As noted earlier today, CNN and Box Turtle Bulletin today broke the story of a former child patient of George Rekers who was treated to prevent homosexuality. According to the family, the results were not as portrayed by Rekers and some of the details are so discrepant that I wonder if UCLA will conduct an investigation. Clearly, the situation was not as portrayed in the 1974 report.
Rekers went on from this graduate level research to make a name for himself in gender identity treatment. He became a mainstay at NARTH and a go to guy for those seeking to demonstrate validity of reparative therapy.
In their book, A Parent’s Guide to Preventing Homosexuality, Joe and Linda Nicolosi refer to Kirk as an illustration of Rekers success story. The following description is from Rekers 1974 paper on Kirk’s treatment:
When we first saw him, the extent of his feminine identification was so profound (his mannerisms, gestures, fantasies, flirtations, etc., as shown in his “swishing” around the home and clinic, fully dressed as a woman with long dress, wig, nail polish, high screechy voice, slovenly seductive eyes) that it suggested irreversible neurological and biochemical determinants. At the 26-month follow-up he looked and acted like any other boy. People who view the videotaped recordings of him before and after treatment talk of him as “two different boys”.
A Parent’s Guide refers to Rekers over 20 times. This case should cause a serious re-examination of the reparative theory and efforts to prevent homosexuality via manipulation of gender roles.
Sorry, I couldn’t resist this last thought.
You do realize, Ann, you’ve just supported the idea of “being in the closet”, right? Does “our being in the closet” make str8, single people’s lives easier? Does it make everyone’s life easier?
Ann wrote:
Typical for high-grade PAIS syndrome, though could be any one of a number of other Intersex conditions.
Yes, there’s far more Intersexed people than many realise.
If it is PAIS, then your niece and your friend’s daughter have 46XY chromosomes. And that means that in the state of Texas, they’re both male, because of Littleton v. Prange (9 S.W.3d 223 (Tex. App. 1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 872 (2000)) and the recent ruling on Nikki Araguz. Because God made them male, no matter what they look like or what surgery they might have had.
By venue-shopping, any marriage they may contract can be voided by any interested party – insurers, bankers, former spouses, relatives of former spouses…
Teresa,
Not sure how to understand the term “being in the closet” – do you mean trying to have relationships you have no interest in just to please people or not telling anyone about relationships you desire to have but have chosen not to, or both, or something else? I don’t think it would make my life any easier either way.
Most people do not understand the state of mind (homosexual) that you and others have referred to before. They understand homosexuality as it relates to having sex with the same gender but not the state of mind (homosexual) – it is a mystery that I hope someday can be understood, rather than ignorantly opined on, by those who do not experience it.
Yes, Teresa, you make a very good point.
I guess I should have clarified that if you operate solely from a “sinful behavior” paradigm, all that matters is that your asserted intention towards behavior (and actual behavior, to a secondary extent).
Ann, we are social beings after all. Why wouldn’t I explain being gay and chaste to my close friends? Why shouldn’t others, like Eve Tushnet, not be out and proud for being gay and chaste? It shows other gay people that struggle with same-sex attractions, that are others ways to live life. You can be a single, gay, chaste person; or, be in a partnered relationship that is gay and chaste.
Why do people have to tell me their married, divorced, have children … and, they’re not even friends of mine?
Ann, you certainly are correct here; but, I’d be willing to bet if someone said to you, “oh, you’re probably gay, that’s why you’re not married” … you’d correct them on that notion. If you wouldn’t, kudos to you … if you did correct them, why?
This is off topic; so, I’ll just leave it at this; but, I’d sure like to hear your comment on this.
well… yes and no
Log Cabin formed prior to Reagan’s announcement and lobbied him to do so. But his article definitely contributed to their continued existence.
Teresa,
My friend’s daughter was born without most of her internal organs and a vagina that closed at a little over half an inch. She is one of the most beautiful and spiritual people I have ever known. She has had medical procedures that were not successful and came to the decision that she would remain single and live a life that she considered full and valuable – not answer to how others thought she should live. If someone asks her why don’t you date and why don’t you marry, etc. – she does not go into detail about her reasons, she just says, oh, that is not for me and moves on with other conversation. My niece has a similar medical condition and she has married and since divorced – not because of her inability to have intercourse but because he would not work and she didn’t want to keep supporting him. My question is this – if one is chaste as you and others are, why do you feel you have to explain your personal motivation for being chaste to anyone? Being attracted to the same gender is not the only reason a woman would be chaste. I love men and hold them in the highest esteem, however, I think most women, at one time or another, have contemplated the idea of being happier on their own then trying to understand men. 😀
Teresa,
I was sharing with you how others I know have handled intrusive questioning about their private life. I think it is very unfair to ask personal questions of anyone or make assumptions if they do not volunteer personal information. That is what I was trying to articulate. You have expressed frustration about people’s reaction when you tell them you are gay or homosexual (think you have used both words). As to your friends, of course, those are the people you should tell and share and gain inspiration from. Other people who do not know you and are being nosey – I don’t think you owe them any explanation. I think it should be your choice as to what you want to share with anyone. I only share with people I know and trust and have my well being at heart.
Hypothetically, if that question or assumption were posed to me, I would let them know that if I ever do get married that I will give them plenty of notice to buy a new dress or tuxedo for the event. I doubt they would ever be invited though.
Not only “stay in the closet,” but failing that — STAY IN THE GAY GHETTOS of San Francisco and NYC and other large cities.
I mean, the Briggs Initiative was a reaction to the scary possibility of openly homosexual people coming out of the urban “gay ghetto” niches and teaching in ordinary public schools. So out-of-the-closet gays might have been tolerable if they had remained clustered in a few small neighborhoods in major metropolitan areas, but being out-of-the-closet in suburbia and farm country was just too much.
P.S. I assume all of the regulars here are familiar with the Briggs Initiative, but for the lurkers, here’s a quick scoop: (1) It was a right-wing California measure against gay teachers in public schools that went to the ballot in 1978 but failed to pass. (2) It failed in part because the high-profile Republican politician Ronald Reagan denounced it. (3) Reagan’s opposition to the Briggs measure led to a wave of optimism among conservative gays that helped launch the Log Cabin Republicans.
Timothy, that’s not been my experience. Being chaste, but still being gay, is still quite unacceptable to these people. Also, the alone behavior (masturbation, etc.) would probably be more acceptable to these people, just don’t tell us if your gay. Being out and chaste … they don’t know what to do with this. In their minds, we’re perverted, deviant, a danger to society in some amorphous way.
Here’s my take on the ex-gay position, which really only arose after the Stonewall Riots … STAY IN THE CLOSET. If we’re in the closet, and aren’t too limp-wristed or butch, then they don’t have to worry about civil rights for us. If we happen to want to keep company with other closeted gays, and get beat up, hung on a fence, disfigured or killed, get fired, kicked out of our home … well, it’s our fault.
Though the ex-gay world, because of poor results of gay to str8, is trying to be ‘appear’ more accepting by the newer phrase: “the opposite of homosexuality is holiness” … and that catchy little distancing term: “I’m a person with same-sex attractions” … in my mind, it’s still all about the closet. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell … and, at all costs … Never Tell.
Loyalty to what, though?
There are any number of Young Earth Creationists who remain steadfastly loyal to “the human and dinosaur footprint fossils” from the Paluxy River in Texas and other sites — although some such “discoveries” are quite obvious fakes carved into rocks with modern tools, while the authentically ancient finds can be explained as eroded tracks from two different dinosaur species. Which is to say, these people are being loyal either to outright lies, or at best, they’re loyal to scientific ineptitude that misinterprets the track of a narrow-footed dinosaur as a human footprint.
Yet the “loyalty” that some YECers have towards their misinformation and outright hoaxes is surpassed only by their loyalty to conspiracy-theorizing that blames their lack of mainstream respectability on the sinister machinations of a Secular Atheist Cabal.
And outside of religious fundamentalist circles, the world is full of Homeopathy loyalists and Crystal Skulls From Outer Space loyalists and 9/11 Troofer loyalists and HIV-Doesn’t-Cause-AIDS loyalists — who, like the Young Earth Creationists, are loyal both to their own preferred brand of pseudo-scientific bullsh*t and also (out of necessity) loyal to Big Coverup Theories to explain why few people take them seriously.
And “loyalty” of this kind certainly doesn’t merit applause.
Lynn, I think you misunderstand the nature of the deception practiced by Rekers. He’s not honestly reporting a sincere first impression that Kirk was “born that way”; he’s setting up “irreversible neurological and biochemical determinants” as a strawman to be knocked down later.
Lynn David
But if you operate solely from a “sinful behavior” paradigm, all that matters is behavior.
That is, in part, due to misguided spirituality.
Duh…. I think that says it all.
@ Throbert : His chums!
Despite the rather vulgar description they (Rekers, et. al) are admitting their own first impressions, that he was born that way.
And there they are admitting that familial tortures can change a certain overt behavior. What they are too single-minded to realize is that you can train any animal including man to act a certain way. But that will not change the underlying//covert condition for which they first expressed a crudging knowledge.
…
p.s – should have said internal “female” organs
New poster. Want to remain anonymous so as to avoid harassers-if you want to refute then please do here, not by personal email. With homosexuality, I’ve never heard straights (incl. me) blame childhood sex abuse for being married with kids. Yet I’ve sometimes heard gays say that they believe homosexual rape in youth caused them to turn out homosexual. If a boy is repeatedly homosexually raped in youth, the likelihood is more that he’ll take part in homsexual activities in adulthood vs. if he wasn’t. I’ve also found that lesbians sometimes say that when they were little girls, they were raped & that this caused them to hate men which is why they have sex with women instead of men.
No, not all who were childhood sex abuse victims take part in homosexual activities in adulthood. What I will say is that for some, yes, it can happen because sex abuse esp. homosexual rape can mess up the mind causing some to take part in activities that they wouldn’t have-to say otherwise is rubbish. There maybe a genes or hormonal reasons why people take part in homosexual activities & I don’t dispute the biological possiblity-more research needs to be done. But sex abuse in childhood for some does cause adult homosexuality. It’s not controversial to talk of how bedwetting, eating disorders, etc. are linked to childhood sex abuse yet when the link is made between homosexual rape in youth & homosexual behavior of that same youth in adulthood, controversy arises.
@ Ann :
Thanks. My understanding is that this ‘enmeshing’ is a burning issue for many transgendered, transsexual and intersex people, and it is one of the fundamental flaws in the approach of the likes of Rekers.
A transgendered / intersex (it’s not quite clear which term is the more appropriate in this instance – our beloved NHS has not been very helpful!) friend of mine says that, while the support and goodwill of the ‘gay community’ is greatly appreciated by many TTI people, there is often a lack of ‘clarity of thought’ in these quarters as well. I’ve found this friend’s insights most educative.
guest
I very much doubt that you have heard gays say such a thing.
It may seem aggressive of me to accuse you of making a false statement, but at least I have the courage to do so using my full legal name. And I have some context from which I make my claim.
I’ve had plenty of discussions with gay folk about their histories. And some do include early sexualization. I’ve yet to ever meet a gay person who believes that their orientation is due to homosexual rape in youth. None. Zero.
However, this is a common claim of anti-gay activists. And, no doubt, some anti-gay ex-gays are eager to assign some incidents in youth the title “homosexual rape” so as to confirm such claims.
No doubt some will find me rude for calling your statement untruthful. Naturally, I find if far ruder to make false claims about gay people.
So boys become gay because they’re sexually abused by men and girls become gay because they’re sexually abused by men… In a way, you are suggesting that one group is embracing the abuser and the other group is rejecting the abuser.
Honestly, I hear many more straight people tell other straight people that gay people were sexually abused than I hear gay people attribute any sex abuse as a causal event for becoming gay. But that’s just me.
@ David R. :
Yes, I think you’ve hit on a very important point here!
I’ve been following closely events in Uganda, and something that has struck me very forcibly is just how well-balanced and gracious are my gay Ugandan interlocutors, despite the vast quantities of vicious cr*p that is hurled at them on a daily basis.
Rekers is one of the few published, nationally recognized, academically based researchers at NARTH.
Timothy Kincaid# ~ Jun 8, 2011 at 8:20 pm
“guest
I very much doubt that you have heard gays say such a thing. ”
I can imagine there are gays who might believe such a thing. Esp. if they are (or had been) in some sort of conversion therapy treatment.
Guest:
That’s because straight people don’t have to give reasons for being straight. They’re allowed to be who they are without people theorizing about why they are that way. I’ve never heard of a search for a straight gene, either.
Erica beat me to it:
That phrase was a “holy merde!” moment for me — how could that get published in an academic paper without raising gigantic red flags?
Both my partner of 24 years and I, both gay, come from loving families, both sets of parents have been married for over 60 years each couple, and neither of us were abused. No absent fathers either. Both of us have only ever been attracted to our own sex. In fact none of the clichéd reasons trotted out as a ’cause’ of homosexuality apply. On the other hand, on a course I attended (not a gay related course), on a hands in the air count , about half the women in the room said they had been sexually abused at home, and none identified as lesbians. So the only evidence I’ve personally seen suggests no link between the two. That doesn’t mean there aren’t gay people who were abused in childhood, but it does suggest to me that it is unlikely to affect a person’s sexual orientation. But I’m sure there are much more scientific refutations of abuse as causation.
Richard Wilmer,
I am so glad you wrote this. I think they get enmeshed too often, mostly by assumptions from ignorance or egos. Thank you for making the very important distinction about them and the relevant therapy that is necessary or desired, which of course, is another very important distinction.
I would not entrust an investigation to UCLA, since it ran the center out of which Rekers operated. As such it is conflicted, as any negative findings as to Rekers would potentially implicate its own failure to supervise the operation of the center and/or to verify the results of the center’s research.
Warren, as a professor of psychology at a college in CA, could you provide any insight as to whether the public might seek access to UCLA’s and Reker’s contemporaneous treatment records w/ respect to Kirk? It seems to me that, since Kirk is now deceased, issues of medical privacy are moot. And since UCLA is a public university, I would think that these these records would fall under CA’s Public Records Act.
The Burroway report seems to raise a question as to whether certain data might have been fabricated and other data misreported. That Rekers’ account conflicts with the memories of every living member of Kirk’s household is a red flag, but since memories are imperfect, this alone would be insufficient to prove fabrication or misreporting.
The only solid way to determine the integrity of Rekers’ work is to review his contemporaneous notes and records of treatment, including his record of home visits (that no one in Kirk’s family remembers) and the amazing before/after video that Rekers mentions in his articles.
Good point, Erica. I’m minded to express myself more strongly. To use such terms in relation to a young child strikes me as disgusting and deplorable. And what about ‘client confidentiality and/or dignity’? (Might it be the case that these ‘therapists’ are far more interested in their own agenda than in the wellbeing of their supposed clients? I certainly think so! It’s utterly disgraceful!)
Sometimes what people write says rather more about them than the subject about which they are writing!
David B., why would Nicolosi and Colson not want to distance themselves from “one of the few published, nationally recognized, academically based researches at NARTH”, involved in behavior unacceptable to them? What’s going on here?
Warren asked:
“I wonder if UCLA will conduct an investigation. ”
Personally, I’d rather UCLA followed up with everyone who was in that study to offer any counseling they might want/need.
These ‘therapists’ are in a real muddle, aren’t they?! Don’t they understand that conflating sexual orientation with gender and/or sexual identity is ‘asking for trouble’?! These (sexual orientation, sexual identity and gender identity) are all different things; insofar as ‘therapy’ is necessary and/or desirable (and that’s another discussion), it must be relevant to the needs of the individual in question.
Let us consider a hypothetical person who identifies as a transgendered female, who is biologically intersex, and whose sexual orientation, relative to what’s on the person’s birth certificate is heterosexual (i.e. the person is deemed ‘by law’ to be male and is sexually attracted to women). Make no mistake about it, such people do exist. If that person does not wish to become transsexual, then the ‘therapeutic priority’ might well be primarily physical (i.e. how does that person deal most effectively with the physiological consequences of who they are, and any attendant issues of physical health, such as chronic tiredness). Bombarding such a person with ‘psychobabble’ is surely useless. (I suspect that any psychological problems such a person might have may be due to a large extent to the ignorance – or worse – of others.)
See my post of about a year ago – My Final Word on George Alan Rekersl
The thing is -it’s not the worst thing that happened at UCLA at the time. The use of cattle-prods on toddlers I think plumbed the depths of evil.
Dr Zucker’s therapeutic methods are far more humane than Rekers’ – but his aim is to convert gender-nonconformant children into happy gays and lesbians, rather than transsexuals. Without such treatment, 25-35% of such children will be TS, the rest gay or bi. With such treatment, 20-30%, more if the diagnostic criteria are followed strictly.
Long-term follow-up suggests the same rate of suicidal ideation though amongst the “successes” as with Rekers’ regime. And it’s still happening today.
I’m not a therapist, but I do find the quoted description of the female behaviour above to be somewhat inappropriate with regard to a young child, and the description of the child as slovenly and seductive rather a disturbing thing for a researcher to write. It raises interesting questions about the researcher’s perceptions and attitudes.
well… yes and no
Log Cabin formed prior to Reagan’s announcement and lobbied him to do so. But his article definitely contributed to their continued existence.
Yes, Teresa, you make a very good point.
I guess I should have clarified that if you operate solely from a “sinful behavior” paradigm, all that matters is that your asserted intention towards behavior (and actual behavior, to a secondary extent).
Not only “stay in the closet,” but failing that — STAY IN THE GAY GHETTOS of San Francisco and NYC and other large cities.
I mean, the Briggs Initiative was a reaction to the scary possibility of openly homosexual people coming out of the urban “gay ghetto” niches and teaching in ordinary public schools. So out-of-the-closet gays might have been tolerable if they had remained clustered in a few small neighborhoods in major metropolitan areas, but being out-of-the-closet in suburbia and farm country was just too much.
P.S. I assume all of the regulars here are familiar with the Briggs Initiative, but for the lurkers, here’s a quick scoop: (1) It was a right-wing California measure against gay teachers in public schools that went to the ballot in 1978 but failed to pass. (2) It failed in part because the high-profile Republican politician Ronald Reagan denounced it. (3) Reagan’s opposition to the Briggs measure led to a wave of optimism among conservative gays that helped launch the Log Cabin Republicans.
Teresa,
Not sure how to understand the term “being in the closet” – do you mean trying to have relationships you have no interest in just to please people or not telling anyone about relationships you desire to have but have chosen not to, or both, or something else? I don’t think it would make my life any easier either way.
Most people do not understand the state of mind (homosexual) that you and others have referred to before. They understand homosexuality as it relates to having sex with the same gender but not the state of mind (homosexual) – it is a mystery that I hope someday can be understood, rather than ignorantly opined on, by those who do not experience it.
Teresa,
I was sharing with you how others I know have handled intrusive questioning about their private life. I think it is very unfair to ask personal questions of anyone or make assumptions if they do not volunteer personal information. That is what I was trying to articulate. You have expressed frustration about people’s reaction when you tell them you are gay or homosexual (think you have used both words). As to your friends, of course, those are the people you should tell and share and gain inspiration from. Other people who do not know you and are being nosey – I don’t think you owe them any explanation. I think it should be your choice as to what you want to share with anyone. I only share with people I know and trust and have my well being at heart.
Hypothetically, if that question or assumption were posed to me, I would let them know that if I ever do get married that I will give them plenty of notice to buy a new dress or tuxedo for the event. I doubt they would ever be invited though.
Ann wrote:
Typical for high-grade PAIS syndrome, though could be any one of a number of other Intersex conditions.
Yes, there’s far more Intersexed people than many realise.
If it is PAIS, then your niece and your friend’s daughter have 46XY chromosomes. And that means that in the state of Texas, they’re both male, because of Littleton v. Prange (9 S.W.3d 223 (Tex. App. 1999), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 872 (2000)) and the recent ruling on Nikki Araguz. Because God made them male, no matter what they look like or what surgery they might have had.
By venue-shopping, any marriage they may contract can be voided by any interested party – insurers, bankers, former spouses, relatives of former spouses…
Sorry, I couldn’t resist this last thought.
You do realize, Ann, you’ve just supported the idea of “being in the closet”, right? Does “our being in the closet” make str8, single people’s lives easier? Does it make everyone’s life easier?
Ann, we are social beings after all. Why wouldn’t I explain being gay and chaste to my close friends? Why shouldn’t others, like Eve Tushnet, not be out and proud for being gay and chaste? It shows other gay people that struggle with same-sex attractions, that are others ways to live life. You can be a single, gay, chaste person; or, be in a partnered relationship that is gay and chaste.
Why do people have to tell me their married, divorced, have children … and, they’re not even friends of mine?
Ann, you certainly are correct here; but, I’d be willing to bet if someone said to you, “oh, you’re probably gay, that’s why you’re not married” … you’d correct them on that notion. If you wouldn’t, kudos to you … if you did correct them, why?
This is off topic; so, I’ll just leave it at this; but, I’d sure like to hear your comment on this.
p.s – should have said internal “female” organs
Teresa,
My friend’s daughter was born without most of her internal organs and a vagina that closed at a little over half an inch. She is one of the most beautiful and spiritual people I have ever known. She has had medical procedures that were not successful and came to the decision that she would remain single and live a life that she considered full and valuable – not answer to how others thought she should live. If someone asks her why don’t you date and why don’t you marry, etc. – she does not go into detail about her reasons, she just says, oh, that is not for me and moves on with other conversation. My niece has a similar medical condition and she has married and since divorced – not because of her inability to have intercourse but because he would not work and she didn’t want to keep supporting him. My question is this – if one is chaste as you and others are, why do you feel you have to explain your personal motivation for being chaste to anyone? Being attracted to the same gender is not the only reason a woman would be chaste. I love men and hold them in the highest esteem, however, I think most women, at one time or another, have contemplated the idea of being happier on their own then trying to understand men. 😀
Timothy, that’s not been my experience. Being chaste, but still being gay, is still quite unacceptable to these people. Also, the alone behavior (masturbation, etc.) would probably be more acceptable to these people, just don’t tell us if your gay. Being out and chaste … they don’t know what to do with this. In their minds, we’re perverted, deviant, a danger to society in some amorphous way.
Here’s my take on the ex-gay position, which really only arose after the Stonewall Riots … STAY IN THE CLOSET. If we’re in the closet, and aren’t too limp-wristed or butch, then they don’t have to worry about civil rights for us. If we happen to want to keep company with other closeted gays, and get beat up, hung on a fence, disfigured or killed, get fired, kicked out of our home … well, it’s our fault.
Though the ex-gay world, because of poor results of gay to str8, is trying to be ‘appear’ more accepting by the newer phrase: “the opposite of homosexuality is holiness” … and that catchy little distancing term: “I’m a person with same-sex attractions” … in my mind, it’s still all about the closet. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell … and, at all costs … Never Tell.
Lynn David
But if you operate solely from a “sinful behavior” paradigm, all that matters is behavior.
@ Throbert : His chums!
Duh…. I think that says it all.
Lynn, I think you misunderstand the nature of the deception practiced by Rekers. He’s not honestly reporting a sincere first impression that Kirk was “born that way”; he’s setting up “irreversible neurological and biochemical determinants” as a strawman to be knocked down later.
That is, in part, due to misguided spirituality.
Pseudo-science delusions are especially comforting and persistent.
Despite the rather vulgar description they (Rekers, et. al) are admitting their own first impressions, that he was born that way.
And there they are admitting that familial tortures can change a certain overt behavior. What they are too single-minded to realize is that you can train any animal including man to act a certain way. But that will not change the underlying//covert condition for which they first expressed a crudging knowledge.
…
Loyalty to what, though?
There are any number of Young Earth Creationists who remain steadfastly loyal to “the human and dinosaur footprint fossils” from the Paluxy River in Texas and other sites — although some such “discoveries” are quite obvious fakes carved into rocks with modern tools, while the authentically ancient finds can be explained as eroded tracks from two different dinosaur species. Which is to say, these people are being loyal either to outright lies, or at best, they’re loyal to scientific ineptitude that misinterprets the track of a narrow-footed dinosaur as a human footprint.
Yet the “loyalty” that some YECers have towards their misinformation and outright hoaxes is surpassed only by their loyalty to conspiracy-theorizing that blames their lack of mainstream respectability on the sinister machinations of a Secular Atheist Cabal.
And outside of religious fundamentalist circles, the world is full of Homeopathy loyalists and Crystal Skulls From Outer Space loyalists and 9/11 Troofer loyalists and HIV-Doesn’t-Cause-AIDS loyalists — who, like the Young Earth Creationists, are loyal both to their own preferred brand of pseudo-scientific bullsh*t and also (out of necessity) loyal to Big Coverup Theories to explain why few people take them seriously.
And “loyalty” of this kind certainly doesn’t merit applause.
Timothy Kincaid# ~ Jun 8, 2011 at 8:20 pm
“guest
I very much doubt that you have heard gays say such a thing. ”
I can imagine there are gays who might believe such a thing. Esp. if they are (or had been) in some sort of conversion therapy treatment.
guest
I very much doubt that you have heard gays say such a thing.
It may seem aggressive of me to accuse you of making a false statement, but at least I have the courage to do so using my full legal name. And I have some context from which I make my claim.
I’ve had plenty of discussions with gay folk about their histories. And some do include early sexualization. I’ve yet to ever meet a gay person who believes that their orientation is due to homosexual rape in youth. None. Zero.
However, this is a common claim of anti-gay activists. And, no doubt, some anti-gay ex-gays are eager to assign some incidents in youth the title “homosexual rape” so as to confirm such claims.
No doubt some will find me rude for calling your statement untruthful. Naturally, I find if far ruder to make false claims about gay people.
Erica beat me to it:
That phrase was a “holy merde!” moment for me — how could that get published in an academic paper without raising gigantic red flags?
Pseudo-science delusions are especially comforting and persistent.
Both my partner of 24 years and I, both gay, come from loving families, both sets of parents have been married for over 60 years each couple, and neither of us were abused. No absent fathers either. Both of us have only ever been attracted to our own sex. In fact none of the clichéd reasons trotted out as a ’cause’ of homosexuality apply. On the other hand, on a course I attended (not a gay related course), on a hands in the air count , about half the women in the room said they had been sexually abused at home, and none identified as lesbians. So the only evidence I’ve personally seen suggests no link between the two. That doesn’t mean there aren’t gay people who were abused in childhood, but it does suggest to me that it is unlikely to affect a person’s sexual orientation. But I’m sure there are much more scientific refutations of abuse as causation.
So boys become gay because they’re sexually abused by men and girls become gay because they’re sexually abused by men… In a way, you are suggesting that one group is embracing the abuser and the other group is rejecting the abuser.
Honestly, I hear many more straight people tell other straight people that gay people were sexually abused than I hear gay people attribute any sex abuse as a causal event for becoming gay. But that’s just me.
@ David R. :
Yes, I think you’ve hit on a very important point here!
I’ve been following closely events in Uganda, and something that has struck me very forcibly is just how well-balanced and gracious are my gay Ugandan interlocutors, despite the vast quantities of vicious cr*p that is hurled at them on a daily basis.
Guest:
That’s because straight people don’t have to give reasons for being straight. They’re allowed to be who they are without people theorizing about why they are that way. I’ve never heard of a search for a straight gene, either.
New poster. Want to remain anonymous so as to avoid harassers-if you want to refute then please do here, not by personal email. With homosexuality, I’ve never heard straights (incl. me) blame childhood sex abuse for being married with kids. Yet I’ve sometimes heard gays say that they believe homosexual rape in youth caused them to turn out homosexual. If a boy is repeatedly homosexually raped in youth, the likelihood is more that he’ll take part in homsexual activities in adulthood vs. if he wasn’t. I’ve also found that lesbians sometimes say that when they were little girls, they were raped & that this caused them to hate men which is why they have sex with women instead of men.
No, not all who were childhood sex abuse victims take part in homosexual activities in adulthood. What I will say is that for some, yes, it can happen because sex abuse esp. homosexual rape can mess up the mind causing some to take part in activities that they wouldn’t have-to say otherwise is rubbish. There maybe a genes or hormonal reasons why people take part in homosexual activities & I don’t dispute the biological possiblity-more research needs to be done. But sex abuse in childhood for some does cause adult homosexuality. It’s not controversial to talk of how bedwetting, eating disorders, etc. are linked to childhood sex abuse yet when the link is made between homosexual rape in youth & homosexual behavior of that same youth in adulthood, controversy arises.
@ Ann :
Thanks. My understanding is that this ‘enmeshing’ is a burning issue for many transgendered, transsexual and intersex people, and it is one of the fundamental flaws in the approach of the likes of Rekers.
A transgendered / intersex (it’s not quite clear which term is the more appropriate in this instance – our beloved NHS has not been very helpful!) friend of mine says that, while the support and goodwill of the ‘gay community’ is greatly appreciated by many TTI people, there is often a lack of ‘clarity of thought’ in these quarters as well. I’ve found this friend’s insights most educative.
Richard Wilmer,
I am so glad you wrote this. I think they get enmeshed too often, mostly by assumptions from ignorance or egos. Thank you for making the very important distinction about them and the relevant therapy that is necessary or desired, which of course, is another very important distinction.
Good point, Erica. I’m minded to express myself more strongly. To use such terms in relation to a young child strikes me as disgusting and deplorable. And what about ‘client confidentiality and/or dignity’? (Might it be the case that these ‘therapists’ are far more interested in their own agenda than in the wellbeing of their supposed clients? I certainly think so! It’s utterly disgraceful!)
Sometimes what people write says rather more about them than the subject about which they are writing!
I’m not a therapist, but I do find the quoted description of the female behaviour above to be somewhat inappropriate with regard to a young child, and the description of the child as slovenly and seductive rather a disturbing thing for a researcher to write. It raises interesting questions about the researcher’s perceptions and attitudes.
These ‘therapists’ are in a real muddle, aren’t they?! Don’t they understand that conflating sexual orientation with gender and/or sexual identity is ‘asking for trouble’?! These (sexual orientation, sexual identity and gender identity) are all different things; insofar as ‘therapy’ is necessary and/or desirable (and that’s another discussion), it must be relevant to the needs of the individual in question.
Let us consider a hypothetical person who identifies as a transgendered female, who is biologically intersex, and whose sexual orientation, relative to what’s on the person’s birth certificate is heterosexual (i.e. the person is deemed ‘by law’ to be male and is sexually attracted to women). Make no mistake about it, such people do exist. If that person does not wish to become transsexual, then the ‘therapeutic priority’ might well be primarily physical (i.e. how does that person deal most effectively with the physiological consequences of who they are, and any attendant issues of physical health, such as chronic tiredness). Bombarding such a person with ‘psychobabble’ is surely useless. (I suspect that any psychological problems such a person might have may be due to a large extent to the ignorance – or worse – of others.)
Good point, Erica. I’m minded to express myself more strongly. To use such terms in relation to a young child strikes me as disgusting and deplorable. And what about ‘client confidentiality and/or dignity’? (Might it be the case that these ‘therapists’ are far more interested in their own agenda than in the wellbeing of their supposed clients? I certainly think so! It’s utterly disgraceful!)
Sometimes what people write says rather more about them than the subject about which they are writing!
I’m not a therapist, but I do find the quoted description of the female behaviour above to be somewhat inappropriate with regard to a young child, and the description of the child as slovenly and seductive rather a disturbing thing for a researcher to write. It raises interesting questions about the researcher’s perceptions and attitudes.
These ‘therapists’ are in a real muddle, aren’t they?! Don’t they understand that conflating sexual orientation with gender and/or sexual identity is ‘asking for trouble’?! These (sexual orientation, sexual identity and gender identity) are all different things; insofar as ‘therapy’ is necessary and/or desirable (and that’s another discussion), it must be relevant to the needs of the individual in question.
Let us consider a hypothetical person who identifies as a transgendered female, who is biologically intersex, and whose sexual orientation, relative to what’s on the person’s birth certificate is heterosexual (i.e. the person is deemed ‘by law’ to be male and is sexually attracted to women). Make no mistake about it, such people do exist. If that person does not wish to become transsexual, then the ‘therapeutic priority’ might well be primarily physical (i.e. how does that person deal most effectively with the physiological consequences of who they are, and any attendant issues of physical health, such as chronic tiredness). Bombarding such a person with ‘psychobabble’ is surely useless. (I suspect that any psychological problems such a person might have may be due to a large extent to the ignorance – or worse – of others.)
These ‘therapists’ are in a real muddle, aren’t they?! Don’t they understand that conflating sexual orientation with gender and/or sexual identity is ‘asking for trouble’?! These (sexual orientation, sexual identity and gender identity) are all different things; insofar as ‘therapy’ is necessary and/or desirable (and that’s another discussion), it must be relevant to the needs of the individual in question.
Let us consider a hypothetical person who identifies as a transgendered female, who is biologically intersex, and whose sexual orientation, relative to what’s on the person’s birth certificate is heterosexual (i.e. the person is deemed ‘by law’ to be male and is sexually attracted to women). Make no mistake about it, such people do exist. If that person does not wish to become transsexual, then the ‘therapeutic priority’ might well be primarily physical (i.e. how does that person deal most effectively with the physiological consequences of who they are, and any attendant issues of physical health, such as chronic tiredness). Bombarding such a person with ‘psychobabble’ is surely useless. (I suspect that any psychological problems such a person might have may be due to a large extent to the ignorance – or worse – of others.)
See my post of about a year ago – My Final Word on George Alan Rekersl
The thing is -it’s not the worst thing that happened at UCLA at the time. The use of cattle-prods on toddlers I think plumbed the depths of evil.
Dr Zucker’s therapeutic methods are far more humane than Rekers’ – but his aim is to convert gender-nonconformant children into happy gays and lesbians, rather than transsexuals. Without such treatment, 25-35% of such children will be TS, the rest gay or bi. With such treatment, 20-30%, more if the diagnostic criteria are followed strictly.
Long-term follow-up suggests the same rate of suicidal ideation though amongst the “successes” as with Rekers’ regime. And it’s still happening today.
I would not entrust an investigation to UCLA, since it ran the center out of which Rekers operated. As such it is conflicted, as any negative findings as to Rekers would potentially implicate its own failure to supervise the operation of the center and/or to verify the results of the center’s research.
Warren, as a professor of psychology at a college in CA, could you provide any insight as to whether the public might seek access to UCLA’s and Reker’s contemporaneous treatment records w/ respect to Kirk? It seems to me that, since Kirk is now deceased, issues of medical privacy are moot. And since UCLA is a public university, I would think that these these records would fall under CA’s Public Records Act.
The Burroway report seems to raise a question as to whether certain data might have been fabricated and other data misreported. That Rekers’ account conflicts with the memories of every living member of Kirk’s household is a red flag, but since memories are imperfect, this alone would be insufficient to prove fabrication or misreporting.
The only solid way to determine the integrity of Rekers’ work is to review his contemporaneous notes and records of treatment, including his record of home visits (that no one in Kirk’s family remembers) and the amazing before/after video that Rekers mentions in his articles.
Warren asked:
“I wonder if UCLA will conduct an investigation. ”
Personally, I’d rather UCLA followed up with everyone who was in that study to offer any counseling they might want/need.
Loyalty (and I applaud that, actually).
David B., why would Nicolosi and Colson not want to distance themselves from “one of the few published, nationally recognized, academically based researches at NARTH”, involved in behavior unacceptable to them? What’s going on here?
Rekers is one of the few published, nationally recognized, academically based researchers at NARTH.
See my post of about a year ago – My Final Word on George Alan Rekersl
The thing is -it’s not the worst thing that happened at UCLA at the time. The use of cattle-prods on toddlers I think plumbed the depths of evil.
Dr Zucker’s therapeutic methods are far more humane than Rekers’ – but his aim is to convert gender-nonconformant children into happy gays and lesbians, rather than transsexuals. Without such treatment, 25-35% of such children will be TS, the rest gay or bi. With such treatment, 20-30%, more if the diagnostic criteria are followed strictly.
Long-term follow-up suggests the same rate of suicidal ideation though amongst the “successes” as with Rekers’ regime. And it’s still happening today.
I would not entrust an investigation to UCLA, since it ran the center out of which Rekers operated. As such it is conflicted, as any negative findings as to Rekers would potentially implicate its own failure to supervise the operation of the center and/or to verify the results of the center’s research.
Warren, as a professor of psychology at a college in CA, could you provide any insight as to whether the public might seek access to UCLA’s and Reker’s contemporaneous treatment records w/ respect to Kirk? It seems to me that, since Kirk is now deceased, issues of medical privacy are moot. And since UCLA is a public university, I would think that these these records would fall under CA’s Public Records Act.
The Burroway report seems to raise a question as to whether certain data might have been fabricated and other data misreported. That Rekers’ account conflicts with the memories of every living member of Kirk’s household is a red flag, but since memories are imperfect, this alone would be insufficient to prove fabrication or misreporting.
The only solid way to determine the integrity of Rekers’ work is to review his contemporaneous notes and records of treatment, including his record of home visits (that no one in Kirk’s family remembers) and the amazing before/after video that Rekers mentions in his articles.
Warren asked:
“I wonder if UCLA will conduct an investigation. ”
Personally, I’d rather UCLA followed up with everyone who was in that study to offer any counseling they might want/need.
Warren asked:
“I wonder if UCLA will conduct an investigation. ”
Personally, I’d rather UCLA followed up with everyone who was in that study to offer any counseling they might want/need.
Loyalty (and I applaud that, actually).
Loyalty (and I applaud that, actually).
David B., why would Nicolosi and Colson not want to distance themselves from “one of the few published, nationally recognized, academically based researches at NARTH”, involved in behavior unacceptable to them? What’s going on here?