Bush Nominee’s Abnormal Views

The main editorial in today's New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/10/opinion/10tue1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) urges the U. S. Senate to vote "No" on Chimperator Bush's nominee for Surgeon General. I have highlighted the strong homophobia of the nominee in prior posts and think him totally unqualified due to his Christianist views. Portions of the Times editorial are as follows:

The Senate Health Committee will have to dig beneath the surface on Thursday to consider the nomination of Dr. James Holsinger to be surgeon general. Dr. Holsinger has high-level experience as a health administrator, but there are disturbing indications that he is prejudiced against homosexuals.

His strongest statement on homosexuality can be found in a murky, loosely reasoned paper that he wrote for a church committee in 1991. Titled “Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality,” the paper purported to be a scientific and medical review. It argued that gay sex was abnormal on anatomical and physiological grounds and unhealthy, in that anal sex can lead to rectal injuries and sexually transmitted diseases. Dr. Holsinger did not brand the large number of heterosexual women who engage in anal sex as abnormal, failed to acknowledge the huge burden of disease spread heterosexually and implied that women are more likely than men to avoid injuries with generous lubrication.

The Bush administration says the white paper reflected the scientific understanding of the time, but it reads like a veneer of science cloaking an aversion to homosexuality. The committee should examine whether Dr. Holsinger cherry-picked the literature or represented it objectively. Most important, it must determine whether Dr. Holsinger holds these benighted views today. The Senate should not confirm a surgeon general who considers practicing homosexuals abnormal and diseased.

While I applaud the Time's postion against Holsinger, Michelangelo Signorile (http://signorile2003.blogspot.com/2007/07/practicing-homosexuals-in-editorial.html) and John Aravosis (http://www.americablog.com/2007/07/nyt-editorial-writes-about-practicing.html) have both taken the Times to task for using the term "practicing homosexuals" and for good reason. As Signorile states:

"Just by using that term, the editorial undermines the very point it is trying to make. Holsinger has been attacked for supporting a church that reportedly believes in "ex-gay" therapies and he clearly believes that people can be "indoctrinated" into homosexuality. Describing homosexuality as something you can "practice" until you get it right sure goes a long way toward helping Holsinger's cause."

Bush Nominee Plays the Victim Card to Cover for Lying

Oh my, what a surprise. Chimperator Bush's nominee for Surgeon General and his Christianist allies are playing the victim card, acting as if the good doctor is being persecuted for his religious beliefs as opposed to his deliberate falsification of research to support his religious views against gays. A Liar is a liar, regardless of their theology. Here is a report from Ex-Gay Watch (remember PFOX was established by and is funded by Daddy Dobson and folks like him) on this disgusting attempt to play the victim:

PFOX is back, this time speaking in defense of Surgeon General nominee Dr. James Holsinger. According to the group’s press release, “Gay rights groups are attacking Dr. James Hoslinger’s [sic] nomination because his church is inclusive of ex-gays and he supports the right to self-determination regarding one’s sexual attraction.”

Alan Chambers has joined PFOX on the bandwagon as well. Although Chambers declared himself neutral on the subject of Holsinger’s nomination (PFOX also stopped short of endorsing him), he, too, resorted to playing the “victim card,” declaring, “As a society, we should not disqualify an individual simply because of his belief that those conflicted by their same-sex attraction can and should be helped.”

In this case, however, the victim card isn’t even well played.

Opposition to Dr. Holsinger’s nomination has nothing to do with a desire on the part of any group to “deny the right of any individual to seek support in resolving unwanted same-sex attractions,” as PFOX spokesperson Regina Griggs claims in their press release. Of far greater concern is the question of whether Dr. Holsinger would respect the right of LGBT individuals to self-determination in spite of his personal beliefs. Given his selective and misleading use of scientific data to influence the policies of the United Methodist Church against inclusion of gays and lesbians, that is a very legitimate concern.

Although PFOX and Exodus both play the victim card as a standard tactic in their political lobbying, they have yet to provide any evidence that the rights of ex-gays to pursue reorientation and a heterosexual lifestyle are in any danger of being infringed upon – at least in any way that the general public would define the right to self-determination.

As Kevin Naff indicates:

"The use of the deliberately misleading term “ex-gay,” along with the scandalous and extremely un”christian” claim of unsubstantiated numbers of people “helped” should be evidence enough to send these roaches back under their rocks. But no, instead they still peddle their insincerely-held “beliefs” in the cynical attempt to fleece the public by preying on the most basic insecurities they can identify in the human spirit - and then seek profit from the venture."

Would that the mainstream media would have the balls and integrity to expose these frauds.

Holsinger is a Christianist Liar

The Box Turtle Bulletin (http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/06/11/431) has a damning analysis of the anti-gay paper written by Chimperator Bush’s nominee for surgeon general. It turns out that, like most of the anti-gay “scientific writings,” Holsinger’s paper appears more like something Paul Cameron would churn out as opposed to a serious medical review. Here are portions of the Box Turtle analysis that demonstrate just how disingenuous and distorted Holsinger’s article turns out to be:

That paper, dressed up as a considered medical opinion backed by a bibliography drawn from professional sources, would likely appear to be rather impressive to the lay reader (as most members of the committee were). But a closer examination of that paper reveals very little of scientific value. Worse, it shows a startling eagerness to pull evidence out of context to provide damning evidence against gay men, while willfully ignoring counter evidence in the same literature which essentially destroys the core of his arguments.

Holsinger’s Scientific Evidence

Holsinger began his “scientific” examination by recounting the reproductive role of male and female genitalia. He then went on to observe that the rectum doesn’t perform such a role, and is, in his estimation, unsuitable for intercourse. He cited Agnew (1986)1 to say:

The rectum is incapable of mechanical protection against abrasion and severe damage to the colonic mucosa can result of objects that are large, sharp or pointed are inserted into the rectum (Agnew 1986.)

As you can surmise from the quoted text, Agnew’s paper deals largely with foreign objects, not intercourse. But before the reader can notice this discrepancy, Holsinger quickly dropped the subject of foreign objects (he will return to it later) to begin a broader outline of conditions “found in homosexually active men.” Holsinger quoted Owen (1985, although the paper is missing from Holsinger’s bibliography):2

Four general groups of conditions may be found in homosexually active men: classical sexually transmitted diseases… enteric diseases… trauma… and the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS).

This much is true. These conditions may be found among some homosexually active men. They may also be found in heterosexually active men and women. But to justify his singling out of gay men, Holsinger cited another study to say that STD’s are “strongly correlated to sexual lifestyle,” and presents a large number of statistics for an impressive list of diseases. Unfortunately, the statistics were given without context, leaving the impression that they are representative of all gay men.

But what is that context? It turns out that these statistics came from one lone study consisting of a convenience sample of 365 male patients, all of whom attended a single urban STD clinic in Copenhagen over a seven month period in 1983.3

This is not a representative study at all. It’s not even a representative study of gay men in downtown Copenhagen. It tells us nothing about rural or suburban Danish men. More importantly, it doesn’t tell us anything about gay men who don’t need the services of an STD clinic. It doesn’t even tell us anything about gay or straight men who attend other STD clinics besides the single clinic that performed this study. It is, at best, a snapshot of a small population from one urban center over a short period of time, taken eight years before Holsinger’s paper was written.

This of course means that if you study people with STDs, whether they are gay or straight, you will find people with STDs. Holsinger uses the behavior of one particular sample of men who expose themselves to the risk of STDs to denigrate all gay men (and lesbians!). This study says nothing of those whose “lifestyle” choices do not lead to contracting STDs. And of course, Holsinger’s arguments don’t address whatever responsibility heterosexuals overall have for the 64% of this particular Copenhagen sample who were exclusively straight and were treated for STDs.

After dealing briefly with sexually transmitted diseases, Holsinger introduced the squeamish subject of anorectal trauma, again implying that it is a common condition among gay men. He opened this line of argument by repeating this statement from Bush (1986):4

Consensual penile-anal intercourse can be performed safely. Few anorectal problems and no evidence of anal-sphincter dysfunction are found in heterosexual women who have anal-receptive intercourse. However, forceful anal penetration without lubrication against a resistant sphincter will result in abrasive trauma, causing fissures, contusions, thrombosed hemorrhoids, lacerations with bleeding, pain, and psychic trauma.

Notice what’s going on here. If intercourse is consensual, then everything’s okay. After all, they see few problems among straight women. But if it’s not consensual then damage can occur. This statement seems to preclude the possibility that gay men can have consensual sex, doesn’t it?In fact, all three sources that Holsinger quoted from in this section (Bush, 1986; Geist, 1988; and Agnew, 1986)5 describe conditions that were found among men treated in emergency room settings. And much of evidence provided in the Bush and Geist papers were the result of sexual assault, not consensual sex.

Once again, it turns out that the Christianist Holsinger, who claims to be so religious and such a super Christian, is deliberately bearing false witness against gays. Funny how these folks think the Commandment against bearing false witness and lying does not apply to them. Holsinger is definitely NOT worthy of the position of Surgeon General. Moreover, he is not worthy of calling himself a follwer of Christ.