I will have more to say about this in due time, however, while it is current, I wanted to post this Citizen link article regarding the APA sexual orientation task force.
In a nutshell, the APA solicited opinion from gay advocacy groups in regard to the sexual orientation task force mandate but thus far has declined to meet with a large religious coalition which asked for a meeting regarding that mandate. The letters to the APA are linked in this report.
For the record, Clinton Anderson and the APA GLBT office is open to conversation with callers and has been responsive to my inquiries and input. I do not want to imply otherwise. And I know that the task force is aware of a diversity of views. However, that being said, I do think it would be productive for the APA leadership to have a formal sit-down with those representing a major US demographic group.
Concerned,
Please clarify which behavior you think has a disorder.
Ann,
I think we are all still waiting for a response from you on the matter. Jim believes homosexuality to be a disorder, Warren does not. What say you?
Jim Phelan said in post 71372:
You make 3 salient statements concerning yourself in post 71249:
Which you have taken out of context and distorted. A bad habit you seem to have.
Ann,
I am not sure if the APA did it out of self interest or not – I do believe they were influenced by the pro-gay activists and felt peer pressure from their gay colleagues and that all made sense to them at the time. I don’t think they wanted to gain anything – just the respect of their colleagues and what they viewed as a more updated and correct way to think.
I highly recommend you read Warren’s post above concerning this. Even he realizes they – the APA – were likely not effected by the pro-gay lobby.
Concerned said in post 71314:
No I do not believe that all gays are engaging in this behaviour and perhaps my concerns are towards those that do
I’ll ask again, what specific behaviour are you talking about? Are there straight people who also exhibit these behaviours?
and the damage that it brings into their life that I often see ignored by those who only want to focus on the positive view of gay life.
If someone is depressed about who he is, don’t you think it would be helpful to point out the positive aspects of his life?
The hypocrisy of the APA’s Task Force is stunning. Arguably, the delisting of homosexuality from the DSM was psychiatry’s most influential decision of the 20th. century. Now the American Psychological Organization’s leadership is considering new actions that could have enormous impact upon the practice of therapy for those with unwanted homosexual attractions. Considering the magnitude of this issue and and its importance to APA’s members and to American society, there is compelling justification for the Task Force to not only listen to, but also to seek divergent viewpoints in a proactive manner. Tragically, the refusal to meet with those who favor the practice of reparative therapy reveals an enormous bias and calls into question the objectivity and usefulness of any conclusions this Task Force will ultimately produce.
Ned,
First, let me commend you on your decision to leave NARTH’s advisory committee. As they were unwilling to distance themselves from those who favored slavery, mocking as therapy, and sending children out into the snow without a coat, I can only say that you showed great judgment for severing your connection.
I do think that the APA should listen to what you and others like yourself have to say. Have you considered approaching the task force alligned with other therapists – but without the religious and political anti-gay organizations attached?
Surely you don’t need the Assemblies of God or the Southern Baptist Convention or Focus on the Family contributing to how therapy should be practiced. Do you?
Jayhuck–
I found Warren’s theory interesting, and I do believe it’s a likely contributing influence, but it wasn’t enough to make me abandon my belief that psychology responded to pressure rather than research. It does provide a new filter for re-examining though and I am ‘thinking it through’.
Ned,
I am curious to know what evidence you have that the APA has not sought divergent viewpoints.
There’s a big difference between receiving diverse views about how best to counsel patients, and being shouted at by a hostile political coalition with no therapeutic credentials.
I also wish to know what evidence you have that reparative therapy aids rather than deters transition to heterosexuality? APA has already researched reparative therapy and found them to be counterproductive to patients’ goals and values.
Mike A. said “APA has already researched reparative therapy and found them to be counterproductive to patients’ goals and values.”
Mike, this is untrue. Please, stop these blatant destructive lies. This is no conclusive evidence that reparative therapy as been found to be counterproductive to patients’ goals and values. How do you explain those who have benefited from it?
Post: 71821 Should say: There is no conclusive evidence that reparative therapy has been found to be counterproductive to patients’ goals and values.
James,
How do you explain those who have benefited from it?
They believe they’ve benefited because they have to? Out of desperation? I’m sure these don’t explain all the “claims” of benefit, but I don’t doubt that some cases might fall under this category? We do know that denial can be an incredibly powerful force that can make people believe all sorts of things.
Mike Airhart said in post 71774:
APA has already researched reparative therapy and found them to be counterproductive to patients’ goals and values.
I’m not aware of any such research done by the APA. There doesn’t seem to be much research into therapy to convert gays to straight at all.
About 10 years ago the APA convened a task force to look into the policy dealing with homosexuality (and conversion therapy), similar to the one that was just formed. What that task force found was that there is no significant research into the area of conversion therapy. Frankly, I think the fact that those who practice conversion therapy haven’t produced any significant research supporting the efficacy of such therapy in the past 10 years to be quite telling.
Timothy,
I am going to ask you to please stop making these general comments about NARTH: “As they [NARTH] were unwilling to distance themselves from those who favored slavery, mocking as therapy, and sending children out into the snow without a coat…”
This is very deceptive and hateful. You don’t like it when gays are generalized and I don’t appreciate the same being said of a membership that is homogenous, yet diverse, and who does not favor slavery, or child abuse. Stop this propaganda now. Thank you.
Jayhuck says,
“They believe they’ve benefited because they have to? Out of desperation? I’m sure these don’t explain all the “claims” of benefit, but I don’t doubt that some cases might fall under this category? We do know that denial can be an incredibly powerful force that can make people believe all sorts of things.”
Jayhuck, it is not so much about “desperation” or external force (e.g. “they have to”), but rather autonomy. Not excusing that perhaps there may be people who are desperate or heavily persuaded; we need to be careful with generalizations. People have choices. I know if may be hard for you to appreciate that there are some folks who seek therapy other than for your ascribed reasons. Further, who are you to judge? Yes, denial is “powerful”. Perhaps you suffer from it in the sense of believing people seek change for their own self of autonomy, not necessarily proposed by religion, family, society, or other external forces.
Show some respect for other people’s choices, Jayhuck. Your “denial” is their affirmation, just like other people’s denial of homosexuals was your “affirmation”. Why so much concern for other people’s “denial”? Does it affect your “affirmation”?
How do you explain those who have benefited from it?
The same way I explain alien abductions and sightings of Elvis. Perhaps they are true, but I’m still waiting for evidence.
Well, that was unfair of me.
I do honestly believe some people benefit from ex-gay ministries. I’m not convinced that any people change their orientation as the result of such programs and I do think that they do some people harm, but I do recognize that some find comfort and meaning in them.
Ann –
It was disappointing to read that you would not answer the question posed to you as to whether you believe that homosexuality is a disorder.
I hope that you give this some more thought. Whether the attractions are wanted or not, doesn’t mean the quality is an illness in and of itself.
James E. Phelan said in post 71849:
This is very deceptive and hateful.
Perhaps a bit inaccurate (I would characterize the article as attempting to justify past slavery, not favor it), but not deceptive. Nor do I see it as hateful. Certainly, it shows his dislike for NARTH (and opinion I share as well), but not hateful.
You don’t like it when gays are generalized and I don’t appreciate the same being said of a membership that is homogenous, yet diverse, and who does not favor slavery, or child abuse. Stop this propaganda now.
Gays didn’t sign-up to be gay and can’t simply stop being gay because other gay people did something reprehensible (despite what NARTH claims). NARTH members can. And several did as a result of some of the things Timothy mentioned. Like it or not, you will be judged by the company you keep.
Evan,
Please see Timothy’s comments. He expressed it far better than I did – or probably could.
It was disappointing to read that you would not answer the question posed to you as to whether you believe that homosexuality is a disorder.
Jag,
Please don’t be disappointed – I did respond – look at #71389.
I am going to ask you to please stop making these general comments about NARTH: “As they [NARTH] were unwilling to distance themselves from those who favored slavery, mocking as therapy, and sending children out into the snow without a coat…”
This is very deceptive and hateful. You don’t like it when gays are generalized and I don’t appreciate the same being said of a membership that is homogenous, yet diverse, and who does not favor slavery, or child abuse. Stop this propaganda now. Thank you.
Jim,
NARTH posted on it’s site an article by Gerald Schoenewolf in which he stated that because Africa was a savage jungle that slaves exported “were in many ways better off than they had been in Africa”. This position, which was in the midst of an article on why the concerns of black Americans should be discounted, betrays a blatant and willful ignorance of history.
Joseph Berber stated the following: “I suggest, indeed, letting children who wish go to school in clothes of the opposite sex – but not counselling other children to not tease them or hurt their feelings. On the contrary, don’t interfere, and let the other children ridicule the child who has lost that clear boundary between play-acting at home and the reality needs of the outside world. Maybe, in this way, the child will re-establish that necessary boundary.”
Berger also said “Here in cold Canada, I often talk with mothers of small children who routinely complain about how difficult it is to get their children dressed in the winter in the multiple layers of clothing they need to go off to school. I suggest to them that they make it clear to their children that they will leave home — or that the school bus will come — at such-and-such time, and they will go whether they are ready or not. I suggest that going just one day in their pajamas or underwear will be enough to “cure” them of their procrastination.”
Several reputable voices including Drs. Throckmorton and Blakeslee found such positions to be outside of acceptable practices and objected. NARTH refused to distance themselves from the statements of Berger and Schoenwolf.
Both Berger and Schoenwolf are currently on the NARTH advisory committee.
Jim – On this point, I agree with Timothy. NARTH’s leadership had ample opportunity to distance the organization from Berger and Schoenewolf but those advisors are still in place. Your frustration about being associated with NARTH is understandable. There is an easy fix for that but it is not to take that frustration out on people who point out the obvious.
The APA is regularly blasted for the direction and policies set by it’s leaders. Regularly blasted by NARTH’s leaders in fact. You cannot have it both ways.
Jim, if you want to defend NARTH it’s going to be a full time job.
Sorry, Warren (and others), but I don’t see it that way. I don’t “distance” myself from brilliant scholars based on people’s interpretation of them, or in one infraction. If that would be the case, I’d have nothing to do with you.