The New Culture War: The Fight Over "Masculine" Men

Those on the far right and the base of today's Republican Party - i.e., Christofascists and angry white males - seem to always be looking for something to hold up as a threat to their "values" and have found a new rallying cry over the growing recognition that some aspects of "traditional masculinity" are downright toxic and harmful not only to the males who subscribe to it, but also to women and to the larger society. Last week, the American Psychological Association released guidelines addressing "toxic masculinity" and the right wing outcry was loud and clear.  Adding fuel to the fire, Gillette ran an add with a simple message that men can be better and should embrace values like kindness and empathy towards others and what might be described as subscribing to the so-called "golden rule" - basically a concept in keeping with Christ's gospel message.  From the push back from the right and the farcically named "men's rights movement" one would have though Gillette had proposed raping nuns on the high altar at St. Peter's Basilica.  A column in the New York Times looks at this new culture wars battle ground.  Here are excerpts:

How you see the role of men and women at work and at home has become an integral element of contemporary political conflict.

Until recently, most of the attention has been focused on partisan evaluations of problems confronting women. A 2017 Pew Research report found, for example, that by nearly 3 to 1 (73-25 percent), Democrats believe women face “significant obstacles that make it harder for them to get ahead than men,” while Republicans believe those obstacles are largely gone (63-34).

Last week, however, the American Psychological Association entered the fray with the release of its long-planned “Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Boys and Men.”

The A.P.A. guidelines argue that the socialization of males to adhere to components of “traditional masculinity such as emotional stoicism, homophobia, not showing vulnerability, self-reliance and competitiveness” leads to the disproportion of males involved in “aggression and violence as a means to resolve interpersonal conflict” as well as “substance abuse, incarceration, and early mortality.”

According to the A.P.A., the persistent commitment of many boys and men to the norms of traditional masculinity helps explain why . . . .Men commit 90 percent of homicides in the United States and represent 77 percent of homicide victims. They’re the demographic group most at risk of being victimized by violent crime. They are 3.5 times more likely than women to die by suicide, and their life expectancy is 4.9 years shorter than women’s. Boys are far more likely to be diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder than girls, and they face harsher punishments in school — especially boys of color.

Republicans and Democrats have sharply polarized views on such findings.  According to an October 2017 Pew Research report, a quarter of Republicans said the country has not done enough to insure equal rights for women, while 54 percent said the country has done enough and 18 percent said the country has gone too far. Among Democrats, 69 percent said the country has not done enough, 26 percent said the country has done enough and 4 percent said the country has gone too far.

Even Gillette has joined the debate with its new television commercial, “We Believe: The Best Man Can Be,” a critique of toxic masculinity:  “It’s been going on far too long,” the narrator declares. “We can’t laugh it off.”

In a Jan. 7 National Review article, “Grown Men Are the Solution, Not the Problem,” David French, one of the most outspoken critics of the A.P.A. guidelines, wrote “We are in the middle of an intense culture war focused around men.”

There is a major difference between the two parties regarding the basic nature versus nurture issue that plays such a prominent role in the debate about men. Edward M. Adams, past president of Division 51 on Men and Masculinities of the American Psychological Association, emailed that the guidelines espouse positive manhood to include living in cooperation, respect, appreciation, courage, and fearlessness about being fully human. We do not see negativity, shame, unwarranted violence and aggression, gender domination, or hate and prejudice as ways to promote a better quality of life for any one of us.

The men most negatively affected by changing economics, according to Hibbing, are also those most often inclined to reject the fact that “government is the best source for providing assistance and retraining in the face of these changes.” Instead, these men “resist such assistance and feel they are entitled to the arrangements of the past.”

In this heated debate, Judith Butler, a prominent feminist and a professor of comparative literature at Berkeley, provided a strong case for the progressive argument in behalf of expanding gender norms. Butler argues “that feminism has opened up possibilities for boys to play football or to pursue the arts, or even to do both.”

The larger point, she wrote, is to let boys find their way toward activities and passions that more fully express who they are and let them flourish apart from any social judgments about what is appropriate for their gender. Indeed, the only prescription that most feminist positions make is to treat people with dignity, to honor the equality of the sexes, to accept gender diversity, and to oppose all forms of violence against people, whether young or old, on the basis of their gender or sexuality.

Many Republicans believe gender roles to be distinct and that categorical denial of hormonal or biological underpinnings to sex differences is erroneous — while simultaneously voicing doubts about the legitimacy of the science of evolution.

The current era has been marked by a continuous series of challenges to once indisputable truths about sex and gender. Ubiquitous contraception, for one thing, has altered the fundamentals of reproductive roles. The alteration of these fundamentals has been followed by a series of transformations and dislocations — women’s rights, reproductive rights, gay rights, transgender rights, new forms of family formation and dissolution, and vastly altered patterns of fertility. Challenges to core understandings of masculinity — and femininity — are inescapable.

The immensity of these upheavals should not be underestimated. That people are seeking political solutions to rapid societal changes is no surprise. That these solutions erupt in political conflict is also inevitable. For some, new horizons in matters of sexuality and sexual identity offer opportunity; for others, discomfort and fear predominate.

American Psychological Association: "Traditional Masculinity" Is Harmful

The American Psychological Association ("APA") recently came to a formal conclusion that many of us in the gay community have known for a very long time: the ideal of traditional American masculinity is harmful.  It's harmful to men themselves, women and society at large in terms of violence and un-diagnosed mental health issues and even the failure to engage in healthy practices. And it goes without saying that being gay places one on a head on collision with the expectations of this toxic ideal of masculinity.  In my own case, it took years of therapy to get over the damage done to me by this stereotype of masculinity, not to mention the brainwashing of my Catholic upbringing. A piece in the Los Angeles Times looks at the APA's new warning (the actual report linked in the article is dry and full of professional jargon, but makes the case that this toxic ideal of masculinity is literally killing men and a causation of harm to women, families and society):

The American Psychological Association has issued its first official warning against toxic masculinity.

The new “Guidelines for the Psychological Practice with Boys and Men,” marks the first-ever report published by the association aimed at helping practitioners care for their male patients “despite social forces that can harm mental health.”

Citing more than 40 years of research, the APA warns against the “masculinity ideology,” which it defines as “a particular constellation of standards that have held sway over large segments of the population, including: anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure risk and violence.”

“Traditional masculinity ideology has been shown to limit males’ psychological development, constrain their behavior, result in gender role strain and gender role conflict and negatively influence mental health and physical health,” according to the 36-page report, featured in January’s issue of Monitor on Psychology.

Conforming to the norms of the “masculinity ideology” can result in suppressing emotions and masking distress in young boys as well more risk-taking and aggressive behavior and a lack of willingness to seek out help. The report additionally contends this can lead to traits like homophobia and pave the way for sexual harassment, bullying and violence against others and themselves.

The APA also invoked a series of of sobering statistics to emphasize that “traditional masculinity — marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression — is, on the whole, harmful.”

For example, despite being 4 times more likely to die of suicide than women, men are significantly less likely to to be diagnosed with internalizing disorders because they don’t “conform to traditional stereotypes about men’s emotionality.” Men in the United States also commit an estimated 90% more homicides than women and are also much more likely to be arrested for domestic violence.

“Guidelines for the Psychological Practice with Boys and Men” additionally calls on those treating male patient to recognize their own bias and urges them to address how “power privilege and sexism work, both by conferring benefits to men and by trapping them in their narrow roles.”

With grandsons, I truly hope they can avoid some of the toxicity traditional American masculinity.  Hopefully having gay grandfathers will open their minds to throwing off the shackles of this harmful stereotype.

APA: Why Women May Not Report Sexual Assault

One of the favored attacks on the victims of sexual assault is that often they remain silent or take years to finally come forward.  The phenomenon is not just limited to women as the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal has revealed hundreds - actually thousands - of victims who remained silent at the time of their assault and molestation.  It is, in fact, a common phenomenon well known in the mental health practitioner field, yet Republicans from Donald Trump - a self-proclaimed sexual predator - down through the ranks of the GOP Senate leadership is ignoring as they strive to protect Brett Kavanaugh from a perhaps long over due accounting.  The American Psychological Association ("APA") has issued a statement on the phenomenon that ought to bear weight with decent, moral people not consumed with partisanship or extreme ideology.  Here are highlights from the statement:

Following is a statement by Jessica Henderson Daniel, PhD, president of the American Psychological Association, regarding what the scientific research says about the reporting of sexual assault in light of the allegation by Christine Blasey Ford, PhD, with respect to Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh: 

“Sexual assault is likely the most under-reported crime in the United States. About two-thirds of female sexual assault victims do not report to the police, and many victims do not tell anyone. Sexual assault is a terrifying and humiliating experience. Women choose not to report for a variety of reasons — fear for their safety, being in shock, fear of not being believed, feeling embarrassed or ashamed, or expecting to be blamed.  

“A lack of reporting does not mean an assault or attempted assault did not happen or is exaggerated. Research demonstrates that false claims of sexual assault are very low — between 2 and 7 percent. This tells us that far more women are assaulted and don’t report than women who make false claims.”

Daniel noted that Ford’s alleged assault is reported to have occurred when she was 15 — the developmental stage of exploring and determining one’s identity, a time when many teenagers do not feel comfortable discussing any sexual issues with their parents, let alone an assault.

[R]esearch has shown that memory of traumatic events is stored differently in the brain,” according to Daniel. “Some memories are so emotionally charged that they become frozen in time, and some particulars can be recalled in excruciating detail, as if the event just occurred, while others may be forgotten. The American Psychological Association is concerned that public statements questioning the integrity of Dr. Ford and the veracity of her allegation due to her prior lack of reporting will make it even more likely that other sexual assault victims do not report their experiences.”

Yes, you read that right - sexual assault is widespread and the percentage of false reports is very low.  As to why women remain silent, one need only look at the trashing that Christine Blasey Ford are experiencing at the hands of privileged white men.  For Fox News viewers, this is what the APA is and what it does:

The American Psychological Association, in Washington, D.C., is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States. APA's membership includes nearly 115,700 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students. Through its divisions in 54 subfields of psychology and affiliations with 60 state, territorial and Canadian provincial associations, APA works to advance the creation, communication and application of psychological knowledge to benefit society.

California "Conversion Therapist" Sued For Consumer Fraud

Every legitimate mental health and medical association in America condemns the use of so-called "conversion therapy" which is claimed to change gays into heterosexuals.  In a single voice, these associations say such bogus therapy doesn't work, and can be very harmful and even induce suicide. A small but growing number of states have banned fraudulent ex-gay "conversion therapy" for minors.  Yet in most states,  quacks and religious "ministries" continue to peddle the ex-gay myth and prey on gays and their parents (who usually want their children to "change" to meet parental expectations and/or avoid parental embarrassment) and in the process rake in large sums of money for their worthless, witch doctor-like "therapy sessions."   Now, a therapist in California is being sued  for fraud under that state's consumer protection law much as JONAH - a conversion therapy ministry that victimized those of the Jewish faith - was sued in New Jersey and ultimately forced out of business.  Here are excerpts from a piece reporting on this new approach to stopping the fraudulent and unethical practice:

Katherine McCobb — who identifies as a lesbian and was told by her Berkeley-based therapist that she was unnatural and he could help “rewire her brain” with “conversion therapy” tactics and change her sexual orientation — has sued the marriage and family counselor for fraud under California’s consumer protection laws.

The American Psychological Association and other professional counseling organizations have widely discredited “conversion therapy” as ineffective, unethical, and dangerous.

The National Center for Lesbian Rights filed the complaint, the initial step before a lawsuit, in Alameda County Superior Court on Thursday against Lloyd Willey on behalf of McCobb, who said she spent more than $70,000 from 2006 to 2014 when she was his client.

“Therapists who exploit vulnerable people by taking their money based on false claims that being lesbian or gay is unnatural and that counseling can change a person’s sexual orientation are engaging in fraud,” Shannon Price Minter, legal director with the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said in a press statement. “Charging a person money based on such bald-faced misrepresentations violates California’s consumer protection laws.” California has outlawed conversion therapy on minors. McCobb began paying Willey for therapy when she was 25 years old. McCobb didn’t start therapy for help coping with her sexual orientation, but Willey fixated on McCobb being a lesbian and pressured her to become heterosexual with various conversion therapy tactics, according to the complaint.

For example, Willey told McCobb that being a lesbian is unnatural, publicly shamed her during group therapy sessions and urged her to change her appearance to be more stereotypical feminine, including losing weight, growing her hair, changing her wardrobe, and wearing make-up, according to the complaint.

Willey also pressured McCobb to date a man who was also Willey’s client, according to the complaint.

Hopefully the lawsuit is successful and insurance carriers will cease insuring therapists who engage in such fraudulent practices.  

Is Donald Trump Mentally Ill?

Click image to enlarge

I suspect that readers know what my opinion is on the answer to the question that comprises the caption of this post.  Unfortunately, too many do not want to discuss the question and/or feel bound by an antiquated 1960's era self-imposed rule, the so-called Goldwater rule.  Others, including much of the legitimate news media (which in my opinion excludes Fox News), fear a lawsuit by the demented lair-in-chief even though the libel laws shield one so long as you preface your comment with "in my opinion."   The failure of experts to speak up and a lazy media lead to the Iraq War disaster which caused the loss of countless lives and a ballooning of America's deficit.  I believe that Trump poses an existential danger to America and the world.  Remaining silent is not only dangerous but also unpatriotic.  A piece in Salon looks at the ridiculous silence that surrounds Trump's mental instability.  Here are highlight:

President Donald Trump has a personality disorder that we’re not supposed to talk about, and that makes me furious. The Goldwater rule, an ethical norm from the 1960s that forbids psychiatrists and psychologists from diagnosing public figures they haven’t been able to evaluate in person, has gagged the most knowledgeable among us from speaking freely. A man with no impulse control and no chance of improvement is shooting his missiles all over, not to mention targeting vulnerable populations at home. The world is in a panic while the doctors worry that he’ll sue.

Beyond compounding the crisis of public ignorance, the moratorium is a reflection of the way professional norms are all too often wielded to protect predators and silence women. The media’s dispiriting willingness to roll over and let old white men dictate the boundaries of legitimate conversation and expertise has to end.

Trump benefits immeasurably from the Goldwater rule, which was put in place because Sen. Barry Goldwater, the 1964 Republican presidential nominee, sued a magazine called Fact, which solicited diagnoses of him during the election campaign. Trump normally has to buy his victims’ silence himself, but this gift came for free. Since he will never allow an independent evaluation of his competence, the American Psychiatric Association and its members have kept quiet. 

Our inability to diagnose has led to de facto censorship on the subject. For purposes of saving the republic, all we need to know is that our president is delusional, dangerous and incurable. He’s a 70-year-old con man who relishes violence, abuse of power and deception. He will never, ever change.

The silence was broken last week by several renowned psychiatrists at a Duty to Warn conference organized by Dr. Bandy Lee. She has formed a coalition of more than 800 mental health professionals who believe that Donald Trump is dangerous to the health and safety of their patients.

There are some professionals who genuinely don’t think the president is mentally ill, but as a lawyer, I know that professional associations exist to protect their members, often at public expense. We wouldn’t be throwing the baby out with the bathwater if the American Psychiatric Association weren’t so concerned about its members’ liability. Don’t tell me that the Cheeto Emperor is streaking down Fifth Avenue but that because he put on matching socks this morning, we can’t notice that he’s naked.

I wanted to weep when the New York Times shushed Ruth Bader Ginsburg for warning us about Trump’s existential threat. When the Los Angeles Times’ editorial board wrote recently that it could never have anticipated the train wreck of the Trump administration, I screamed in frustration. Those of us who have had our lives derailed by abusers like Trump know exactly how much damage they can do.

There are those who will say that this discussion further stigmatizes the mentally ill. Not all mental illness is created equal. . . . . The vast majority of mentally ill people, like the homeless veterans who populate our streets, are peaceful people who go about their lives internalizing their pain rather than projecting it onto others. These people deserve compassion and care, not mistreatment.

We cannot say the same for Trump. He makes every disturbed feeling our problem. He’s like the guy in a gangster movie who sits down for a poker game, the tension escalating until a throwaway joke about his tiny fingers causes him to stab someone’s hand to the table.

As a serial predator, Trump looks at people like a lion eyes a herd of antelope. Does the lion care which antelope he eats for dinner? No. He’s an equal opportunity abuser, as Ivanka would say. But he’s lazy. Why challenge himself with the head of the pack when there are a few lagging behind who can’t put up much of a fight? . . . His administration reeks of social Darwinism. Who can forget Donald Trump Jr. dehumanizing refugees as Skittles?

Now that we’ve put Trump at the top of the figurative human food chain, let’s not allow the ignorance surrounding mental illness to flatten an urgently needed discussion. . . . . It’s not that Trump doesn’t want to behave — he simply cannot. Like Lear wandering in the storm, we have blinded ourselves to the obvious, and the results could be catastrophic.

GOP House of Delegates Kills "Ex-Gay" Conversion Ban

Brenda Pogge with now indicted Bob McDonnell

Proving once again that they are the tawdry political whores of the hate merchants at The Family Foundation ("TFF"), the Republicans in the House of Delegates killed a bill that would have banned therapists from inflicting fraudulent and dangerous "ex-gay" therapy on minors.  To these members of the GOP, the position of every legitimate medical and mental health organization in America means nothing.  All that matters is that they follow their orders from Victoria Cobb and the Christofascists at TFF.  Damaged lives and potential suicides just do not matter to these foul individuals.  The Daily Press has coverage on this disappointing development.  Here are highlights:

A House panel killed off legislation Thursday that would have outlawed controversial therapies meant to turn gay children straight.

House Bill 1135 only dealt with licensed therapists treating people under 18. Adults seeking the treatment still would have been free to do so.

These therapies, often called conversion or restoration therapy, don't work and have a long-lasting damaging effect on children who are taught that being gay is a bad thing, and if it can't be cured it might be their fault, or their parents', bill advocates argued.

The bill brought passionate testimony from both sides. Gail Dickert of Alexandria told House members that the therapy convinced her that her father molested her as a young child, turning her gay. He had not, she said. He died before she could tell him this was just a false memory planted by a therapist, she said.

In the end, members of a House Health, Welfare and Institutions subcommittee killed the bill on a 4-1 party line vote, much as supporters expected.  Del. Robert Krupicka, D-Alexandria, was the only yes vote. Del. Brenda Pogge, R-James City, said the issue wasn't ripe for change.
 Del. Patrick Hope, D-Arlington, the bill sponsor, said he believes the therapy will eventually be banned for children in Virginia, as it is in California and New Jersey.  "Hearts and minds are changing on this sexual orientation issue every day," he said. "One day this will be the law in Virginia.… It's time we had this conversation."

Brenda Pogge is an embarrassment to thinking Virginians.  She certainly makes the voters in James City County look like cretins.

American Psychological Association Votes For Marriage Equality

The policy making body of the American Psychological Association ("APA") has unanimously vote (157-0) to approve a resolution supporting same-sex marriage. I can already hear the shrieks and whining amongst the Christianists over this move which will further undermine their agenda of stigmatizing LGBT individuals and same sex relations. This pro-LGBT move comes on the heels of the APA's condemnation of reparative therapy as unethical and the less than subtle signal to licensed therapist that ex-gay therapy might lead to problems with licensing. This will leave ex-gay clinics confined to quacks like Michele Bachmann husband, "Marcia" Bachmann, who hide under the "Christian ministry" moniker to avoid being barred from selling their snake oil. USA Today has coverage on the APA vote. Here are excerpts:

The world's largest organization of psychologists took its strongest stand to date supporting full marriage equity, a move that observers say will have a far-reaching impact on the national debate.

The group, with more than 154,000 members, has long supported full equal rights for gays, based on social science research on sexual orientation. Now the nation's psychologists — citing an increasing body of research about same-sex marriage, as well as increased discussion at the state and federal levels — took the support to a new level.

"Now as the country has really begun to have experience with gay marriage, our position is much clearer and more straightforward — that marriage equity is the policy that the country should be moving toward," says Clinton Anderson, director of APA's Office on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Concerns.

It adds that "emerging evidence suggests that statewide campaigns to deny same-sex couples legal access to civil marriage are a significant source of stress to the lesbian, gay and bisexual residents of those states and may have negative effects on their psychological well-being."

Clinical psychologist Mark Hatzenbuehler, a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health & Society Scholar at Columbia University in New York City, whose new research is cited in the resolution, says the courts tend to look at these kinds of policy statements because "they're really looking to see what social science research says about the influence on gay marriage and marriage bans on a whole host of outcomes."

The last APA resolution on sexual orientation and marriage was approved in 2004. The resolution notes that since that time, APA has worked on 11 amicus briefs filed in same-sex marriage cases since 2004.

Nebraska Poised to Throw Gays Under Bus to Appease Catholic Conference

In what may turn out to be another case of Roman Catholic religious based bigotry trumping legitimate medical and mental health care knowledge, the State of Nebraska - concededly not somewhere I'd never want to visit - is poised to potentially allow licensed mental health counselors to turn away LGBT patients. Why you ask? To please the Nebraska Catholic Conference. That's right, a group that continues to make excuses for child molesters and which grovels before a morally bankrupt Church hierarchy is outraged that Catholic counselors might have to have LGBT clients. Thus, the Conference wants counselors to allowed to dump gays as patients - without even making an appropriate referral - so as to protect the counselor's religious sensibilities.

*

Personally, in my view, the better solution would be to yank the licenses of Catholic counselors and/or facilities that cannot put aside religious based discrimination and focus on medical/mental health fact as professionals. This would provide far greater protection of the public from religious based lunacy. As for the counselors who lose their licenses, perhaps some of the bogus "ex-gay" ministries that employ quacks can hire them. If this proposal goes through, I guess it will only be a matter of time before shamans and witch doctors can be licensed as physicians in Nebraska. Here are highlights from the Freemont Tribune:
*
Rules changes for Nebraska's licensed counselors have been held up for more than a year over concerns about conflicts between religious convictions and sexual orientation. Jim Cunningham, executive director of the Nebraska Catholic Conference, says psychologists, therapists and other licensed counselors should be able to refuse to treat or refer clients because of religious or moral convictions. But, he says, the proposed addition of sexual orientation to anti-discrimination rules makes it unclear whether that's allowed. "Our concern had to do with services that we would not be able to provide because they would promote or enhance or validate conduct that is contrary to our religious beliefs," Cunningham said.
*
"We believe that a therapist has the right to refuse service based upon religious or moral convictions," said Terry Werner, director of the Nebraska chapter of the National Association of Social Workers. "However, they absolutely must provide a thorough and comprehensive referral. Anything less than that, in our minds, is in violation of our code of ethics and is not in the best interest of the client."
*
Psychologist James Cole, who's on the board of the Nebraska Psychological Association, said the referrals Schaefer is suggesting would meet the needs of the counselor, but not of the patient, who could be dumped on someone without the expertise to help with a specific problem. Cole said the referrals wouldn't be limited to conflicts over sexual orientation, but would also apply to things like gender identity and opposing religious beliefs. "The whole thing opens a Pandora's box on abuse," he said.

The Pernicious "Choice Myth" and "Change Myth"

Two of the key elements utilized by Christianist enemies of gay equality are the myths that (1) sexual orientation is a "lifestyle" choice as opposed to an immutable aspects of GLBT individuals and (2) gays can "change" their sexual orientation and become heterosexual if they but want to. These myths bolster the efforts to spread the lie to the general populace that gays will recruit children to the "lifestyle" as was just seen in Maine with the repeal of same sex marriage. The Christianists also use these myths to argue to politicians that since being gay is a "choice," there is no need to grant GLBT citizen "special rights" and legal protections. There are numerous Christianist organizations that promote these myths such as Exodus International, Focus on the Family, and a host of others - often making lots of money preying upon religiously conflicted gays and their families in the process. Legitimate medical and mental health associations condemn these myths and just this past August, 2009, the American Psychological Association ("APA") formally condemned the practice of so-called "reparative therapy"to cure gays as basically unethical because there is no legitimate evidence that it works.

*

But the APAaction doesn't stop the Christianists who still have their "experts" who seek to support the change myth. One such "expert" is Mark Yarhouse, a professor at Pat Robertson's nearby Regent University (pictured above). In anticipation of the likely APA action condemning reparative therapy, Yarhouse and his frequent partner in anti-gay propaganda, Stanton Jones, released a book that once again claimed that reparative therapy works. Timothy Kincaid at Box Turtle Bulletin did one of a number of stories on the APA action and an expose on the Yarhouse-Jones propaganda piece. Here are some highlights (Ex-Gay Watch has also covered the issue):
*
This week the American Psychological Association released a report that said that while religion and its value in a patient’s life should be considered and respected, therapists should not encourage clients to seek a change in sexual orientation and that there was no evidence to suggest that such efforts are successful. This did not sit well with those organizations who build their existence on convincing their public that gay persons can “change” and that because such change is possible then public policy can be punitive to gay persons that do not submit themselves to such a change.
*
So it was with great joy that those opposed to equality received news of evidence of change. The Baptist Press is crowing. Just “four days after an American Psychological Association task force released a 130-page report that said “gay-to-straight” therapies are unlikely to work”, they are trumpeting some amazing results of a study on Exodus International and their ex-gay ministries. In findings that directly contradict mainstream academic thought, 53 percent of subjects in a new seven-year study reported successfully leaving homosexuality and living happily as heterosexual or celibate persons.
*
These “latest findings” are actually an update of the multi-year study of participants in Exodus ministries presented by Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse in their 2007 book, Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation. The authors were not pleased that the study which they proclaimed throughout Christian media as an evidence of change in sexual orientation did not convince the APA.
*
When the Jones and Yarhouse book, was released in 2007, we hosted an exchange between Jim Burroway, BTB’s editor, and Stanton Jones. My synopsis of the results, as published in the book, was: the Jones and Yarhouse study revealed little to no statistically measurable change in orientation in the prospective sample. The much touted “successes” were either in recollection (which again were quite small) or were those who had decided to no longer call themselves “gay”. However, they still identified their orientation as homosexual (”I’m not gay but my attractions are”).
*
In short, the Jones and Yarhouse study was funded and fully supported by Exodus and conducted by two researchers who were avid supporters of ex-gay ministries. They wanted to study 300 participants, but after more than a year, they could only find 57 willing to participate. They then changed the rules for acceptance in order to increase the total to 98. After following this sample for 4 years, 25 dropped out. Of the remainder, only 11 reported “satisfactory, if not uncomplicated, heterosexual adjustment.” Another 17 decided that a lifetime of celibacy was good enough.
*
What the 2007 Jones and Yarhouse book revealed, and what this update further confirms, is that the “change” which NARTH and Exodus loudly proclaim is not a change in sexual orientation at all . . .

*

A number of reviewers as well as the APA have rejected the Yarhouse and Jones "research." Yet sadly, Yarhouse and other Christianists continue to market the false change myth to church organizations and the uninformed who fall for the storyline without knowing the long history that Yarhouse and his allies at Exodus and other "ex-gay" ministries have in working to block gay equality. Because of Yarhouse and those like him, the pernicious choice myth and change myth continue to be used against GLBT citizens and politicans like Virginia's Governor elect Bob McDonnell are urged to vote against gay equality. Yarhouse is no friend to the GLBT community as his years of anti-gay writings and "research" confirms.

The Choice Myth: A Century of Ex-Gay Treatments Have Ranged from Horrifying to Horribly Unscientific

Despite the latest report by the American Psychological Association Condemning ex-gay and reparative therapy, various quacks and Christianist "ministries" continue to claim that they can turn gays straight. The claims are simply put and actually motivated by two things: (1) the money to be made off of individuals, or more typically, their families who due to religious brainwashing cannot except being gay and (2) the political need to continue to claim that since gays can change if they but want to, no legal protections should be granted. Discover Magazine has an article that looks at the bogus "cure" programs and some of the horrific things done to gays to make them "change." If you believe these therapies work, you might just as well go hire yourself and African witch doctor or voodoo practitioner. Here are some highlights:

*

All the major psychiatric organizations, including the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association, have warned against therapies that try to change sexual orientation. Both APAs have ruled that these therapies are unscientific and possibly harmful—not to mention unnecessary, since homosexuality was officially de-classified as an illness in 1973, and therefore can't be "cured." As such, sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) are rarely practiced by mainstream mental health practitioners, while many therapists are concerned that anyone who does try to change through therapy may do themselves more harm than good.
*

Still, practices like Nicolosi's [and NARTH] have persisted, as has the debate over whether sexual orientation can—or should—be changed. So on August 5, the APA's Council of Representatives took the strongest stand yet, passing a near-unanimous resolution urging mental health professionals not to tell clients that they can change their sexual orientation through therapy or any other methods.
*

Homosexuality was officially labeled a mental illness in the U.S. in the 1950s. The debate over same-sex attraction was not new: Sigmund Freud reported on one deliberate attempt to change the sexual orientation of a young woman who'd been brought in for involuntary treatment by her parents. He was unsuccessful, and concluded that attempts to change homosexual orientation were likely to fail.

*

Experimental treatments were performed throughout the mid-century, sometimes in high profile cases. In 1952, renowned mathematician Alan Turing was convicted of gross indecency in the U.K. after admitting to a sexual relationship with a man . . . Two years later, he committed suicide.

*

One of the most popular aversion techniques was "orgasmic reconditioning"—men would be shown erotic pictures of other men, and if they became aroused, th ey would receive an electric shock on their genitals. Therapists also gave patients drugs that induced vomiting or paralysis, or exposed them to noxious chemicals like ammonia, whenever they were aroused by same-sex photos.

*

These "therapies" were generally ineffective—the person remained attracted to the same sex—or over-effective—the person was traumatized and lost all sexual arousal entirely. They "were used without people thinking about whether they were humane."

*

Befitting the times, the mainstream mental health community no longer advocates change treatments, but instead supports approaches that help patients cope with the stress and stigma of being a sexual minority. Still, SOCE is still being practiced within a small group of mental-health practitioners, most of whom cater to a population whose religious beliefs strictly bar homosexuality.

*

Then there's the larger question of whether science should study treatments for a condition that is not, in mental health terms, a problem. "All the major mental health organizations have concluded that homosexuality is not an illness, and there's no reason to try to change it or treat it," Miller says. "So whether it's appropriate, or ethical, to do such an experiment is a serious consideration."

*

I hope the day comes when these bogus "cure"programs are a thing of the past. Unfortunately, those driven by a lust for money and the cynical use of gay lives for political power are unlikely to care about whether or not what they do is ethical. The APA and state licensing authorities need to go on the offensive and close down these horrible practices once and for all.

Christianists and "Ex-Gay" Myth Promoters Ignore New APA Report

I guess it is to be expected that those who have made a lucrative living off of promoting the "ex-gay myth" and "choice myth" would not quietly accept the conclusions of the American Psychological Association that "change therapies" do not work and that there is no evidence to support claims that they do work. But then one must also remember that these are the same folks who believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed on Earth. They live in a bizarre alternate universe where objective facts and reality are of no consequence if they counter their whacked out religious beliefs. Among those who are still claiming that gays can change their sexual orientation are a licensed counselor in El Paso, Texas - who hopefully will soon be up on ethical charges for her violation of the APA standard - and homophobes extraordinaire, Stanton L. Jones of Wheaton College and Mark A. Yarhouse of Regent University. For those unfamiliar with Wheaton College, it is a evangelical Christian college that has a statement of faith and requires applicants to have recommendations from their pastors for admission. As for Regent University, it was founded by Pat Robertson which eliminates the need for any further explanations. Thus, anyone who expects an unbiased report from faculty at either college is delusional. First some highlights from KFOX 14 in El Paso:

*

EL PASO, Texas -- The American Psychological Association adopted a resolution this week denouncing the use of therapy to convert gay people to become straight, a process called reparative therapy. Despite the resolution, El Paso doctor and pastor Becky Personett, said she will not stop counseling those who want to convert to heterosexuality.
*

Personett claims just five years ago, she was gay. "It's been five years now that I've been on my journey,” Personett said. "I don't feel denied, don't feel put off, I just know that I am the woman that God originally wanted me to be." Now Personett considers herself an ex-gay and counsels other local El Pasoans that are quote looking to “get out of homosexuality.”

*
For Personett, the APA’s findings are not going to change anything for her. "No, I won't change. I'm going to stay with a process that if there is hope and if there is help, why wouldn't we offer that? Why would we let these people go on in their misery?” Personett said.
*

As for Jones and Yarhouse, the Baptist Press - I know, no surprise there - is promoting their work and a "study" they claim flies in the face of the APA's analysis. Besides involving only a tiny study group, the Jones/Yarhouse study - which claims a 53% success rate - has a very bizarre definition of "success." In fact only 23% claimed to have changed to straight, and all of the remaining "success" stories involved total celibacy. Of course, after 37 years in the closet pretending that I was straight, I take the claims of the 23% claiming to have changed with a grain of salt. It is amazing what religious belief and religious induced self-hate can get one to believe about themselves. Here is some of the whining coming from Jones and Yarhouse:

*

Jones expressed frustration that the APA task force didn't take their 2007 study seriously."They selectively apply rigorous scientific standards," he said. "So when it comes to examining the evidence that sexual orientation change can occur, they apply extraordinarily rigorous standards, and those standards allow them to disregard significant evidence that sexual orientation change can occur. That's what happens with our study. They, I think, invalidly applied several methodological concerns to dismiss our study.

*

To ask the APA to accept the Jones/Yarhouse results is akin to asking the American Medical Association to accept studies by witch doctors as valid research. Only Kool-Aid drinkers will believe their storyline and one can only hope that lazy reporters for the MSM will read and heed the APA statement that programs like those espoused by Jones and Yarhouse are - certainly in my opinion - utterly fraudulent.

Fall Out From APA Repudiation of Reparative Therapy

If nothing else, the American Psychological Association's recent outright rejection of reparative therapy and similar bogus "cures" for homosexuality has prompted a great deal of news coverage - stories have appeared in the New York Times, several New Jersey papers among many others - and hopefully will cause proponents of the choice myth to be further exiled and relegated to the extreme lunatic fringe where they belong. However, there are still religious zealots who just will not give up their lucrative business of selling snake oil to religious guilt plagued gays.

*

One story that looks at this continued attempt to tell individuals that "they don't have to be gay" and which has caused Wayne Besen to comment, is one in the Wall Street Journal which looks at the latest marketing efforts of Warren Throckmorton, one of the former "ex-gay" high priests. When Warren Throckmorton and I first crossed swords on the issue of gays and the myth that one could change their sexual orientation, he was still peddling the repertoire of lies and falsehoods disseminated by the folks at NARTH. Now, Throckmorton, while moving a great distance from his former mantra - I suspect because he saw the writing on the wall as to where the APA was headed and did not want to put his professional license in jeopardy - is still selling only a slightly less toxic remedy to gays. Namely, if you cannot be straight, then live your life in celibacy to avoid conflict with your religious beliefs. Here are highlights of what slightly less false propaganda Throckmorton is now peddling:

*

Dr. Throckmorton is a psychology professor at a Christian college in Pennsylvania and past president of the American Mental Health Counselors Association. He specializes in working with clients conflicted about their sexual identity. The first thing he tells them is this: Your attractions aren't a sign of mental illness or a punishment for insufficient faith. He tells them that he cannot turn them straight. But he also tells them they don't have to be gay.

*
For many years, Dr. Throckmorton felt he was breaking a professional taboo by telling his clients they could construct satisfying lives by, in effect, shunting their sexuality to the side, even if that meant living celibately. That ran against the trend in counseling toward "gay affirming" therapy -- encouraging clients to embrace their sexuality.

*

The new [APA] approach allowing therapists to help clients transcend their sexual orientation was developed by an APA task force of six academics and counselors, some active in gay-rights causes, and endorsed by the group's governing body. Their original mandate was to respond to the growing visibility of sexual orientation "change therapists" who claim it is possible to alter arousal patterns. The task force reviewed scientific literature on change therapy and found no evidence it worked.

*

There are gay-affirming churches. But the task force acknowledged that for those from conservative faiths, affirming a gay identity could feel very much like renouncing their religious identity. . . . It isn't a step to be taken lightly, added Jack Drescher, a psychiatrist and member of the APA task force. "We try to find a balance between what the patient says he wants, what we think is best for the patient, and what is reasonable and feasible," Dr. Drescher said.

*

The APA report mentions as one possible framework the approach taken by Dr. Throckmorton, who teaches at Grove City College and has a Ph.D. in community counseling. He starts by helping clients prioritize their values. Then he shows them stock video of a brain responding to sexual stimuli. When the clients see how quickly the brain lights up, they often feel relieved, he said, because they realize that their attractions are deeply rooted.

*

Dr. Throckmorton says at that point, some clients choose to accept a gay identity. Others, however, say they prefer to live in accordance with their faith. In therapy that can last years, Dr. Throckmorton says he tries to help these clients accept that their attractions will not go away -- but need not define them.

*

In my view, Throckmorton is heading in the wrong way. He'd be using his efforts more constructively - although likely with less remuneration - by taking the APA message to anti-gay churches. It's not gays who need to change but instead the homophobic churches that refuse to accept modern medical and mental health knowledge. Until churches are pressured to move into the 21st century, charlatans will continue to tell LGBT individuals that their lives are sinful and make a tidy profit in the process. I agree with Wayne's comments on what Throckmorton is peddling:

*

[T]he APA should be commended for tackling the affects of religious faith on people working through this issue. Their landmark report explicitly tells religious therapists that clients should be given room to explore who they truly are, without the therapist burdening them with excessive faith-based guilt. This is a step forward, considering that nearly every “reparative therapist” uses shame-based methods to pressure vulnerable and desperate clients into suppressing their natural sexual orientation. However, (although I am not a psychologist) I remain largely skeptical of the therapy offered by Throckmorton and other conservatives. Throckmorton tells The Wall Street Journal that he starts his sessions by helping clients prioritize their values.

*

Religious therapists (I am not referring specifically to Throckmorton) can manipulate the framing of priorities. For example they may ask clients what they find more important to their value system: “ephemeral hedonism” or “eternal life in heaven”. Given this loaded option, clients may feel they have no “choice” but to live a life of hell on earth in order to get the keys to the Kingdom when they die. This is quite a mental burden for clients to carry and surely can’t be conducive to optimum mental health.

*
Clients can also be easily manipulated by therapists who induce guilt by saying, “it is fine if you choose to exercise your options in a selfish manner by choosing your sexuality over Scripture.” Such diabolical therapists may be within the new guidelines (barely) by ostensibly offering a troubled client the “choice” and “freedom” to be a “bad” person. But, we all know this is just a tricky form of psychological abuse. While the APA guidelines are helpful, the group may need to address in the future how unsavory counselors use loopholes to continue tormenting the fragile minds of clients.

Psychologists Repudiate Ex-Gay Therapy

In a major blow to the liars and demagogues among the Christianists like James Dobson who preach that "change is possible" for gays and their minions who have been making a lucrative living off of peddling snake oil and being "ex-gay for pay," the American Psychological Association issued a report that debunks "reparative therapy." In addition, the report states that mental health professions should not tell their clients that they can change their sexual orientation through therapy or other treatments, thereby likely setting the stage for disciplinary action against therapist that continue to lie to clients and subject them to bogus therapy. Similarly, the new APA position should help Courts to dismiss the claims of Christianists that sexual orientation is not an immutable characteristic worthy of protection. And to be frank, this new report further underscores that Don't Ask, Don't Tell is based purely on RELIGIOUS based discrimination against LGBT citizens.

*

The report would also seem to make it easier hence forth for those who are subjected to false ex-gay therapy to sue those who treat them with practices that have now been unequivocally condemned by the APA. Wayne Besen and I have long talked about identifying past victims of "ex-gay" ministries and suing the ministries and therapists on a tort theory based on their use of practices condemned by the APA. The APA stance should also put more pressure on rational religious denominations - rational, that automatically excludes the Roman Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention - to drop the argument that homosexuality is immoral and/or evil. The full 138 page report can be found here. Here are some highlights from Yahoo News:

*

The American Psychological Association declared Wednesday that mental health professionals should not tell gay clients they can become straight through therapy or other treatments. Instead, the APA urged therapists to consider multiple options — that could range from celibacy to switching churches — for helping clients whose sexual orientation and religious faith conflict.

*
In a resolution adopted on a 125-to-4 vote by the APA's governing council, and in a comprehensive report based on two years of research, the 150,000-member association put itself firmly on record in opposition of so-called "reparative therapy" which seeks to change sexual orientation.

*

The APA had criticized reparative therapy in the past, but a six-member task force added weight to this position by examining 83 studies on sexual orientation change conducted since 1960. Its comprehensive report was endorsed by the APA's governing council in Toronto, where the association's annual meeting is being held this weekend.

*
The report breaks new ground in its detailed and nuanced assessment of how therapists should deal with gay clients struggling to remain loyal to a religious faith that disapproves of homosexuality.

*

In dealing with gay clients from conservative faiths, says the report, therapists should be "very cautious" about suggesting treatments aimed at altering their same-sex attractions. "Practitioners can assist clients through therapies that do not attempt to change sexual orientation, but rather involve acceptance, support and identity exploration and development without imposing a specific identity outcome," the report says.

*

"There's no evidence to say that change therapies work, but these vulnerable people are tempted to try them, and when they don't work, they feel doubly terrified," Glassgold said. "You should be honest with people and say, 'This is not likely to change your sexual orientation, but we can help explore what options you have."

*

The report also addressed the issue of whether adolescents should be subjected to therapy aimed at altering their sexual orientation. Any such approach should "maximize self-determination" and be undertaken only with the youth's consent, the report said.

*

I sincerely hope that the APA will put some teeth into the consequences of licensed mental health practitioners who continue to disseminate the lie that sexual orientation is something that can be changed. HRC released a press release that in part echoed my thoughts:

*

"We honor a person's right to believe what they will but that right does not extend to hurting others. And, as this report aptly demonstrates, 'reparative therapy' programs are hurtful," said Harry Knox, Director of HRC's Religion and Faith Program. "It is critical for licensed professionals to understand that one can live a deeply religious life as an openly LGBT person. Many denominations, as well as individual affirming congregations and affinity groups, are leading efforts to create welcoming and safe places for adolescents and young adults to come out within a religious community. Young people need to know that there are diverse faith communities that will accept them just as they are."

The False and Insidious "Experts" at NARTH - Shock Therapy as a Cure

Opponents of gay rights - and the right of LGBT citizens to live their lives as God made them to be - ultimately derive all of their anti-gay beliefs and lies from fundamentalist religious dogma be it Christian, Islamic or something else. However, since their religious dogma based message of intolerance is increasingly unmarketable, they seek to cloth their prejudice and discrimination in a scientific smoke screen rather than admit their real agenda. A case in point is the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality ("NARTH")which is fighting a rear guard action against the advance of medical and mental health knowledge which finds homosexuality to be part of the natural order of things. Jim Burroway at Box Turtle Bulletin looks at NARTH's latest sham "scientific work" that seeks to counter the likely American Psychological Association release of a report condemning attempts to change sexual orientation. NARTH's handiwork isn't pretty or scientific - unless one views religious based dogma as science - and indirectly endorses the use of electric shock therapy as a "successful" means of treating homosexuality. What amounts to a form of torture is endorsed so that NARTH can protect its lucrative niche of peddling snake oil to desperate parents and gays afflicted with religious based guilt. So too, NARTH wants to maintain the myth that sexual orientation is changeable in order to please its Christianist masters. Personally, in my opinion, the most tawdry prostitute has more class and integrity than the folks at NARTH. Here are some highlights from Jim's lengthy piece:

*

A group of anti-gay therapists known as the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) are concerned that the Task Force isn’t sufficiently stacked with anti-gay activists, so NARTH sought to preempt the APA report by releasing a “journal” last June called the Journal of Human Sexuality.
*
As we said earlier,NARTH’s new journal contains just one 121-page article by James Phelan, Neal Whitehead, and Philip Sutton, titled “What Research Shows: NARTH’s Response to the APA Claims on Homosexuality.” NARTH brags that this article “examines over 100 years of professional and scientific literature as well as over 600 reports from clinicians, researchers, and former clients principally published in professional and peer-reviewed journals.” They described this effort as a new peer-reviewed study even though, as we already observed, it’s not new, not peer-reviewed, and not a study.
*
To try to make their case, Phelan, Whitehead and Sutton include just about everything but the kitchen sink regardless of its scientific merit. . . . PW&S dedicated some 14 pages to reports from various books and journals from 1882 through the 1970’s — a period when homosexuality was illegal and gays were regularly arrested and jailed, when they were prohibited from federal employment, and when they were even committed to psychiatric hospitals because the professional community regarded homosexuality as a serious mental illness. The literature from that period reflects those views, and this is the literature that NARTH believes is relevant to today’s discussion on attempts to change sexual orientation.
*
That last category — behavior therapies — is especially troubling. PW&S blithely gloss over what that often entailed, but a sharp eye can spot it pretty easily. Hidden in those three pages lies western psychiatry’s darkest stain: aversion therapy. . . . 1935 is when it all began. Dr. Louis W. Max of New York University published a paper in the March 1935 edition of The Psychological Bulletin describing an apparatus which would become an important part of efforts to change sexual orientation throughout the 1950s and 1960s, and even through 1980s. That notorious apparatus was designed to administer a powerful electric shock to the client whenever the client was experiencing what was considered an inappropriate erotic stimulus (i.e. viewing a picture of someone of the same gender whom the subject found sexually attractive).
*
Today we are justifiably horrified to imagine the suffering that thousands of gay men and women endured to try to rid themselves of their same-sex attractions (sometimes under court order or while confined to a psychiatric hospital), Phelan, Whitehead and Sutton thinks nothing of trumpeting the “successes” of this barbaric form of therapy in staking out their position.
*
As bad as electric shock aversion therapy was, it was mild when compared to another more extreme form of aversion therapy that was also being developed in the same period. This involved the use of emetics like apomorphine, powerful drugs which produces instantaneous and extreme nausea. Emetics were sometimes combined with other drugs to induce diarrhea. The subject was given the drugs and then shown pictures representing a “homosexual stimulus.” The idea behind this was that the patient would associate the “homosexual stimulus” with a gut-retching nausea.
*
It’s hard to imagine anyone pointing to that sort of legacy as justification for their own misguided policy aims. But that is exactly what NARTH has done.
*
Sadly, many of NARTH's gullible victims have no idea just how false and bogus their "research" is or how barbarically gays are treated. If animals were treated this badly, PETA would have a media circus descend on those involved. Yet NARTH gets away with this garbage time and time again because the mainstream media refuses to do some homework and expose the organizations fraudulent. God forbid - the Christianists might allege the media was anti-Christian. Meanwhile, NARTH continues to ruin lives and provide homophobes with some semblance of respectability if one doesn't look past the surface facade.