Ex-Gay Watch

Dr. Dea reports her four or five child-patients, all under the age of 15 living as the opposite sex, as being ‘much happier’ and having better grades. She also stated she was ‘waiting for the study that says supporting these children is negative.’ I’m waiting on the research that says supporting such behavior is positive on a long-term basis. The problem I see with this approach is that there are professionals engaging in this type of psychotherapy without valid, empirical research to support it. Would you take a pill that has not been through the rigorous testing of not only the developer, but also the FDA? Even then, such treatment can be questionable.

–National Association For Research & Therapy Of Homosexuals (NARTH) professional David C. Maynard, MA, LPCA

The quote above is from the NARTH article Pediatricians Urge Normalizing ‘Gender Variant’ Children. It’s an particularly interesting comment on empirical research and rigorous testing coming from someone affiliated with NARTH — considering the lack of rigorous testing and empirical research to determine the need for and effectiveness of the reparative psychotherapy NARTH advances. The former president of NARTH apparently didn’t feel the need to engage in empirical research or rigorous testing of reparative therapy. The HRC, in its document It’s not about hope, it’s about anti-gay politics, states the following regarding Joseph Nicolosi and NARTH:

The questionable “success rate” of reparative therapy was underscored in a Newsweek article when the head of NARTH, Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, was asked why he has done no research or follow-up study on his patients. “I don’t have time,” he glibly responded. The fact is, NARTH doesn’t keep statistics because they know they would have been put out of business decades ago. (Newsweek, August 17, 1998)

The American Psychological Association has stated it’s opinion about reparative therapy. In Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation & Youth: A Primer for Principals, Educators and School Personnel, the organization states:

The term “reparative therapy” refers to psychotherapy aimed at eliminating homosexual desires and is used by people who do not think homosexuality is one variation within human sexual orientation, but rather still believe homosexuality is a mental disorder. The most important fact about “reparative therapy,” also sometimes known as “conversion” therapy, is that it is based on an understanding of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major health and mental health professions. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers, together representing more than 477,000 health and mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus there is no need for a “cure.”

Given David C. Maynard’s statement on the importance of empirical research, should we now expect NARTH to counter the opinions or 477,000 health and mental health professionals with the empirical research and rigorous testing of the need for and effectiveness of reparative therapy? I won’t be holding my breath. NARTH to this point hasn’t done such research, and there’s no reason to expect such research will be forthcoming any time soon.

What we’re then left with is well articulated hypocrisy from NARTH professional David C. Maynard — Yes Mr. Maynard, empirical research and rigorous testing is important. Perhaps as a NARTH professional you might wish to stress to the new NARTH leadership how important it is to validate the need for and the effectiveness of the reparative psychotherapy that your own organization advances.

This weekend marks the first ever Transgender Religious Summit. The press release states the following about the event:

Religious communities struggle with full acceptance of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people, causing discrimination not just in churches, temples, and mosques, but throughout society. Perhaps least understood and accepted among sexual and gender minorities are members of the transgender community. Those who identify as transgender or other non-conforming gender expressions are subject to misunderstanding and rejection by faith communities, and harassment and violence in society as a whole.

The Transgender Religious Summit to be held at Pacific School of Religion (in Berkley, CA) will be the first of its kind: a collaboration between national policy leaders on transgender issues, transgender and transgender supporting religious leaders, and academic experts on LGBT studies and religion. This diverse group of ministers, activists, and scholars will address issues of denominational and public policy, outreach to the transgender community, and transgender leadership, in order to break down the religious barriers to full inclusion of transgender and gender non-conforming people in religious communities and the nation as a whole.

The National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE) and the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion and Ministry are sponsoring the summit.

Justin Tanis is a graduate of Harvard Divinity School and San Francisco Theological Seminary. He’s also the NCTE Program Manager. He had this to say about the summit:

“If there is opposition to transgender-inclusive legislation, it very often comes from a religious perspective. But this doesn’t have to be the case. Many progressive people of faith want to expand transgender rights within our religious traditions and to counter the transphobia in public policy, so this meeting will give us an opportunity to work together on that.”

I’m glad to hear it. Messages that folk like Alan Chambers, Peter LaBarbera, and Mike Ensley have put out about on transgender people need a countering voice; a voice that talks in terms of Christian transpeople, as well as a voice on transpeople of other faiths.

[O]pponents say the prospect of same-sex book-borrowing endangers the moral fiber of the country’s most sacred reading traditions.

“What’s next—gay people at the DMV, being granted licenses to drive cars?” Rev. Brian Peters of Verona, WI said. “Will we be soon seeing gays and lesbians at our local post offices, being sold stamps and mailing packages? We must protect our nation’s public institutions from relentless encroachment by those who threaten our values.”

–Satire from The Onion‘s article Nation’s Gays Demand Right To Library Cards

The Onion’s very funny take on GLBT civil rights issues is funny in its pure hyperbole. It’s such a well done, ludicrous exaggeration for humorous effect that it left me laughing out loud.

Perhaps an equally ludicrous take on GLBT equality is found on the NARTH website in an article by Christopher H. Rosik, Ph.D., entitled Clinical And Theoretical Parallels Between Desire For Limb Amputation And Gender Identity Disorder. But, unlike the satire of the Onion article, this article is sincere commentary.

In this piece Christopher H. Rosik, Ph.D., takes some pretty incredible leaps to draw a pretty incredible final conclusion. Rosik reviews an article by Anne A. Lawrence that compares apotemnophilia to transgenderism. He then, in his commentary, equates the identities of people who desire to remove their limbs to the identities of all GLBT people…

The existence of apotemnophilia raises some very intriguing questions for current discussion about human sexuality, particularly as pertains to transgenderism and the limits of pursuing civil rights for sexual minorities. Lawrence seems mostly concerned about understanding the reasons for finding such parallels between these conditions in order to enhance treatment. But when it comes to the surgical option, Lawrence’s very tentative conclusion seems to beg the larger question: Should surgery ever be considered? However, in the current sociopolitical climate transgendered persons (including transsexuals) are riding the coattails of the gay rights movement with reasonable success. Therefore, given these extensive parallels it may be difficult for the mental health professions to make a rational argument against permitting amputation of a limb that would not also apply to the amputation of one’s sexual organ.

Although Lawrence clearly treats the desire for amputation as a clinical disorder, the trajectory of contemporary sexual minority rights ideology would suggest that this appraisal may well be questionable. The American Psychological Association’s recent FAQ about transgenderism states:

A psychological condition is considered a mental disorder only if it causes distress or disability. Many transgender people do not experience their transgender feelings and traits to be distressing or disabling, which implies that being transgendered does not constitute a mental disorder per se.

…It’s probably a long shot at present, but Lawrence’s observations about individuals desiring amputation would seem to point them toward a strategy of playing up their sexual minority status and affiliating with other sexual minority groups. Then perhaps some day in the future we just might be hearing about the pursuit of GLBTIQA (i.e., gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex, questioning and amputee) equality.

I don’t want to get too deep into the subject, but sex reassignment surgery (SRS) for male-to-female (M2F) transsexuals isn’t penis amputation. And for female-to-male transsexuals, SRS is actually penis creation. Calling SRS “amputation” is a misnomer. Plus, there are no standards of care that outline procedures for removing a limb for “identity” reasons, whereas there are standards of care that set criteria for SRS.

But really, that’s a minor part of what Rosik is saying. The underlying message of his commentary on the NARTH website is found in his comparison of those who identify as GLBT, queer, intersex, or any other letter in the alphabet soup with those who identify as apotemnophiles. He is equating the GLBT civil rights movement as having the same moral equivalence of the non-existent civil rights movement for apotemnophiles.

His argument on identity; however, is an Argument Of The Beard — a logical fallacy. He makes the false assumption that GLBT people see ends of the spectrum of human behavior as all being the same, since one can travel along the spectrum in very small steps. The existence of pink should not undermine the distinction between white and red — all identities aren’t considered the same hue, and the LGBT community sees a difference between transsexuals and apotemnophiles.

Let me clarify Rosik’s Argument of the Beard by using a heterosexual identity comparison: Rosik’s comments on GLBT identities would be equivalent to stating that since Christian heterosexuals approve of males and females entering marriage relationships, Christian heterosexuals should embrace the idea of sixty year-old men marrying twelve year-old girls. Christian heterosexuals should then fight for equal rights to heterosexual pedophiles because their relationships are male/female relationships.

That’s a fallacious opinion — Christian heterosexuals and heterosexual pedophiles aren’t the same thing. Not all behaviors or identities one could loosely classify as heterosexual would be considered equal by Christian heterosexuals; just as a Christian heterosexual/heterosexual pedophile argument is fallacious at the face, so is Rosik’s SRS/apotemnophilia argument.

What passes for commentary on the NARTH website is ludicrous — just not ludicrous funny like on The Onion’s website. We’ve seen previous NARTH website commentaries on slavery and gender-variant children — and now this one by Rosik on identities and civil rights. With NARTH’s history of posting untenable, poorly reasoned commentaries, one has to wonder why NARTH is still hosting commentaries at all.

Mike Ensley is in his mid-twenties, and is listed as the assistant for the Exodus International’s Exodus Youth department. Ensley, like many working for Exodus International, has a habit of writing or talking about things which are outside of his expertise and not providing any references. His latest piece for Exodus Youth Voice, entitled Gender & Sexuality: Fluid Or Solid, follows in this vein. The piece is full of some people say‘s and they say‘s, as well as analogies without any provided basis in fact. Here’s an excerpt:

A lot of people say it’s dangerous to pursue counseling to help bring your sexual identity in line with your faith and the life you want, because they say we’re “born that way.” But, in the next breath they will say it’s safe and okay for some kids to take hormone-altering drugs and even go under the knife to change the way they were born, just because they’re confused.

Which do you think is more likely: that God accidentally puts the souls of men in female bodies (and vice versa), or that our understanding of our gender is just one of the many paths human beings can get lost on?

Maybe you feel like you fit in more with people of the opposite sex than the same. Perhaps you’ve considered that you are someone of the opposite sex, or that you should have been. You might be unsure exactly where you fit in.

You don’t need a new body, and you don’t need to invent a new gender for yourself because God really doesn’t make mistakes. There is great diversity within the male and female genders, but the truth is that you don’t need to go outside them to find you.

I’ll just pick two of Ensley’s points in this article to demonstrate how under-referenced and under-researched this article is. These will be used to show that Ensley doesn’t seem knowledgeable enough about transgender issues to speak as a subject matter expert — I’m basically pointing out that he’s arguing from a position as a false authority on gender and transgender issues.

Read more…

If anyone saw the play Twilight of the Golds by Jonathon Tolins, they saw a play about what would happen if parents had an in utero test to determine if a child were gay. In the play, it was just a supposition. A new study puts this choice potentially in the tangible world:

…the techniques could one day be adapted for human use, with doctors perhaps being able to offer parents pre-natal tests to determine the likely sexuality of offspring or a hormonal treatment to change the orientation of a child.

That excerpt is from an article in Britain’s The Sunday Times. The article, entitled Science told: hands off gay sheep; Experiments that claim to ‘cure’ homosexual rams spark anger opened as follows:

Scientists are conducting experiments to change the sexuality of “gay” sheep in a programme that critics fear could pave the way for breeding out homosexuality in humans.The technique being developed by American researchers adjusts the hormonal balance in the brains of homosexual rams so that they are more inclined to mate with ewes.

It raises the prospect that pregnant women could one day be offered a treatment to reduce or eliminate the chance that their offspring will be homosexual. Experts say that, in theory, the “straightening” procedure on humans could be as simple as a hormone supplement for mothers-to-be, worn on the skin like an anti-smoking nicotine patch.

The research is being accomplished here in the United States at Oregon State University.

The article highlights that Martina Navratilova and gay rights campaigners in Britain want the program to be discontinued.

Navratilova defended the “right” of sheep to be gay. She said: “How can it be that in the year 2006 a major university would host such homophobic and cruel experiments?” She said gay men and lesbians would be “deeply offended” by the social implications of the tests.

The social implications…What would the world look like if your parents knew everything about *you* before *you* were born?

If, as the article suggests, one could possibly be “cured” of homosexuality with a hormone shot in utero, would *you* have wanted your parents to give *you* that shot? You wouldn’t have had a choice. And, in the present most ex-gay and ex-gay affirming organizations argue against a biological connection to being gay — if there were an in utero “cure,” how would their tune change?

Perhaps an even more disturbing thought would be what would happen if scientists develop a test but can’t develop a “cure?” J. Michael Bailey, Ph.D. (with Aaron Greenberg) argued that screening for and aborting gay fetuses is “morally acceptable” and a matter of parental rights.

So on a personal level if your parents had this test available to them and knew *you* were going to be going to grow up gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or intersexed, would *LGBTI you* even be here?

These are all interesting questions that may be real choices for parents and real issues for ex-gay/ex-gay affirming organizations in the relatively near future.

And by the way, in the play Twilight of the Golds, the fictional parents aborted the gay child. Whether via in utero hormone shots or by abortion — I think the writers of the play got it right. I believe there’ll be fewer LGBTI folk in the future if parents were able to find out we were coming before we were born. I may live to see the day that belief is tested.

*****January 9, 2006 Update*****
Holy cow Batman! This story, in how it was reported in the Sunday Times, has taken a b(l)eating! Commenter Kendall pointed out that Andrew Sullivan (on his popular blog) has posted communication from the Oregon research team which refutes the points made in the Sunday Times.

It’s so interesting — the implications on this as reported by the Sunday Times article are extremely significant, but the problem with the conclusions drawn in the article may be may be found in apparently flawed Sunday Times reporting of the basic facts. So much for mainstream journalism on this story!

On December 31st, the student newspaper of Blair High School (Montgomery County, MD) posted an article about the PFOX Handout entitled Flier Sparks Controversy. (Previous XGW article: The PFOX Handout.) It’s pretty clear from the Silver Chips Online article that the school’s principal, its GSA group, parents, and students weren’t too pleased about the PFOX flier being passed out to students. Excerpts organized by groups:

Principal:

[Principal Phillip] Gainous said that he sympathized with the many Blair students who came to complain to him about the flier. “If I had my druthers, [the flier] would not have gone out,” he said.

GSA:

The GSA originally planned to stage protests against the organization but decided against it. “PFOX isn’t worth our time,” Edelman said. “They’re not a Montgomery County group, so we don’t recognize their legitimacy. We represent Blair, they don’t.”

The GSA is still formulating a response, including a tentative plan to distribute a flier in response to PFOX’s.

The GSA also sent an Oct. 4 letter to MCPS Deputy Superintendent Frieda Lacey complaining about new regulations, instigated by PFOX, regarding the distribution of written materials by MCPS counselors.

Parents:

The flier also generated concern among parents, who complained that it contained dishonest, slanted information that does not belong in schools.

Students/Blair High School’s GSA:

Many students also brought concerns to GSA President Avi Edelman, saying that they were “offended” and “disgusted” by the flier, Edelman said. The GSA wants the Board of Education to reexamine the flier policy but have not officially brought their complaints to the Board.

When a parent defended the passing out of the flier, it wasn’t because she approved of the flier, but because she “…would rather all organizations have the freedom to distribute information than all distribution be banned to keep out organizations like PFOX.” Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the handout.

As a side note…

PFOX Executive Director Regina Griggs said she plans to distribute fliers to all MCPS high schools and was only limited to Blair and Quince Orchard this quarter because of copying costs.

My New Year’s prediction is that we’ll hear about PFOX handouts and Montgomery County Schools again in 2007, whether it’s in a form of a changed Montgomery County School Board policy on handouts, or it’s in the form of more fliers being passed out at more schools.

Here on the Ex-Gay Watch I know I frequently point out logical fallacies in logical (or perhaps better said illogical) arguments, and my peers here do the same thing. My peers and I have noted ex-gay and ex-gay affirming organizations — such as NARTH and Exodus International — often use Statements Of Conversion to make their points, vice referencing statistically sound research or widely recognized subject matter experts.

Backing up a little, a Statement Of Conversion is where a person asserts that he or she used to believe one way, but now has a rejected that previous belief, and now because he or she has personally experienced belief in both sides of a particular argument that he or she is now a topic authority. This is a version of Argument From Authority — where the speaker is claiming to be, or has been asserted to be an expert, and it’s implied that because the person is an expert he or she should be trusted.

Americans For Truth‘s President Peter LaBarbera has recently used a Statement Of Conversion in his recent article Great News: IL Student ‘Trans’-formed by the Christ of Christmas! to argue for donations, and argue “change is possible”.

Long story short, suburban Chicago high school student John identified last year as transgender student Joanna, but now has converted back to John. From Peter LaBarbera’s telling of the story:

Read more…

Michelle Goldberg, famous for her work at salon.com work and her book Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism said the following in the interview article The Growing Threat of Right-Wing Christians:

One of the first pieces I did on the Christian right was on the ex-gay movement. What struck me going to the Exodus Conference was that it takes place in this whole entire parallel universe. They have their own psychologists, psychological institutions and their own version of professional medical literature. The amount of books, magazines and media, and the way it almost duplicated everything that we have in our so-called reality, is remarkable.

Dr. James Dobson penned the piece Two Mommies Is One Too Many. Researchers who were quoted by Dobson have indicated their research was misconstrued or misused. Focus On The Family (FOTF) has now officially responded to the claims Dobson misconstrued or misused research in his recent Time Magazine piece.

My first reaction to the FOTF retort Left Apoplectic Over Dr. Dobson’s Time Platform was “Huh? Oh. What?” I’m rarely surprised to the point of being dumbfounded, but I found I was literally stunned.

The reason is fairly simple: It really is no surprise that Dr. James Dobson and FOTF put out a piece indicating they believe their views on same sex marriage and same-sex parenting are “right,” but my real astonishment was in the incredulous tone that they’ve taken towards two researchers (now up to three, by the way) to stating their research was misconstrued/misused:

“The attack against Dr. Dobson has been as unceasing as it has been baseless,” said Carrie Gordon Earll, director of issue analysis for Focus on the Family. “The only thing that can explain the vehemence with which gay activists have responded to his commentary is that it galls them for a major publication like Time — with a circulation of more than 4 million — to give a platform to someone like Dr. Dobson, who stands for everything they oppose.”

The first attack came in claims from two researchers whose work Dr. Dobson cited in his piece that he had “twisted” their science. They only spoke up, it is worth noting, after being contacted by a gay activist with a long history of personally vilifying pro-family leaders; in fact, he once called Dr. Dobson “a Scripture-spitting, simple-minded, superstitious savage.” No matter why the researchers weighed in, though, their objections are off-base, according to Dr. Bill Maier, Focus on the Family’s psychologist in residence.

“These are well-respected scientists who probably feel they have no choice but to cry ‘foul’ because they work in a field that is so dominated by liberal groupthink,” Maier explained. “But the fact they aren’t happy their data was used to reach a conclusion they disagree with doesn’t mean the data was not properly applied. Dr. Dobson never claimed these researchers share his view on this issue — they clearly do not. But there is no denying that the data they compiled can be appropriately cited to show the unique contributions mothers and fathers make in the lives of their children.

“Many ‘progressive’ academics would prefer to ignore these unique contributions and claim that mothers or fathers are ‘optional,’ ” he added. “But anyone who takes the time to read the research in question will find that Dr. Dobson quoted the researchers accurately. While these individuals may personally hold positions on same-sex parenting that are different from his, their findings on gender differences clearly support his thesis. The sad fact is that gay parenting intentionally — and permanently — deprives a child of either a mommy or a daddy.”

The subtitle to Focus On The Family’s piece is Academics and gay activists have hurled a lot of epithets at Focus’ founder for his commentary on gay parenting — but none of their charges are sticking. I find it difficult to believe that FOTF actually believes that none of [the] charges are sticking, but by their tone it seems apparent to me that they actually believe none of the charges that they are engaging in pseudo-science, misquoting of research studies, or unethically misusing research studies is sticking.

Wayne Besen has been spearheading the contact of the researchers quoted in Dobson’s Two Mommies Is One Too Many. Writing for Truth Wins Out, the organization he heads, he states:

Feeling the heat of international condemnation, Dobson turned to character assassination on his webpage this week, suggesting his accusers were hostage to “liberal groupthink.” I suppose, as a group, these acclaimed scientists do think that misrepresenting science is wrong. And, of course, it is worth noting that Dobson respected these very researchers enough to quote them last week. He only changed his tune after they upbraided him for unethical and unprofessional conduct.

Focus on the Family’s big “ah ha” moment was more like a “ha ha” moment, as it was quite laughable. They pointed out that I was the one who first contacted all of the professors. But, Focus neglected to say that if Dobson had been honest, I wouldn’t have had to make these calls. Finally, Focus on the Family derided Dobson’s detractors as name-callers. However, some of Dobson’s fiercest critics have come from the far right.

In October, former ultraconservative Rep. Dick Armey (R-TX) said that Dobson is a “real nasty bully” who commands a “gang of thugs.”

I would agree that his organization more often acts like Crips than Christians. It is time to take the Dramamine, as Dobson is about to spin legitimate criticism in the same dishonest way he spun the actual studies he is being criticized for distorting.

Confronted with researchers specifically stating to Dobson that he misconstrued or misused their research, Dobson stands firm in his interpretation of their research; his FOTF Psychologist in Residence stating:

“But there is no denying that the data they compiled can be appropriately cited to show the unique contributions mothers and fathers make in the lives of their children.”

Even public rebuke can’t shake the “parallel universe” Goldberg described. No wonder the FOTF folk don’t think any of the rebuke “sticks” — in their “parallel universe,” they’re apparently coated in Teflon.

Related XGW article: Dr. Dobson’s Abusive and Factually Untrue “Truth”.

Related Truth Wins Out Press Release: James Dobson Rebuked On Video For Distorting Research Of NYU Professor Carol Gilligan.

–
H/t: Wayne Besen / Truth Wins Out

******Update******
Read more…

One of the things that has become a boon for the transgender community was the coming of the internet. I’ve no empirical data to back up that belief, but the reality that my transgender peers and I can go online and find out about transgender people and issues has allowed community building. Previously, the relatively small number of out transpeople, and lack of interconnectivity between geographically separated transcommunities made it difficult for transpeople to learn of each others’ existence.

Not only has the internet provided means for transpeople to interconnect, it’s also provided transpeople access to accurate information regarding transgender issues to a wide audience. Examples include TS Roadmap, Psychology of Gender Identity and Transsexualism, the National Center for Transgender Equality, and the Transgender Law Center.

This is equally true for LGBT people and community organizations, like the Ex-Gay Watch and Truth Wins Out, that seek to counter the lies spread by ex-gay ministries. Without the internet, Michael Johnston would never have been exposed. We would never know about Kyle and the other kid being confined at LIA/R. The claims made by Alan Chambers and others in small town newspapers throughout the nation would never be tracked and exposed. And the real life stories of those who have gone through ex-gay ministries and survived — or didn’t — would never have a voice.

These kinds of non-pornographic websites are ones many want to keep out of high school students reach.

Florida’s Palm Beach County School District did just that with LGBT related websites. In May, the Independent Gay News reported that an Inlet Grove High School senior — Joe Dellosa — writing for his school’s online news publication (Iiletspin.com), found:

Read more…