AAPA Votes to Oppose Attempts to ‘Cure’ Homosexuality
The American Academy of Physician Assistants (AAPA) issued a press release today announcing the results of Monday’s vote on a variety of issues. Among these is the matter of conversion therapies, where they voted the following:
The American Academy of Physician Assistants opposes any psychiatric treatment directed specifically at changing sexual orientation, such as “conversion” or “reparative” therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her sexual orientation.
With this decision, the AAPA joins a large number of prestigious professional organizations in the view that homosexuality is not a disorder to be cured, and therapy claiming to do so not something to be endorsed.
Question: If reparative therapy were a drug, would it pass the FDA as safe and effective?
The way you respect the beliefs of those who consider their sexuality to conflict with their faith is to be honest about their options. Tell them that short of a bona-fide miracle, that they will always struggle with their ‘unwanted attractions’ and the best you can do is help them develop healthier coping mechanisms. Tell them that their current strategy of self-denial while traumatic to their self-esteem is about as good a method of coping as any. Heck, go ahead and tell them that accepting their sexuality is an option. Treat them as adults capable of handling the truth.
But do not stand by and let those people have the false hope that they will change their orientation when you know that the vast majority of those who have tried have not succeeded. Do not offer therapy which you cannot back up with valid scientific studies. Do not stand by and let them think that a prominent ex-gay person has succeeded when they actually haven’t. Do not remain silent when others make foolish proclamations that someone is straight after three weeks’ therapy. Do not offer up the agenda-oriented portrayals of gays and lesbians that are more about shocking the sensibilities of ignorant straights than telling the truth. And do not back up the efforts of any of those who are using the desire of these people to be true to their beliefs as an excuse to deny other people justice and rights.
IMO, “sexual identity therapy” should be applied to those who are transsexuals/transgenders or even Intersex persons. But, “sexual orientation therapy” should be applied to those who know that their gender is definitely male or female and have no desire to change, although they don’t experience physiological sexual attractions toward members of the opposite gender. The PhD psychologist might refer to this as semantics and claim that he was actually talking about orientation rather than identity.
I NEVER wanted to be female. I am a man and I have always wanted to stay that way. My own father was a great role model on how to be a man. And, as far as I know he was definitely heterosexual without being macho. I learned from him how to be in a covenanted relationship with my late partner/husband, Ed. Both men had been farmers and they more or less like to eat the same kinds of food, too.
While a client’s mental health is important for any licensed and certified professional mental health therapist, those therapists who call themselves “Christian” ought to be concerned about a client’s spiritual health and that includes self-acceptance without the guilt feelings.
BTW, what makes the “Fellowship of Christian Physician Assistants” experts on sexual orientation? None of the physician’s assistants I have met in the past 20 plus years even mentioned they had certification in psychology or counseling. But, they certainly had a great rapport with me when I saw them instead of a doctor at the clinics. One at the VA actually listened better that the doctor she was working with.
Joe: ditto. And I think — one blue moon, long ago — we even suggested that a framework be titled “Resolution of Sexuality and Religious identity conflict” or something similar to ensure that it was being even-handed.
In most cases we are talking about people who are conflicted about their sexuality (which simply emerged, by nature) and their religious community (which was inculcated within an easily identified environment). It isn’t simply a sexual identity conflict.
Alas, I also think we are dealing with a deeper attitude out there (too many times) that sees (a particular) religion as The Truth that must be reinforced, rather than an identity that people are indeed capable of taking-up and shedding with demonstably far greater fluidity than their sexuality. Overwhemingly.
It’s at this place we find people promoting “Good on you, you are a non-gay homosexual and you now think this makes you heterosexual” rather than a more grounded “Those attractions mean you are not heterosexual — now, how shall you live?”.
————————–
Warren: All gay men and lesbians includes the far larger non-client group. Mental health professionals have a responsibility toward the mental health of all people, up to and including not causing mental health issues in the first instance. This includes people who aren’t paying you to listen to them.
A right to political activity — take that as a given — is tempered by that need to also behave in an ethical, caring and knowledgeable way. That’s what accepting the scroll from the dean means when you graduate and join a professional body.
This is particularly so whenever anyone so privilged appears in public, or writes an op-ed, and is identified as a professional therapist.
Flowers in the waiting room, and white sheets in the public square, is not an acceptable way for a professional to behave (even if being Jewish was to become a “controversial social issue”, as example).
Even ignoring the fact that heterosexual men and women are not a beseiged minority group: I’ve yet to see a (sane) gay therapist take an anti-heterosexual stance in a public forum — and present distorted viewpoints that are damaging to the health of heterosexuals — as part of some discriminatory political movement or for self-serving personal reasons.
If they did, they would deserve censure.
All professional people are expected to know better, and are rightly judged to a higher standard; especially by their peers.
QED: Paul Cameron.
(As to why the psych. professions are so slow and weak in this regard, in comparison to other professional groups, is another debate.)
————————–
And bad confusing us, while we’re at it. Got too excited about writing non-monogamy and couples too many times. Left out a “two” and/or “non” somewhere: Two men at 62% non, one man at 35% non and the probability comparison should now make more sense. Even if it’s a thoroughly illegitimate one to begin with, based on the sample types.
Those of you that can read French will perhaps also enjoy googling “Danielle Julien” and “Montreal” or something and checking out her body of work. Julien was an expert witness when Canada moved to marriage non-discrimination and, from the look of it, she would be horrified to see her work distorted to support anti-gay politics. Correction: horrified, but unsurprised.
Yeah, I’m concerned about the mental health of MY charges too….
But the one who most needs to answer this question won’t….
What’s changing one’s orientation…or affecting celibacy and non gay activity got to do with the value of homosexuality, the value of the gay person and their worth in the public and civil arena?
Hmmm…gang, let me put it this way. There is a great deal this country and the world needs to learn about gays and lesbians. Prejudicial organizations have tended to put out a lot of misinformation or distorted information.
And the atmosphere and threat compromises accuracy or accounting as to a correct or honest sampling.
Dr. T…seriously, the ex gay industry thoroughly destroys this accounting, honesty, truth and isn’t justified doing so.
Religious belief that homosexuality is bad, doesn’t make it so.
It asserts what ancient cultures believed, and in their time, couldn’t or wouldn’t have as much opportunity for analysis or experience.
And the quotes often utilized, didn’t come from an expert on human behavior or sexuality.
This isn’t about moral relativism, but how our natural curiosity and experience with each other diminishes distrust, fear and violence.
And it’s fear, confusion, distrust and personal doubts that the ex gay industry fosters.
Sure, perhaps because you are part of a usually caring, compassionate and gentle profession, at once what you do wouldn’t necessarily seem at all a problem.
You’re there to presumably SOLVE a problem and help someone manage it, if not cure it.
I dont know specifically what you do in practice, nor what sorts of people your students or clients are.
But I DO know, that straight people are very ignorant, confused and will rationalize their own hostile activity BECAUSE of what you do.
And I suppose it’s futile to ask you, but knowing that straight people ARE the way they are, what is the point in fueling their ignorance and fear and confusion?
You know THEY aren’t going to respond to gay people the way YOU do.
The threshold of what the straight person will accept cannot be pinned down because of their confusion and ignorance.
In so many ways, you’re making the gay person out to be the confused one. The one who shouldn’t be what they are and responsible for how straight people feel.
One of the worst things you can do is make someone be held responsible for someone else’s prejudice, and allow the prejudiced to be vindicated.
It’s straight people and ex gays who are thwarting every effort to learn more, have different expections and understand gay people.
And really, what’s the point in getting in the way of this?
Indeed, isn’t really learning about another, and understanding them better…the ULTIMATE in compassion, higher learning and justice?
The quotes are from what grantdale said.
Off-topic but June 2007 is a Blue Moon month which is very rare anyway.
As I have written before, I don’t have a problem with my sexual identity and I have never had one either. I really didn’t have religion-related guilt feelings about sexual activity that I did while growing up. Homosexuality was a very rare topic among the Christians in the Pentecostal or Charismatic churches I attended until the late 1960s (I was in my later 20s by that time). The sin of Sodom until that time had never been classified as “homosexuality” in those churches. My late mother told me the same thing a few years before she passed away in May 2005.
The sexual orientation guilt feelings thing first came up in the early 1970s. Some church people in the small town where I was teaching found out through someone who should not have told the son of an independent radio evangelist about me. That evangelist’s family attended the same church I did but he would not be a member since he was not ordained by that church’s denomination and had no desire to do so and the man was a bigger gossip than his wimpy tattle-tale son was. I won’t go into further detail here about this than to say I asked the men in the church to pray for me about it. Which they did. I agreed in faith with them; but, nothing happened. I never did tell members of my family about the situation; I only told them that the reason that I did not go back to that school system was that a tale-bearing preacher would not promise the school superintendent that he would shut up. (Besides, my private life was none of his business anyway, especially since he was not a member of the church.)
Warren Throckmorton should be held responsible for causing mental health issues with his clients and everyone else who reads what he writes.
As a Believer in Christ Jesus, I know The Truth and his name is Jesus.
This last quote reminds me of Alan Chambers on Anderson Cooper’s 360 on CNN a while back. Chambers is “completely heterosexual now” but the told the CNN reporter that he still has sexual attractions toward men. Of course, he said that when his own crowd of supporters was not around to hear him say that.
The ridiculous notion of “conversion” is a wonderful myth that conveniently used to deny people rights, opportunities and freedom in our society. It is not supported by research….But, it is a theory used only conveniently…
The same individuals, for example, that would not wish to have hate-crimes legislation protect gay/lesbian/transgendered people…would likely not wish to have religious affiliation removed as a protected group. My point? Even if orientation is a choice, why is it not a valid one? Why does it matter?
Like it or not, in America, we are not a theocracy. While some might like that to happen, we should extend full rights (marriage, housing, employment, benefits) to lesbian/gay/trans individuals and stop making laws based on theological judgments of “healthy” and “unhealthy”…”right” and “wrong.” If you do not believe in same-sex attraction or relationships…don’t be in one. But have the intellect to be able to follow the research…not your personal level of comfort. I’m not comfortable with plaid shorts, but hey, I realize there is not logical basis from preventing you from wearing them.
As for now, evangelical circles claim that you can’t trust those darn scientists and studies…maybe you have to believe that to justify why every respected major medical organization does not view same-sex attraction as a mental illness, and why they all support same-sex adoption, etc.
Homosexuality occurs in thousands of species across nature, and it occurs in human beings. While some would like to believe that it is due to environmental factors…it’s hard to make the argument that a penguin is gay because he has “father issues.”
Let’s start getting real, stop with the emotional overlay, and start acting like scientists.
Conversion therapy, as well as even funding “brain scans,” is to what end? It doesn’t matter in the end…
I feel badly that some would seek therapy to change their attractions…why does it matter to anyone who you are attracted to, when they are of consenting age and sound mind? gheesh…
denial of research, inability to be objective, and bigotry are just unbelievable.
As long as there is bigotry, there will always be a market to want to change – no one wants to be persecuted. Ask many african-americans during segregation, interracial marriage prohibitions, etc..if some wished they could be caucasian so they would not face bigotry…
It’s no mystery.
Accepted, happy, successful, relationally satisfied gay/lesbian individuals are not looking to change…and those that prey on the ones that do, are hardly respectable scientists.
Something no one has mentioned here, (and Dr. T. thanks for responding some to the comments here, even if there continues to be passionate disagreement,)
but….
Early in this post you (Dr. T) mentioned what sounded like collaboration of some degree with a Michael Bailey:
I really hope this is not J. Michael Bailey, he of the The Man Who Would Be Queen brand of “research” and “scholarship.” The Man Who Would Be Queen
If so, folks, we are in for a real WILD ride if they ever get the funding. I would be spring-loaded against the findings before I ever read the conclusion.
A collaboration with Bailey (assuming this is the guy) will do nothing to boost your standing in the research community, or endear you to the GLBT people you say you are trying to help.
!!!!!!YIKES!!!!!
Yup, I think it is that Dr. Bailey.
Though his scholarship can be called into question and his ethics are downright scary (he seems to favor a form of eugenics), I suspect he’s also one of the few who do research in this area who would also partner with Warren on brain scans for ex-gays.
And I doubt Warren would say that he’s helping those in the LGBT community. Instead I think he views his efforts as helping those who have unwanted same-sex attractions find a way to live consistently with their values.
And I doubt Warren would say that he’s helping those in the LGBT community. Instead I think he views his efforts as helping those who have unwanted same-sex attractions find a way to live consistently with their values.
You know, that’s the part I don’t really get. I mean, what’s so difficult about just… not having sex?
Boo said:
I guess it’s only not difficult for a person who has never had any sexual activity of any kind and has no desire to ever have it. But, that is contrary to the divinely created human nature of normal folks.
But, if you have been in a committed/covenanted relationship like I was, you would miss the intimate relationship you experienced in the bedroom. I had lived with Ed for a short while before I actually fell in love with him. I loved him as a friend from the very first night he introduced himself to me and I felt comfortable being intimate with him, too.
But, one day we were in the kitchen and he was preparing something to eat while we chatted. It reminded me of being back at home with my mother and my leaning against the kitchen/dining room door and talking to her. I felt right at home with Ed, and I said to myself, “I want to spend the rest of my life with this man.” Well, it was not the rest my life as such but, it was the rest of his life and he passed away at home.
No one can take Ed’s place in my heart; but, I just feel that a new place was created and it has remained empty for a long time now.
I guess it’s only not difficult for a person who has never had any sexual activity of any kind and has no desire to ever have it. But, that is contrary to the divinely created human nature of normal folks.
True, but I guess my point is you don’t see the average non-molesting Catholic priest undergoing years of therapy just to keep their vows.
RE: Dr. Bailey – I know he has taken some hits but much of his research work in peer reviewed journals has held up rather well. He also has the integrity to acknowledge where his earlier work probably was off (e.g., the twin research). He is doing some very interesting brain scan research to help map brain correlates of sexual response. We disagree on some things but that is what would make the research interesting and I think add to its credibility. I pursue research because it interests me and I think it would answer interesting and potentially important questions. People of all ideologies would be interested in it if it is done well. I also think it would assist people who struggle with identity and religious conflicts.
Stone, cold, deaf and blind comfort….
You know, that’s the part I don’t really get. I mean, what’s so difficult about just… not having sex?
You’re kidding, right?
The internet is funded by the fact that people just can’t seem to help needing sexual stimulation of some sort. Yeah, you can just not have sex and just not watch porn and just not masturbate and just not fantasize… but that’s when you find yourself screaming at your co-workers and assaulting the mailman.
And it’s actually more than that. I think they also are often married and want to make it work. Or they would like to pursue that. Or they would like tools on how to feel more content. Or whatever… honestly it’s Greek to me but, hey, I know there are folks out there who want it.
Regan, we benefit from interaction and debate. Your dispute with Dr. Throckmorton seems to have become rather personal, and for whatever reason it’s not being resolved. At this point I think it may be more appropriate for you to deal with him directly (personal email, etc).
While there are many issues on which I believe we will always have disagreement, Dr. Throckmorton has taken important steps in his understanding of ex-gay issues and his input can be helpful. However, we deny commenters here the opportunity to question him and others who visit if we chase them off with personal insults.
Debate, but don’t browbeat.
Unless, of course it tended to undermine the validity of said change…
On the other hand, I just don’t see Bailey as an impartial researcher.
Regan,
I think Dr. Bailey starts with the presumption that orientation is determined prenatally. Dr. Throckmorton, I believe, thinks some contributing factors may be genetic or prenatal (dispositions) but that orientation (as a result of those predispositions) may be environmentally impacted.
OK, I probably didn’t state that accurately, but my point is that they are not both coming from the same ideology and therefore it’s not really collusion to support a predetermined notion.
I think it would be interesting to see if there are brain differences between gay and ex-gay persons.
Obviously there are limitations. It would be hard, if not impossible, to do a study that compared pre-reorientation with post-reorientation brain scans – or at least not with the budget and timeframe that would be allowed.
Also, I think that if indeed reorientation is possible in some instances it would be very difficult to separate those for whom it has happened from those ex-gays for whom, well, the claim is not particularly supported by the evidence.
For example, would Jose Luis Maccarone be included if the research was done two years ago? Would Noe Gutierrez? Would Michael Johnston a few years ago?
Probably. Yet it is pretty likely that their brain scan would register “gay”. So too are there likely to be ex-gays now who will – in a few years – not be so “ex”. Their readings could skew the results.
Although I don’t think the brain differentiations are so dramatic, it would make me chuckle to have the results be:
sorry but after years of trying your brain is still gay.
So that’s what’s happening on those days when I can’t even think straight!
Timothy: You stated it well. We have different points of view on the development of sexuality so it will be an unusual collaboration in research.
Moderator Note: Comment deleted as completely unsubstantiated, off topic, and rambling. Commenter has been repeatedly asked to avoid this type of comment – please do so in the future if you wish to participate.