current epigenetic theory is unlikely to make more than a “small contribution” to homosexuality. It appears that Pruden and Whitehead have their minds made up.

NARTH is so committed to an environmental/family model of cause that organization leaders jump to a preferred conclusion before even considering the evidence. This is one way confirmation bias operates. In this case, NARTH representatives said things about the theory before they read or studied it, and what they said came, not from the paper, but from their preconceived ideas.