Sunday, February 17, 2008

How Is This "Repairing" Anybody ???

Since the "religious right wing" in this country (and the United States) likes to keep trotting out the same talking points all the time, I figure any opportunity to point out the complete intellectual dishonesty of these claims is worth the time.

Recently Nigel Hannaford and Tristan Emmanuel both trotted out the case of Chris Kempling as an example of "Christian" free speech being "suppressed". I'm going to take this a little further and make a few more harsh claims about Kempling.

As I have pointed out repeatedly in the past, Kempling's case is not so simple as even that of Stephen Boissoin. Kempling did not "merely" write a letter defending "traditional marriage", but rather he wrote a series of letters deeply critical of what he supposed to be the "gay lifestyle":

Kempling had been employed as a teacher and counsellor at a high school in Quesnel, British Columbia since 1990. In 1997 he began to write a series of letters to the editor of a local newspaper, the Quesnel Cariboo Observer, expressing concern over the presentation of homosexuality in school curricula. Among other things, Kempling's letters objected to the British Columbia Teachers' Federation (BCTF), the union that represents teachers in British Columbia, distributing teaching-aid literature which had been produced by the Gay and Lesbian Educators of BC, and which in his view was erroneous. He also cited various studies that he interprets as showing harm caused by what he described as the "homosexual lifestyle". Kempling, an advocate of reparative therapy, wrote:

"Sexual orientations can be changed and the success rate for those who seek help is high. My hope is students who are confused over their sexual orientation will come to see me." [1]


Now, clearly, Kempling's actions go much, much further than simply "writing a letter". (If anyone has the text of Kempling's letters at hand, let me know, I'd be interested in reading them)

Kempling is an advocate of something often referred to as Reparative Therapy, a questionable, and arguably damaging "therapy" intended to make someone be "not gay".

To give some idea just how damaging "reparative therapy" can be, I refer readers to this case in Manitoba:

A minister and former Christian college instructor has been found guilty of sexually assaulting a young man who sought counselling after he feared he was homosexual.
...
In earlier testimony, the alleged victim, now 29, told court he started meeting Lewis for counselling sessions in early 2000 after his parents caught him viewing gay pornography on the family computer.

Lewis — a family friend and minister — confided he had his own sexual identity issues and the two embarked on weekly counselling sessions designed to “assist me to be straight and to live a straight life,” the man said.

The man said Lewis started a program of “touch therapy,” which included the two kissing and fondling each other and engaging in sexual roleplaying.


This is far, far from being the first serious problem with so-called conversion therapies. From many perspectives, "reparative therapy" runs at odds with a lot of good, solid science. Psychologists have long ago realized that sexual identity as a rule is not responsive to therapy techniques intended to "change" them. You might be able to persuade someone to adopt a different political viewpoint, but in general, it's unlikely that you will change their sexual or gender identity meaningfully through any known therapy technique.

This most recent incident in Manitoba is an example of someone in a position of trust exploiting the patient.

While I do not claim that Kempling would engage in the same tactics, we have to view with skepticism and caution the "therapy" that he is advocating for. The simple fact is that there is little, or no, peer reviewed literature that substantiates the claims that are wrapped around the therapy that Kempling advocates, and plenty of evidence of abuse being wrapped in the cloak of "therapy" instead.

4 comments:

Roger said...

Your bias misleads you.

Review Of 'Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study Of Religiously Mediated Change In Sexual Orientation'
By George A. Rekers, Ph.D.

This is clearly the best scientific study yet conducted on change of homosexual orientation and on the question as to whether attempts at such change are inherently harmful. My academic peer review found this investigation to be the most rigorous, well-designed empirical study to date on these questions. This study meets the high research standards set by the American Psychological Association that individuals be validly assessed, followed, and reported over time with a prospective, longitudinal outcome research design.

Using well-accepted, standard psychological measures, Jones and Yarhouse found solid evidence that homosexual orientation can be significantly changed. And their careful scientific search found no evidence that spiritual or psychological harm directly results from attempting such change. Because so many secular psychologists and psychiatrists mistakenly assumed the opposite of these clear scientific findings, this groundbreaking scientific study sets a new landmark in the field of therapeutic change for unwanted homosexual orientation.


Stanton L. Jones, Ph.D.

Mark A. Yarhouse, Psy.D.

Given the practical constraints facing any scientist for these research questions Jones and Yarhouse employed a prospective and longitudinal research design that measures up to widely-accepted professional standards. This study's authors are cautious, basing their conclusions only on systematically gathered and appropriately analyzed scientific data. Jones and Yarhouse assessed individuals who met fairly rigorous standards of "homosexualness," using every established measure of sexual orientation that has empirical support in past scientific research as well standard psychological measures of distress and spirituality that are among the best currently available.

This study demonstrates with convincing scientific evidence that the Christian ministry interventions of Exodus International produced strong and clinically meaningful changes in homosexual orientation in a large percentage of individuals. Furthermore this careful clinical research investigation of a significant number of individuals yielded no evidence to support the common assumption that attempts to change sexual orientation cause harm or psychological distress.


--George A. Rekers, Ph.D., Th.D., FAACP
Professor of Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Science Emeritus
University of South Carolina School of Medicine

MgS said...

Roger,

While Rekers commentary on the Jones / Yarhouse study looks positive (and the Jones/Yarhouse study is probably a more honest bit of work than the vast majority of the so-called research on "change therapy"), it is far from definitive.

Probably one of the more interesting critiques I've seen of the study (not having a copy in my hands at this time, I haven't been able to assess it in detail myself) is located here:

http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/11/a-critique-of-jones-and-yarhouses-ex-gays-part-1/
http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/11/a-critique-of-jones-and-yarhouses-ex-gays-part-2/
http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/11/a-critique-of-jones-and-yarhouses-ex-gays-part-3/

Although Jones/Yarhouse's work is commendable, I remain cautious and skeptical of attempting to persuade someone to "change" their sexual identity through therapy.

Also of some concern to me is the fact that the primary funding for Jones/Yarhouse's work came from Exodus. While that isn't necessarily damning, it is far from reassuring me that Jones and Yarhouse were in fact able to work from a solid Null Hypothesis in their work.

We should be even more cautious when the position statements of the major psychological and psychiatric colleges towards "reparative therapy" speak of potential harm done to clients as a result of such programs.

Roger said...

You make an important point that needs to be reiterated. There is nothing, yet, on either side that is definitive. My research leads me to believe that the truth (science) is leaning in a direction that the homosexual activists hate.

The problem isn't Kempling or Boissoin. The problem is that they are being persecuted through cicumstantial opinion and evidence. The homosexual lobby is pushing as fact what is simply not proven to be true (yet). Kempling, Boissoin and others are fighting back. I don't blame them.

MgS said...

Roger, I bounced this out of the comments into another post to address in more depth how I see things.

About “Forced Treatment” and Homelessness

I need to comment on the political pressure to force people experiencing addiction into treatment. Superficially, it seems to address a prob...