Ex-Gay Watch

[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…

Apostle Paul once famously said

Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.

This, along with other passages, separated the ancient link between morality and circumcision. Though there could still be made arguments either for or against the practice, those arguments now stood – for Christians – in a moral vacuum.

An interesting discovery was reported this week which I believe challenges one of the anti-gay movement’s weapons in the arsenal they employ in attacking gay freedoms.

Although ex-gay ministries rely heavily on religious doctrine in their opposition to homosexuality, there is also a strong secondary message about homosexuality being dangerous and diseased – with the unstated implication that this is evidence of its immorality. HIV/AIDS is their favorite example.

But the study released this week conclusively ties HIV transmission to circumcision.

This week, researchers announced that results from a large study in Africa had determined that men who were circumcised nearly halved their risk of contracting HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. The findings were hailed by officials from health organizations around the world who suggested that the age-old practice of circumcision may become one of the newest and most effective weapons in the fight against AIDS in the Third World.

We know that outside of the Western World, homosexuality is an almost negligible contributor to the AIDS pandemic. And we now know that circumcision is one of the most relevant factors to third world seroconverion.

If then AIDS transmission cannot be a reflection of the morality of being uncircumcised, does this not remove it also as a reflection on the morality of homosexuality? If AIDS is not (according to Paul) a consequence of the “sinful lifestyle” of the uncircumcised, can it continue to be a consequence of the “sinful gay lifestyle”?

From a story by the Orange County Register:

“The term `ex-gay’ is so offensive to the gay community,” Kuhn says. “Just telling them, `Don’t have sex; don’t be gay’ – that’s not relational. That’s paternal. That’s just not how God works. That’s how the church works.”

-Becky Kuhn, M.D., board member of Global Life Works

Oh and I should mention Becky is from Long Beach. I’m so proud!

Hat tip Scott H.

On July 29, 2001 in Nashville, Tennessee, 38-year-old Willie Houston was celebrating his recent engagement with his fiancée and friends; he and his fiancée had taken a late night cruise together on a local casino riverboat. At the end of the evening, Willie held his fiancée’s purse when she took a trip to the restroom. One of Willie’s friends, who happened to be blind, also had to use the restroom, so Houston took him by the arm and led him into the men’s room while still holding the purse.

Quoting the Gay & Lesbian Times as to what occurred next:

Less than 30 minutes later, Houston was shot dead in the parking lot, having spent the last half-hour of his life having anti-gay epitaphs yelled at him. Houston’s fiancée, Jones, gave a eulogy instead of her wedding vows.

Elsewhere, transwoman Christina Sforza was assaulted on July 10 of this year by a manager at a Manhattan McDonald’s — specifically for using the women’s bathroom. Christina had specific permission from another employee at the restaurant to use the women’s restroom; however, the restaurant manager threatened to “kill her” and beat her with a lead pipe while other McDonald’s employees shouted “kill the faggot” for use of the women’s restroom.

Christina’s friends, with whom she was eating, called the police. The police officers refused to take a complaint — instead they arrested Christina for assault. Her subsequent attempts to file a complaint against the McDonald’s manager with the police were unsuccessful –she was threatened with a “filing a false report” charge.

Elsewhere still, Helena Stone has worked in Grand Central Station where she’s repaired telephones. The 70-yearl old transgender woman had been arrested three times during a six month period this year for attempting to use the women’s restroom. She stated that an MTA officer called her “a freak, a weirdo and the ugliest woman in the world” and warned her, “If I ever see you in the women’s bathroom, I’m going to arrest you.” New York City’s MTA recently settled her complaint, paying her $2000.00 legal fees.

Peeing in peace. Most people take it for granted that when they go to a public rest room in a shopping mall, a restaurant, or other public space that they are relatively safe. For transpeople, as well as other people who don’t fit within the purview of gender appearance norms, every public restroom is a potential place of arrest and/or violence.

For how much of an issue public restrooms are for those who don’t conform to gender appearance norms, the Transgender Law Center’s Peeing in Peace defines the problem as follows:

For many transgender people, finding a safe place to use the bathroom is a daily struggle. Even in cities or towns that are generally considered good places to be transgender (like San Francisco or Los Angeles), many transgender people are harassed, beaten, and questioned by authorities in both women’s and men’s rooms. In a 2002 survey conducted by the San Francisco Human Rights Commission, nearly 50% of respondents reported having been harassed or assaulted in a public bathroom. Because of this, many transgender people avoid public bathrooms altogether and can develop health problems as a result. This not only affects people who think of themselves as transgender, but also many others who express their gender in a non-stereotypical way but who may not identify as transgender (for instance, a masculine women or an effeminate man).

Recognizing this potential of violence, many colleges and universities in North America have taken to designating certain restrooms as gender neutral. In fact, most people have seen and used the model for gender neutral restrooms — gender neutral restrooms often are those single stall restrooms with the international symbol for handicapped restrooms.

Families make use of these gender neutral restrooms too. Fathers with young daughters and mothers with young sons appreciate the safe, family friendly atmosphere of small, gender neutral restrooms.

So from a safety and privacy perspective, these aren’t just public “transgender” bathrooms, but are bathrooms for transpeople, handicapped people, and families with small children. What’s not to like about providing gender neutral bathrooms as an option at colleges and universities?

Well, self-identified former homosexual Sylvia Bertolini doesn’t like the idea of providing safe restrooms for gender variant people. In a letter to the University of Calgary Gauntlet, she states:

As a former homosexual, I can confirm that change is possible, and that people are not born gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered or other. We are either male or female. One needs only look at our physical make up to realize this truth and thus, one should act according to one’s bodily form. To be more specific, since it seems that this may be necessary, if someone was born with male physiology, one is male, thus one should simply go to the men’s washroom. If someone was not born with a penis, then one should go to the women’s washroom.

One thing that helped me in my recovery, was to look at myself in a mirror without my clothes on, and thank God prayerfully for every part of me and especially for having created me a woman. We need to accept our sexuality and not run from it. We are either male or female.

Adding a new washroom for people struggling with this issue is not the solution. I am truly disappointed in the psychology, sociology, social work and other departments for their failure in addressing this need for people who are hurting in this way.

I believe the Intersex Society of North America might take issue with the idea that we all are born either male or female.

And, here at XGW, we’ve commented on the idea that gender identity and sexual orientation aren’t the same thing. With that in mind, it’s bothersome to me that this is the second time this week we’ve seen a self-identified former homosexual believing their former homosexual identification makes him or her an expert on gender identity issues. Gay isn’t transgender; ex-gay isn’t ex-transgender. Personal experience with homosexuality or transgenderism doesn’t automatically make one an expert on the other.

But even beyond that idea that our sex is fixed by our Creator at birth as male or female, the argument being made by Sylvia Bertolini is gender variant people should be subject to restroom violence because “change is possible.” Accept reparative therapy — or else.

When “change is possible” dogma becomes the preferred “solution” for restroom violence, then it’s pretty clear to me that the “change is possible” message has a morally bankrupt edge to it. Giving gender variant people, handicapped people, or parents with small children the option of gender neutral restrooms should be considered a reasonable solution when anti-violence measures, safety, and/or privacy is valued above dogma.

In the category of “What Does This Mean” comes a new report out of New York City that highlights the difficulties of self-identification.

Just as it seems that some persons that call themselves “ex-gay” may be attracted only to the same sex, so too may some men who call themselves straight only have sex with other men. And not just a few of them.

To better understand disease prevention, a survey was made of 4,193 male New Yorkers consisting of 130 questions including sexual identification and sexual behavior. They found that 91.3% identify as straight, 3.7% as gay, and the rest as bisexual (1.2%), unsure (1.7%) or declined to answer (2.1%). These numbers are not significantly different from those the CDC published last year.

However, these identifiers did not align closely with actual sexual activity. For example, 9.3% of respondents indicated that they had sex with only men in the past year. Initially, we might assume that these are the gay, bisexual, unsure, etc. men. Not so.

Of the straight-identified men, 9.4% reported having sexual intercourse with at least 1 man (and no women) in the year before the survey.

[the numbers reflect a slightly different population, the second eliminates bisexuals and those who were not sexually identifiable as straight or gay and those who had sex with both men and women]

That seems like a large percentage of men who are “straight” but only doing it with guys. Our next assumption might be that these are men who don’t have an opportunity to have sex with a woman. Again, not so.

Approximately 70% of straight-identified men who have sex with men reported being married, which was substantially more than any other identity–behavior group: 54% of straight-identified men who have sex with women and only 0.2% of gay-identified men who have sex with men reported being married.

In other words, “straight” men who have sex with men (SMSM) are much more likely to be married than straight men who have sex with women.

Not surprising is that these SMSM were likely to be foreign born or part of an ethnic minority. Cultural taboos have long been understood to impact sexual orientation indentification. Just as an ex-gay may identify “as a Christian” believing that this excludes a gay identity, so too may a foreign born person identify as “a Jamaican” believing that this identity precludes being gay.

Other questions suggest that gay men had more sexual partners than SMSM and were more likely to have had an STD (although over 50% of sexually active gay men had only one partner in the past year). However SMSM were less likely to use a condom or get an HIV test.

This is an interesting study and is, of course, very important to those who seek disease prevention. But what do we make of it?

A couple of things to keep in mind in trying to understand this study are:

* This was a representative sample of NYC men, not of all men in the US or the world. NYC has both a larger gay population and a larger minority population than would be found outside of New York, which undoubtedly skews statistics. “In 2000, 36% of the population of New York City was born in countries other than the United States.”

* As we know from our ex-gay examples, being married is not an assumption of heterosexuality or of opposite-sex sexual activity. However, it is very unlikely that a significant percentage of SMSM are ex-gay and we should not assume that ex-gays are in any way reflected in the study.

* The tendency towards a single sexual partner among the SMSM studied may not be reflective of other localities. “This contrasts with findings from a convenience sample of men in Denver, Colorado, who frequented venues for anonymous sex; that study found that married men who reported having sex with men reported more partners per month than gay-identified or bisexually-identified men.”

* We don’t know if these SMSM were having lots of sex with the same guy (a form of monogamous relationship) or just having one encounter with an anonymous stranger. We know little about their spouses and whether they were aware of what was going on.

* We know little about what role these men played sexually or how they perceived themselves within the context of actual sexual action.

What we do know is that self-identifying as non-homosexual may have little correlation with attractions and/or behaviors when in a setting that strongly encourages a “straight” identity.

I loathe having to get tested.

I haven’t been ho’ing around and I haven’t even done anything risky since I was tested last but I still dread it. I’m sure many of the gay men who read this know exactly what I’m talking about.

That said, last week my dermatologist decided she wanted me to come back to have a sinister looking mole awkwardly located in my um… gluteal cleft (between my butt cheeks) surgically removed.

Honestly, I dreaded my HIV test more than my upcoming *ahem* procedure.

Exodus board member Phil Burress wants drugstore condoms locked away to discourage their purchase.

Focus on the Family disapproves of condoms as a fallback when abstinence fails.

Exgay activist Stephen Bennett opposes both condoms and potential prophylactic drugs to prevent HIV infection.

Antigay activist Peter LaBarbera and the antigay Constitution Party of Illinois dictate that clinics that make condoms available should be forcibly closed — and their workers jailed.

The American Family Association’s AgapePress and the AFA’s Michigan affiliate oppose fund-raising for medical treatments and potential cures for HIV/AIDS.

All these folks have something in common with a New York sex party that, according to The Washington Blade, is scheduled for this weekend:

They oppose making sex safer and they oppose disease prevention.

While no one on the political religious right seems willing to promote responsible behavior, thankfully there are gay activists such as Tokes Osubu, Keith Boykin and Phill Wilson who have been outspoken in condemning the sex party’s no-condom policy.

Former Stephen Bennett guest Linda Harvey of Ohio-based Mission America had this to say on AlainsNewsletter.com:

Before…	and After
(Permission to distribute and repost is granted.)

The Cleveland center website also states, regarding Ohio law:

A minor can consent to – or refuse – an HIV test for AIDS without parental permission.

Well, this may be the law, but it needs to be changed. Is it better to offer anonymous testing for minors – or to encourage better child-parent relationships? Which do we think has the longer-range potential of helping more kids, more of the time? The HIV rates aren’t going down and kids are clearly being encouraged, even seduced into having high-risk sex. Something is clearly not working.

Even though this consent by minors is becoming very common and is even upheld by law, there’s no excuse for putting kids in this position. It’s certainly feeding the problem of sexually transmitted diseases and sexual activity among America’s youth. [emphasis added]

Harvey offers absolutely no evidence whatsoever the restriction of access to HIV testing will have any effect on the spread of the epidemic. None.

Since Linda Harvey’s article appears on Alain’s Newsletter (which google classifies as hate speech) I thought a little graphic was in order. Alain has this spiffy little banner ad of Howard Dean which inspired mine of Linda Harvey.

In an article today in The Washington Post, Exodus board member and Ohio antigay activist Phil Burress argues that drugstores should lock up condoms.

Citizens for Community Values — which promotes abstinence as the answer to sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies — applauds adding steps to buying condoms.

“I’d rather see them locked up,” said Phil Burress, president of the organization. “It’s a lie that condoms prevent all sexually transmitted diseases anyway. People should be educated about that and practice abstinence.” But there is little impartial evidence of measurable benefits from abstinence-only policies, say scientists.

Burress pointed to a 2001 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases report showing that condoms aren’t effective in preventing the spread of the human papillomavirus (HPV). But, according to the NIAID report, condoms are considered effective against unwanted pregnancy (86 to 97 percent), HIV/AIDS (85 percent) and gonorrhea in men (49 to 74 percent).

Burress’ political agenda is to make sex dangerous. While responsible sex educators promote abstinence, monogamy, and prophylaxis in that order, Burress promotes two extremes: Abstinence — or sickness and death. Burress shows little mercy toward those who are drawn to have sex prior to marriage or spouses whose partners are HIV-positive.

CCV’s web site says the organization is “associated with Focus on the Family as a Family Policy Council in Ohio.” The web site does not reflect a broad concern for community values. The site’s choice of topics suggest a morally selective and relativist fixation on homosexuality and pornography.

Given the organization’s opposition to safeguards for those who either struggle with sexual compulsion or who choose not to abide by fundamentalist Christian sexual mores, it would appear that CCV does not uphold community values; it upholds a merciless culture of disease and death.