AOL’s GLBT community blog Queersighted has an article by Richard Rothstein this morning that marks tomorrow’s first meeting of the APA Sexual Orientation Task as an important date in gay history. Why? Because he hopes the task force will suggest to the APA that all reparative/conversion therapy should be banned. And what if the APA bans reparative therapy (never defined in this piece)? Well, round up the posse, boys, Mr. Rothstein has the answer:
If the APA does in fact ban reparative or conversion therapy, we will at long last have a solid legal argument for shutting down such groups as Exodus International and Homosexuals Anonymous. This will also mean that under standard and existing malpractice laws, psychologists and therapists who continue to advocate and practice such therapy would be subject to license revocation, hefty fines and even imprisonment.
So if Mr. Rothstein’s vision is realized, reparative therapists and maybe the Exodus crew will be answering questions like: “Hey, doc, what are you in for?”
This is disturbing.
One recent commenter here proposed that what I do under the framework of sexual identity therapy was really reparative. I was fired from Magellan’s Provider Advisory Board in 2005 (and later reinstated) because it was alledged that I was a reparative therapist. People who should know better in the academic community refuse to acknowledge the distinctions I make between what I do and reparative therapy. So should I set up a trust fund for the kids?
The APA may not advocate such strong legal measures, but as the recent AP story made clear, the audience for the APA’s decisions is not only a professional one. PFLAG and the Task Force are ready, presumably with lawyers.
Jayhuck – thank you for your response – I’m trying to understand and appreciate how you responded. I will say one last thing and then get back on the topic of this thread which Eddy so kindly pointed out and was right about. Everyone is equal under law and we all have the same rights if we live in America – no one is telling anyone else they cannot get married or work for a company and get benefits, etc. – there are eligibility requirements that must be adhered to for everyone that allows these privileges. Exodus and FOTF are just supporting these privileges and have the right to do so. Gay affirming organizations might not be preventing equal rights when it comes to marriage and benefits but they sure are preventing equal rights when it comes to all being protected under law for crimes.
Mary escribe: “ok, here is what I want/need to know – does any gay affirming organization promote any political agenda? ”
Uh… si.
Y también: “I ask because it has been my observation that they do but I could not be perceiving it correctly. If they do, then why is it not ok for any other organization to have the same right with another view?”
Los grupos de homosexuales son un resultado de millenia de la ignorancia, el odio, el temor y activismo contra personas de homosexual. Éxodo y sus aliados procuran extender ese reinado de la ignorancia que es la opresión del homosexual.
Y también aún más: “For instance, does the organization have to be classified as a political group to do this rather include it into what they are already representing? ”
¡No!
Y también aún más: “Please be kind and simple with your responses – I am just trying to understand what seems like a contradiction to me.”
Bueno…
…
Gay affirming organizations might not be preventing equal rights when it comes to marriage and benefits but they sure are preventing equal rights when it comes to all being protected under law for crimes.
Ann, what part of “sexual orientation” do you not understand?
If you can read any part of the (soon to be passed by congress) Hate Crimes law that mentions only gay people, I’d love to see it.
Have you read the law?
Ann,
Hope I can interupt here –
I understand your point that if one group is allowed to politic so should another be allowed – absolutely true.
The difference is that gays are politicking for rights that were/have/are in the past been denied to them based on their decision to be out & gay and love in the open a person of their choosing. Where as EXODUS is politcking to prevent those people from acquiring those rights based on the idea that people should and ought to change and that they do not need anymore rights.
It is very difficult for a some to understand that a person who is gay (whether or not change is possible is not the point) but is gay and has a strong passion for another human being in much the same way that you or I would have for a husband. Would you want people to tell you to marry a woman??? That you have all the same rights except you choose to be with a man and therefore are not entitled to rights of inheritance, survivorship, family and guardianship rights etc..???
And then EXODUS says a person can change and therefore does not NEED that right to marry a person of the same sex. They do not NEED to worry about a hate crime – since we should all be protected under the same law – (except have you noticed that we are not the same people or need the same protections because we are not gay??) Yes, crimes are committed against gays, children and women just because of their sexuality, age, gender. This society in America is a violent one.
And we as christians and believers should look out for eachother and realize that some are more vulnerable than others and therefore need laws in place to deter the “would be attacker/perpetrator etc..”
Yes, EXODUS and FOTF have every right to politic but it sounds contradictory to their ministry of bringing the message of christ to those in need. Ministry is more than just pounding out what “ought” to be and providing real answers to what really is happening out there. I for one will stand by my gay brothers and sisters because I will never forget what it meant to be gay in this society.
Many of those at EXODUS and FOTF are in my opinion paid to tow the same old line, have never really been out & gay and in a vulnerable and potentially life threatening situation, have discounted their experience as a gay person to fit in with their church. Writing these words, I am almost brought to tears recalling the memories of my youth and the christians yelling at us, spitiing on us, telling us we were going to hell. We had police escorts to our cars and were told not to go home right away. WE WERE TOLD NOT TO GO HOME.
What you see today was fought for long and hard. How can someone like myself support EXODUS and I am ex gay.
As a ministry who wants to help – it is my opinion that they should stay out of politics and provide a safe place to go for questioning gays.
thank you Scott, Mary and Lynn for your responses – I unfortunately could not read Lynn’s because it was in another language I only partially understand. I’m going to read them several times over to make sure I understand your perspective. Just for the record, I have never stated any personal religious beliefs or clarified my relationship preferences. Scott, my question about orientation was more of a rhetorical one as it can hold a variety of meanings for any given person throughout the course of one’s life. Mary, I appreciate everything you said and am going to read it again later. Lynn, sorry I couldn’t read too much of what you wrote but want to.
Eddy –
UM – you are definitely encouraging the derailing of the discussion my friend
As for putting up or shutting up – I’ve been waiting for Mike Ensley to do that since we started this discussion – he has avoided and evaded MY original topic – so please don’t try to put the problem on us – I ask that in the most civil way possible
Mary –
Thank you SO much – out of everyone speaking on this tangential topic – myself included – you and Timothy have been the most eloquent and helpful
I think you did a great job of summing up the real problem(s)
Eddy,
I understand why you rush to his defense, but in case you hadn’t noticed, Mike leveled just as many accusations and judgements against many of us as well. FYI
Hi Scott,
No, I have not read the law you are referring to – the only way I know about it is from the posts on this blog. All of the posts I have read seem to be about the protection of gay individuals under a crime bill but does not also include by name or catagory others who I believe deserve the same protection. In other words, the classification for protection of gay individuals or groups seems to be promoted and held in a higher esteem than those of the pre-born child, homeless, unwed mother or father, orphan, those living in poverty, the elderly, the addicted, etc. I do not think that is right or fair. We should all be treated equally as human beings under this law and in my opinion there should be no distinction or classification.
Warren and Eddy,
I think we did talk the original topic to death didn’t we? Don’t discussions normally turn into other discussions? If everyone is enjoying the topic we are on – even if its changed from the original, is there any real problem with seeing it through?
Ann,
The problem is, most of those other groups you mention – while they have their own problems – are not targeted for severe physical and verbal abuse like gay people are – gay people are killed every day simply for being gay – Hate crime laws DO protect other minorities as well, like African Americans. Gay people are not the only group these laws are designed to protect.
Ann,
I think this will help. This is a Wikipedia article that defines Hate Crimes, and cuts through the rhetoric from both sides to talk about the arguments for AND against hate crime laws –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime
Eddy,
You encouraged me to put up or shut up. I’m not certain what you mean. Are you asking that I itemize the instances in which Exodus and/or it’s leaders used the lives and experiences of strugglers to advocate against rights and freedoms for gay people? Although I find it unfathomable that you would be unaware of such instances, I can certainly list them if you wish.
Otherwise, please tell me what you are asking.
Ann,
There is a great deal of misunderstanding (and deliberate misrepresentation) about hate crimes legislation. Let me set some facts straight.
1. Whether or not one favors hate crimes legislation (HCL), we can all agree that lying about it is wrong.
2. HCL is intended to address violent crimes against classes of people. The theory is that such crimes harm not only the person attacked but also harm a community of people through threat or intimidation. In a manner similar to how lynching was not just a crime against a single person but was intended to intimidate all blacks, so too a violent random attack on a person based on their race has victims beyond just the person who is attacked.
3. HCL does not punish crimes against one race more severely than those against another. If a group of Asians goes out to find a Hispanic to attack because they hate Hispanics, the hate crime enhancement is the same as if a black man attacks a white man because of his race. The enhancement is because of the motivation and intent and is not extra protection based on race (or other factors)
4. Hate Crimes categories are included because these are the characteristics which have been identified as the motivation for group-intimidation based crimes. Currently Federal law has the following categories: race, color, religion, and nation origin. In other words, currently the Federal government may provide assistance to states to help with the solving of crimes based on religion, such as the burning of Baptist churches that occurred a few years back.
The law under consideration would add gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability. There do not appear to be crimes against homeless unwed mothers to any significant extent, or else law enforcement would be asking for that category to be added as well.
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/07/16/555#more-555
5. These are not “thought crimes” (and Mike knows it). The enhancements are to violent crimes. And as for the “thought” part, generally hate crimes are pretty evident from the words screamed at the victim while they are being stabbed or beaten senseless. And in case you were wondering, those words are never “I have a moral objection to homosexual behavior”.
Quite frequently the law takes motivation into consideration. That’s why we have first degree murder and have also have involuntary manslaughter – because intent matters.
6. HCL’s do not treat gays better than ex-gays. The same protections that apply to violent attacks on gays would also apply to violent attacks on ex-gays. For example, when Alan claimed that he had been the victim of a hate crime by students with chalk, the same laws apply to him as to me.
This law would NOT give special status to gays. If you beat up your gay neighbor because he stomped on your rose bushes, that’s not a hate crime. If you take a lead pipe and head to West Hollywood to bash a fag (which occurred a couple years back), that would be a hate crime.
And if a gay guy set out to bash a redneck, that too would be a hate crime. If you have any doubt about this, the 2005 hate crimes tracking actually list hate crimes based on orientation that were anti-heterosexual.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table4.htm
Ann, it is perfectly legitimate to declare that you oppose all HCLs. You can take the position that such legislation is counterproductive or that it violates certain principles of freedom.
But what you cannot do (and continue to claim to be moral) is say that hate crimes legislation should protect me because of my religion but not you because of your orientation.
The claims that anti-gay activists (including Exodus) are making about the law are not true. Well actually, they are blatant lies. (I seldom accuse others of lying but it’s hard to see any other way to describe things that are simply factually baseless). Jim Burroway has compared the claims to the actual bill – any his analyses are always logical and fair.
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/06/16/444
Now for the great confession – personally, I don’t favor hate crimes legislation. But I’m not a hypocrit, I don’t favor ANY of it. I don’t pick and choose who I want to be excluded.
But if it is going to exist, then it is reprehensible to say that the third largest target group should not be included because you don’t like them. That is disgusting and immoral.
(there, Eddy, was that enough of a put up?)
Timothy,
When you write the word “you”, are you referring to me or people in general? I think we completely agree about opposing hate crime legislation and the reasons we state for it. I know so much of these posts have been about groups but I am coming from the place as an individual.
The problem is, most of those other groups you mention – while they have their own problems – are not targeted for severe physical and verbal abuse like gay people are – gay people are killed every day simply for being gay –
Jayhuck,
I guess we see things differently on this matter but I want to know ans learn as much as I can – preborn children are targeted when they are an inconvenience and suffer a severe physical death. No one is held accountable. The elderly are often targets of physical abuse because they become inconvenient, orphans are exploited in unconsciounable ways, prostitutes are beaten or killed for doing what they believe they have no choice about, the homeless are always vulnerable to physical attacks. Also, is there any proof that gays are killed every day just because of who they are. I have not heard of that kind of frequency before. If that is the case, I want to know about it and help more to hold those perpetrators accountable. My heart is with anyone who is vulnerable – I have my own experience with violent crimes and want to protect all of us from them – no person is more important than another.
Ann,
I meant “you” in the more general sense, not in the “Ann” sense.
I think we completely agree about opposing hate crime legislation and the reasons we state for it.
I’m not sure we do, Ann. Because I believe that if they are to exist then they must include orientation. And I believe that if one opposes them, one can’t do so against orientation but allow race and religion.
I cannot be principled and say “I oppose hate crimes bills but I’ll grudging accept them for me… I’ll only oppose them when they apply to Ann”. You have to make it level. If you don’t speak out when they are based on race, you do not have the right to speak out when they are based on orientation.
Unless, of course, one’s real motivation is anti-gay.
Yes Ann, everyone is vulnerable.
But not everyone is targeted. Gays are targeted. Orphans are not.
Jayhuck,
I am defending NOBODY! My appeal was only to a sense of fairness…charges were levelled they ought to be backed up by factual evidence. My gut tells me that until we at least make some effort to really talk at that level we’ll continue derailing. I found Mike’s request reasonable and the refusal to respond unreasonable. Just me. Others can perceive it as they will.
Since this topic was about criminalizing conversion therapy–and since that goes to the very heart of what Exodus represents–then I believe it’s both fair and appropriate to look at the discussion from that side for once. It’s looking like that won’t happen but I make no apologies for trying to steer the conversation back in that direction. I feel you’ve detoured far too many conversations, as soon as the word ‘Exodus’ pops up, down this very same path. This time, with the actual topic decidedly in my favor, I decided to see if it was possible to bring us back to it. You’ve convinced me that I was dreaming an impossible dream.
Timothy,
I’ve shared my political views before. Please recognize that I’m neither attacking or defending when I ask for these specifics that Mike Ensley requested. Unfortunately, for me, your last post still wasn’t the ‘put up’. Please cite a SPECIFIC INSTANCE where Exodus made a political statement that was aimed at taking away gay rights. You get to tell how it impacts the gay community and Mike gets to tell how he believes it impacts EXODUS. (I’m hearing loud and clear how legislation can impact the gay community; I’m just not hearing a SPECIFIC INSTANCE that will allow Mike to defend his position fairly.) Sorry for the caps but you said you didn’t understand what I was asking for.
BTW: I didn’t come here to fight. I came here because I believed it was a place where responsible discussion between people of different viewpoints COULD happen. If you are unwilling to provide one specific instance for discussion, I say let’s drop it right here and move on.
Jayhuck,
Please consider the fact that today–on this thread alone–you blogged at 1100, 1102, 1105, 1107, 1124 and 1127. I realize that Warren may have ‘approved’ them all simultaneously but is there a way to pull your comments together into just one or two posts? I’m getting afraid to check the ‘subscribe’ box. No biggie, just asking….
You have to make it level.
Timothy,
This is exactly what I want as well – to make it level. By classifying an individual or group in a hate crime bill and not including all, I think is unfair. As far as I am concerned, religion has nothing to do with it. Why cannot the hate crime bill be for all people – no labels, classes – just people who regardless of their circumstance are entitled to protection by law? I also disagree with you about orphans – I have direct knowledge of that and stand by my statement. It is a well known problem in America and throughout the world. I look at all people and their circumstances, not just a group or individual and their circumstance.
Timothy,
Do you feel the thousands of pre-born children killed every year are targeted or just vulnerable? It is my understanding that they have no choice or protection in whether they are killed or not. They are not included in the hate crime bill are they?
Timothy,
Yep. Everyone is vulnerable. I can protect my home with a security system. I can lock my car doors. I always have an escort in dark parking lots or dark isolated hallways late at night. I don’t carry a purse – so have nothing to steal. I don’t wear heels when I think I have to walk a distance or may need to run. I wear modest clothing for the most part. But somedays – I still look gay. And I may be chosen for attack simply becasue of that or because my escort is gay, black, jewish, muslim, etc…
I cannot protect against a person coming up to me in public whom I’ve never met before, and being taken off guard by an attack. Why would someone attack me?? Because some days I still look gay. I am not allowed to carry a concealed firearm. But I can take martial arts classes – I suppose. But I should be able walk with the same confidence as a straight white man through this society – if we are all a protected class?
Straight white men do not look over their shoulder as much as others. (shaking my head I wonder – - why don’t people understand this?)
EDDY –
No one is talking about taking away gay rights – How many times do we need to say this??? Exodus is in the business of PREVENTING equal rights for gay people – and it is Mike’s responsibility, or yours, to PUT UP evidence to the contrary!
Ann –
Did you read the Wikipedia article on Hate Crimes? If not, you really need to. It gets to the heart of what a hate crime is – what it isn’t, and it cuts through all the rhetoric from both sides – before you make a decision either way, please read that article – Here it is again:
The evidence FOR and AGAINST hate crimes is listed at the bottom of this article – and Timothy makes a good point, if you’re going to prevent gay people from having the protection of hate crimes laws, and if you really care about a level playing field, then you need to remove the hate crimes laws in place for African Americans and others –
Here is the article:
Hate Crimes Wiki Article
Eddy,
If Warren gave us more control to edit our resonses, I probably wouldn’t have had to submit so many – but we can’t on this blog, and I’m sorry, but my mind works in that segmented way – I’ll think of something else I want to say minutes or hours after I have submitted my last message –
But thanks for asking
– I will try to be more, um, concise
J
Eddy et al,
I want to apologize for several things:
1) Not for being so prolific, because many others write on here a great deal, but for submitting so many separate posts.
2) For letting my anger show – I try not to do this, but sometimes I write “on the fly” and just don’t take the time to edit myself as I should. I respect the views of almost everyone on here – Eddy, I think you’re an intelligent and well-spoken individual – and you seem to be a person with strong values and beliefs, even if you do rush to Mike Ensley’s defense a little too quickly
3) I want to apologize to you specifically Eddy – and to others, if I have too often derailed the conversation – I’ve NEVER honestly meant to do this – my opinions are strong, especially when it comes to Exodus and politics – and I feel that if they weren’t so political, and that politics wasn’t so much a part of them now, there would be no need to discuss it, but if my opinions or comments are causing a problem, I’ll try and refrain and make an effort to stick to the topic at hand. Although, I hope you’ll forgive me and others if we can’t separate what Exodus does and what it says.
I do want to say, before I end though, Eddy, that Mike is the one who hasn’t addressed the real issue, or put up the needed evidence. Wherever the idea came from that Exodus was “taking away” gay rights, the issue isn’t about that, and it never has been – not really – it has been with their (Exodus’) strong and deliberate efforts to undermine equal rights for gay people – not take away rights as someone, somewhere, at some time suggested.
Well – at least I got this all into one post and not 20
Progress, not perfection, right? 
Jason
Thanks Jayhuck. You really can be quite articulate! Your latest post is a shining example. Keep up the good work. (Sorry, I’m winding down from a karaoke marathon and a ‘beautiful weather’ weekend. Can’t seem to work up any profundities. Maybe manana.)
Speaking of winding down, this thread seems to moving in that direction. I appreciate the dialogue here on this topic.
I was/am ambivalent on the hate crimes direction the thread went. I personally am opposed (as is Timothy) to any hate crimes related extra penalties, so I feel no extra protection because religion is in a list of groups. If someone hates me because of my faith, I do not think an extra few years will deter them from attacking me. Correct me with data, if anyone has it, but that is what I think right now.
If it is argued that hate crimes laws have some effect on cultural attitudes, I again would like to see some kind of evidence. Sadly, racial hatred seems to be keep the Southern Poverty Law Center in business as much now as ever. I read their report on racist websites on YouTube just days after I reported on them here.
Hi Jayhuck,
I do not want to ever exclude anyone from a hate crimes bill – ever. I want it to include everyone. In my opinion, no one is more important than another when it comes to crime. Thank you and Mary for your very articulate and thoughtful responses – I am on your side as well as all the other groups of people and individuals I have mentioned before regarding this. I guess I just think differently about how it should be done.
Ann,
AGAIN – please read the Wikipedia article and try to understand what a Hate Crime is. There is a pretty clear definition for it – you need to understand that before you go on
Warren,
I would direct you to the same Wiki article that I’ve been directing Ann – if there is any evidence For or Against Hate Crime legislation, it will be there – In fact, I think there is some there.
Jason
One last hate crimes comment. I was discussing hate crimes bills with a friend of mine this weekend and he made the argument that is, so far, the most compelling and while he did not convince me, it does make me think.
He said that the best reason for hate crimes legislation is not for the murder or the beating or the horrific crimes. It is for the little crimes that can terrorize a group.
Grafitti is not a big crime and does not have much penalty at all. But for the Jewish family that wakes up to find their house painted with Swasticas it can have lasting and horrifying effects. They now live in the shadow of fear, looking over their shoulders, never knowing if the kid bagging their groceries wants to hurt them.
And if the perpetrator is caught, what do they get? Very little punishment at all for grafitti – certainly not in proportion to the harm they caused.
Or the black kid in Nebraska that gets pelted with eggs from a car.
Or anyone else who is subjected to terror for who they are, and not for anything they have done.
Sadly, the bill being proposed only deals with violent crimes. But some states do recognize that group terrorism is not uncommon and that minorities should not be forced to live in fear while their tormentors go unpunished.
Timothy,
I am glad you got to have that conversation. I’ve been a part of a number of targeted groups throughout my lifetime: very short, inept at contact sports, hippie/peace freak, gay, ‘brainy’, ex-gay, born-again Christian, Pentecostal. Things that ‘flip the triggers’ of the small-minded. Hate and intimidation find so many ways to play out short of actual violence.
Hi Jayhuck,
Thank you for being so persistant and doing it in a kind way – I appreciate your patience and will do as you ask and read what you suggested. Don’t think I will make any more comments on this subject though as it seems to have run it’s course – I have only spoken from my heart and from personal experience with targeted hate crime and appreciate everything you have said AND the way you have said it. Thank you.
Eddy,
I’ve been a part of targeted groups as well – as probably most of us on here have been I’ll bet
– but I have to say, as caucasion man, I’ve never been in a group that is a violently attacked from so many different groups as the gay community is. There are different levels.
Yeah – I guess that’s it Timothy – it is the terror that is instilled onto the individual who is targeted. That is more damaging than the actual attck sometimes.
As a woman who was a lesbian – it is frightening. there are still some people out ther who believe that what a lesbian needs is a good —-, and they will take it where they can.
Sorry, Warren but you are not there to hear the taunting cat calls from strangers on the street, in the store etc… You do not walk in fear.
Ann,
I don’t know you but you seem to have a genuinely good and inquisitive heart – I apologize if I’ve ever said anything in haste that has offended you
Hi Jayhuck,
Thank you for your kind and generous comment – no need to apologize – your comments have never been offensive to me as I know they haven’t been personally directed to hurt me in anyway – you have spoken with conviction and from knowledge and I only have respect for you. By the way
I read the article that you suggested and found the opposition argument to the proposed law very weak. The argument for it was much stronger. Thank you again for your patience and persistance in having me read it.
Ann,
You stated
“shouldn’t all bullying stop for everyone? I think a prostitute, homeless person, orphan, the disabled, the unwed mother, and those living in poverty deserve the same rights in this area as anyone else – why would their label be excluded and sexual orientation be included – isn’t this discrimminatory – do you really think this is fair or right? We are all the same when it comes to protection under law. Please don’t promote one individual over another”
So, are you advocating that we revoke all protected classes…like those with disabilities, race, religion, sex, etc…?
Religion is a choice, and yet we protect that group. Why do we do so over others?
Just so you know, the above you mentioned ARE protected and given special protections…most places in the east coast anyway, have protections for those regardless of “socioeconomic standing” (homeless, prostitute, orphaned, poverty), gender/sex, orientation, religion, disability, etc..
The laws often protect those who cannot protect themselves. You know, even when the majority believes something is wrong or should be persecuted, the law is instituted to protect them…
Everyone should indeed be treated equally. Sadly, sometimes you have to legislate that.
So, are you advocating that we revoke all protected classes…like those with disabilities, race, religion, sex, etc…?
Hi Jag,
No I am not advocating that at all.
Everyone should indeed be treated equally. Sadly, sometimes you have to legislate that.
Hi Jag,
Fortunately or unfortunately I come from my heart on this and not from any group or advocacy position. I agree with your statement that everyone should be treated equally – or were you quoting me
I’d like to get back to the original topic–the APA task force and its potential fallout.
Warrenwrote in one comment: “This is what we have. We do not have a representative sample of people who went into change therapy and then were followed long term with percentages of people who were helped and those were not. When we get that, we can talk a bit more intelligently about the impact. But now we don’t have it.
So yes, metaphysics and values are key. Blustering that science should be accepted over religion assumes that we actually have relevant science.”
and you made note that: “Psychodynamic practitioners in general trust case studies more than outcome research and reparative therapists are by and large psychodynamic.”
But isn’t it true that case studies are, almost by definition, anecdotal. It’s easy to write case studies of the three “successful” patients and just say nothing about the three or thirty or three hundred or thirty thousand for whom the therapy didn’t work.
Could the APA task force essentially put reparative therapy on probation–saying “put up or shut up” with the numbers already. Do the outcome studies and show us that this therapy works for most–or even a substantial minority–of patients who undergo it. You have three years to produce the peer-reviewed studies that show that the 100 success stories Robert Spitzer found aren’t all you have to show for the tens of thousands of patients you claim over the past 40 years.