More Religious Bigotry

In New Brunswick this time. Florist Refuses To Sell Flowers To Lesbian Couple

After agreeing to provide the flowers for a wedding, Kim Evans of Petals and Promises Wedding Flowers sent an email last month to the couple, saying she didn't know it was a same-sex wedding and would have no part of the ceremony.

"I am choosing to decline your business. As a born-again Christian, I must respect my conscience before God and have no part in this matter," the email said.

Yet another case of someone dredging up their religious beliefs and demanding that everybody else live by their moral code.

... and like a certain case involving one Scott Brockie, the business is declined after agreeing to do the work in the first place. Apparently "christianists" have forgotten the very real persecution their forebears experienced at the hands of the Romans, because they are practicing more or less the same kind of oppression against GLBT people. Worse yet, they express their bigotry after making a business agreement.

The question for the denizens of places like "No Apologies" is clear enough in my mind - how is the couple supposed to know that this - or any other - business is run by some narrow-minded christianist who will deny them service? ... and just why should someone's faith be an excuse for denying service to someone else?

... and these are the same people who question the "necessity" of Bill C-389? Seems to me that they are the best argument for that bill being passed into law.

WhereIn NoApologies Shows Us Why Church And State Must Be Kept Apart

If you ever needed more concrete reasons why Canadians should be diligent about ensuring that radical religiosity needs to be kept as far from the reins of state as possible, consider the oh-so-rational thinking of the erstwhile Tim Bloedow in his post Thinking rightly about homosexuality and Christian B&B owners.

That being said, human rights is hostile to Christianity and justice. And we see that born out again in this case. Human rights is the law order for socialism – for affirmative action, group rights, “substantive equality,” which has nothing to do with genuine equality. We see this in human rights legislation: It protects people not as individuals, but based on their participation in groups, and not any group, only politically protected groups, such as people defined by ethnicity, sex/gender, “sexual orientation” and marital status. Human rights law doesn’t protect firemen, those with eyebrow piercings or dairy farmers.

Of course, what Mr. Bloedow is asserting here is actually quite ludicrous. Essentially, he is arguing that because human rights laws typically specifically address common grounds on which discrimination takes place. Whether that is race, religion, sexual orientation is irrelevant - these are all common grounds which have been used historically to limit the full participation of an individual in society.

Apparently, Mr. Bloedow doesn't understand the notion of individual rights as they are expressed in law. I will point to Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms as an example of how flawed his logic is:

Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

I don't know how this could be more abundantly clear about the fact that these rights apply to individuals.

What Mr. Bloedow seems to want is some kind of hierarchy of rights, which would put his "Christian Rights" ahead of all other rights - in particular his right to discriminate against others based on the projection of his faith onto others.

But the question is more fundamental than that. Christian activists should be asking: “How can businessmen live out their faith if they are legally required to support with their time, their labor, their goods, and their services behaviors that are offensive to them?”

Yes, we’re concerned about freedom of religion and conscience. Yes, we are concerned about Christian businessmen. But the real bahttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifttleground is far more fundamental.

Really? So, you want to make it legal for businesses to practice "we don't serve your kind" discrimination? We've seen that before - it used to take place in the US before segregation was outlawed. Sadly, there are still those who would practice such vile forms of discrimination. Whether you apply on the basis of someone's ethnic characteristics, or on the basis of that person's sexuality is irrelevant - the consequences to the individual are still the same. You end up restricting their ability to participate fully in society on the basis of values that you are projecting outwards and insisting that they abide by.

These two views are incompatible. The erosion of Christianity and the rise of Humanism has been moving us from an environment of liberty – self-government under God – to state-ism. Many of us have only personally experienced state-ism so we don’t know what liberty feels or looks like. But that is ultimately what we’re arguing for when we say that businesses, such as these Christian B&B owners, should be free to operate their businesses as they see fit.

I always find this line of reasoning to be just a little too convenient. It always seems to crop up when we are talking about situations where so-calTo argue that operating a business should not be bounded by law is more than a little ridiculous. Businesses have always been subject to the law of the land, and rightly so.

What Bloedow is really arguing for here is either a form of extreme libertarianism, or if you read the rest of his writing he's really talking about rewriting Canada's laws to his particular interpretation of the Bible.

We posted a story about a Montreal-area trucking company that was ordered by Quebec’s human rights tribunal to pay $10,000 to a female truck driver who was not considered for a job because she is a woman. The business owner was apparently quite upfront about refusing to consider her for employment because she was a woman. We titled the post, “QC human rights trump business owner’s prerogative.”

Apparently, Mr. Bloedow wants to dial rights back to the late 17th Century. He obviously fails to understand that there is a fairly serious problem with refusing someone a job on the basis of the fact they are female - especially when they hold all of the requisite qualifications otherwise. Of course, I've seen other commentary on No Apologies where they've whined about how we should mourn a woman's "loss of purity" as a result of a sexual assault. The underlying misogyny of such a strategy is pretty offensive as it supposes that the only thing a woman brings to a relationship is her "purity" - and it is ironic that they never seem to talk about the same notion of "purity" for males, isn't it?

This has become a much longer commentary than I intended, but 1) it is absolutely necessary to drive home the importance to Christians of embracing Christianity as a worldview and not simply as a religion that provides a moral code to justify our antipathy to sexual perversion. 2) We need to champion morality at a foundational level that embraces justice for all Canadians, not simply for Christians, and 3) we need to understand where the true antithesis lies between Christianity and Humanism so that we don’t waste our time with losing battles, championing human rights and other anti-Christian concepts when we should, instead, be advancing the law of God and the lordship of Christ as relevant and applicable for 21st Century Canada.

Here is where Bloedow's obsession with all things to do with "homosexuals". He wants his right to discriminate against GLBT people - and women - enshrined in law. In effect, creating a hierarchy of rights.

The reality is that Mr. Bloedow's rights are already well established. What he has is a problem with comprehending the idea that individual rights exist with respect to the individual, and do not provide for the individual to project their beliefs onto others - especially in a way that limits their right to live a full life in society.

Oh That's A Surprise

It seems that CTS Television has just dumped McVety's Word TV program:

CTS (Crossroads Television System) regrets that Word TV will no longer be broadcast due to its lack of compliance with the CTS Code of Ethics to which Word TV agreed under contract.

Last week, its producer and host, Dr. Charles McVety erroneously communicated that CTS was being pressured to censor Word TV; these comments are inaccurate and misleading. The fact is that Word TV failed to keep its agreement to comply with the CTS Code of Ethics and indicated a refusal to comply in the future. Unfortunately, numerous attempts by CTS to work with Dr. McVety were unsuccessful.

Cue the violins, I'm sure McVety's going to be bleating that he's a martyr even louder now.

In spite of the fact that the issue is much simpler - McVety was distorting the truth to suit his political agenda.

You Have Got To Be Kidding

Since when has child abuse ever been considered "normal"???

In his traditional Christmas address yesterday to cardinals and officials working in Rome, Pope Benedict XVI also claimed that child pornography was increasingly considered “normal” by society.

“In the 1970s, paedophilia was theorised as something fully in conformity with man and even with children,” the Pope said.

“It was maintained — even within the realm of Catholic theology — that there is no such thing as evil in itself or good in itself. There is only a ‘better than' and a ‘worse than'. Nothing is good or bad in itself.”

... and this is coming from the organization that rails against GLBT people as "unnatural" and "objectively disordered", and condemns the use of condoms even when life threatening diseases are involved? I believe the correct term here is "hypocrisy".

Well, Isn't This Special?

Those who have had dealings with Alberta Health on issues related to mental health have known for years how parochial our government can be. In yesterday's Vancouver Sun, we learn that the government is using a diagnostic coding scheme from 1975 ... and it was out of date then!

Alberta’s current diagnostic codes were last updated in 2005, the same year that British Columbia removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders and four years after China did so.

In Alberta, homosexuality still falls under the heading of Mental Disorders: Sexual Deviations and Disorders. It is at the top of the list and is followed by bestiality, pedophilia, transvestism, exhibitionism, transsexualism, disorders of psychosexual identity, frigidity and impotence.

Neither Zwozdesky nor Alberta Health and Wellness spokesman Howard May could explain why Alberta’s diagnostic codes have not been revised.

“These are not Alberta’s codes, they were developed by the World Health Organization, under international guidelines, and are in use in many provinces,” May said.

Asked why Alberta’s current codes are based on the 1975 ICD-9 and not on the 1990 ICD-10 that drops homosexuality from the list of mental disorders, May said in an email: “The codes are extremely complex. It would be a vast undertaking to change them.”

"A vast undertaking"??? WTF? Horsefeathers. Even if it is a large amount of work, it is a gross injustice to Albertans that our health care system has chosen to remain in the dark.

It also explains why Alberta's approach to funding GRS prior to 2009 looked like one of the Gender Clinic programs out of the 1970s in terms of the hoops that it insisted transsexuals jump through - and was dramatically out of step with the Standards of Care that HBIGDA/WPATH publish. (like them or not, they do represent an evolving protocol).

iberal MLA Laurie Blakeman first raised the issue in the legislature in 1999.

“It’s just so wrong, it’s sickening,” she said. “Here we are in 2010 and the Conservatives are still living in 1950 ... I still hear some of them talk about how this is a ‘lifestyle decision.’ ”

[Note:] CBC Radio is reporting that Alberta is changing its position on the listing of homosexuality this morning - I'll be watching to see if I can find a confirming article for this. [Update 17:30] Here it is

H/T: Commenter "SB"

Dehumanizing ...

Over at No Apologies, we find one of the usual suspects wringing their hands over how a gay teen's suicide is going to be "used against" christianists.

... If the storyline is correct, however, we must assume that Tyler killed himself out of shame over his lifestyle and behaviour. If this is the case, he will – courtesy of the media – be forever remembered as the gay kid who killed himself after a video of the embarrassing act became public. The victimization of Tyler Clementi and the Christian community has only begun. Tyler’s choice has been warped into a weapon and planted in the hands of those the media likes to tarnish with the sobriquet “homophobe”.

Yes, someone who commits suicide makes a choice. No question about it. But to claim that such a choice occurs in a vacuum is an attempt at dissociation - especially coming from the denizens of "No Apologies".

Here's why. GLBT youth suicides are more often than not a result of continuous harassment at the hands of others. Often their tormentors are other youth, but not always - it's not unusual for GLBT folk (youth and adult) to be harassed by adults as well.

One might want to begin by asking just where youth get the idea that it's acceptable to be abusive of GLBT people in the first place? Much less how they justify carrying such behaviours forward into their adult lives.

The short answer is that there is a very vocal, if marginal, population that is vehemently opposed to GLBT people having any rights at all in society. Whether you look at postings on No Apologies, Lifesite News, One News Now or the frothing insanity of Peter LaBarbera's Americans For Truth Against Homosexuality (AKA "AFTAH"), there are lots of sources spewing a constant message that GLBT people don't deserve to be equals in society.

The messages themselves are nothing new - it's the usual moralizing drivel derived from a flawed understanding of scripture; accusation of mental or physical illness, licentiousness and so on.

However, when these messages are out in the public sphere for all to see, it doesn't exactly take a lot to understand that youth pick up on the underlying themes and act out on them. Youth, in general, will tend to act out in a much more visceral manner than adults will for a variety of reasons.

Combine this with the fact that teenagers will generally torment the hell out of anyone who is different - visibly or behaviourally, and you have an unsurprising reality that GLBT people end up on the receiving end of some pretty vicious bullying.

Whether we are talking about the events around Tyler Clementi's suicide, Chloe Lacey, Stacy Lee or Angie Zapata it doesn't matter. All of these cases have their roots in a constant message that being GLBT is "wrong", and therefore these people are disposable.

So, where does this leave the hard-line christianists that continue to perpetuate a hostile message in society? With a shared responsibility. Individually, none of them can be held directly responsible in these situations. However, they have an indirect responsibility because it is their teachings which contribute to the atmosphere that allows for bullying and violence to be done to GLBT people in the first place.

Borrowing from a propaganda tactic that the Nazis perfected in the lead-up to WWII, the language used is designed to render an entire population of people as "the Other" - removing from them any vestiges of being human. Replacing individual humanity with a shared "evilness" makes it very easy to justify mistreating individuals.

GLBT people have an immense struggle to come to terms with themselves simply because their sexual and gender identities fall outside the normative status that the majority fall into naturally. When we combine this with a social environment where harassment is encouraged (sometimes tacitly, sometimes explicitly), it is no real surprise that some give up hope entirely and take their own lives.

While we cannot hold the christianists wholly responsible in these tragedies, like the bystander in a beating who cheers on the thugs, they hold a certain degree of culpability. Theirs is the repeated message of hostility and dehumanization aimed at GLBT people, and the implications and impact of those messages cannot be overlooked.

Note: I use the term "christianist" not as a broad reference to all who profess to be Christian, but as an explicit reference to those whose persistent distortion and misrepresentation of others is used as a political argument for denying legitimate rights, freedoms and protections in law for people.

MisUnderstanding Transsexuals and Transition

Every so often, I see someone start talking about transsexuals and transition. They almost always do it from an externalized perspective and inevitably make some statements that are guaranteed to make various members of the transgender community angry.

So, when Jerry Maneker wrote a post that pointed to Don Charles' post entitled "Frankengender", I got curious and went and read it.

I have to take great exception to some of the assumptions in Mr. Charles' writing, because they lead him down a path to conclusions which are just plain, outright incorrect.

... "Gender reassignment" is a cynical hoax which exploits vulnerable people and leaves them forever chasing a false legitimacy; it's so cruel, so despicable, so horribly inhumane, I can barely stand to think about it. The really tragic part is, a person's inborn Transgender status is every bit as legitimate as conventional male or female biology, but nobody will acknowledge that fact.

As I've said before, there's nothing wrong with most Transsexual patients that broader, more realistic definitions of male and female wouldn't cure.

I think this statement underscores a key assumption about transsexuals that is, to say the least, incorrect.

He's inverted things from the usual assumption that non-trans people make. Instead of claiming that it's all about the physical (surgical), he tries to make a variation on the Rad-Fem claim that gender is largely rooted in the social. (and sadly, has misconstrued it in a manner consistent with the objections that both social conservatives and radical feminists raise about transsexuals)

His misunderstanding here arises from a failure to recognize that Gender is a complex, multi-dimensional aspect of our being. At the very least it involves the intersections of the physical, social and psychological aspects of us. (and, as if we can't possibly get any more difficult to comprehend, the social and psychological aspects are likely in themselves comprised of many different threads of identity!)

The claim that "broader definitions of man and woman" would "cure" transsexuals is, highly debatable. While more flexible notions of gender would certainly help alleviate some of the stigma that transsexuals encounter in life, it cannot and will not address the cognitive dissonance that so many transsexuals experience prior to transition and (for some) surgery.

But feelings of disgust for the body you were born with is a mental health issue requiring mental health services. You don't treat mental health issues with radically invasive surgical procedures!!! That's barbaric!

I've seen this claim made before by other opponents of treatment for transsexuals. Coming from someone who apparently is connected in general with the GLBT community, I'm particularly disappointed to see it.

The problem is that it falls into the same category as so-called "reparative therapy" for homosexuals. Trying to change something as fundamental as gender or sexual identity using therapy just plain old doesn't work - at least not for those whose identity is firmly at the extreme end of things.

I can appreciate his "horror" at the nature of gender surgery - most males express that response when thinking about Male to Female GRS.

However, for transsexuals in general, GRS is an effective part of the treatment process (although a fairly late stage of the overall treatment). I would invite Mr. Charles to spend some time reading Pfaefflin et. al.'s study of post-surgical outcomes before he goes too far down the path of condemning the availability of surgery for those who need it.

I will also refer to the WPATH Standards of Care briefly to substantiate my point that there is more at play here than a single dimension of experience:

Options for Gender Adaptation. The activities and processes that are listed below have, in various combinations, helped people to find more personal comfort. These adaptations may evolve spontaneously and during psychotherapy. Finding new gender adaptations does not mean that the person may not in the future elect to pursue hormone therapy, the real-life experience, or genital surgery.

This is significant, because it underscores a clear understanding in the treatment community that surgery is but one dimension of a much broader scope of treatment.

When it comes to surgery itself, I would like to bring your attention to section X of the v6 Standards of Care:

Sex Reassignment is Effective and Medically Indicated in Severe GID. In persons diagnosed with transsexualism or profound GID, sex reassignment surgery, along with hormone therapy and real-life experience, is a treatment that has proven to be effective. Such a therapeutic regimen, when prescribed or recommended by qualified practitioners, is medically indicated and medically necessary. Sex reassignment is not "experimental," "investigational," "elective," "cosmetic," or optional in any meaningful sense. It constitutes very effective and appropriate treatment for transsexualism or profound GID.

While I would to some extent agree with Mr. Charles' assertion that GRS is not a cure per se, we can't cure a lot of conditions yet. But we have known treatments that are effective. Whether you like the SOC or not, the protocol they describe is demonstrably effective at both the individual and population levels over the long term. (Pfaefflin et. al.'s survey of post-surgery results corroborates this claim quite nicely)

It's an option for Transfolk, not a necessity!

Is GRS necessary for all transfolk? No. For some? Absolutely. The issue around surgery funding is that when you view it as "purely optional" (and therefore something the individual must pay for out of their own pocket), you create a situation where the most severely affected by their gender issues likely will never have access to the treatment they need for economic reasons. (Granted, I'm a Canadian, and I have a somewhat different perspective on funding for medical treatment than is common in many parts of the United States ... I see great value in not driving people with medical needs into bankruptcy)

I think that Mr. Charles' has grossly misunderstood that although it is a fraction of transfolk who actually have gender surgery performed, that doesn't make it less important and valid for them than any other medical intervention for a condition. Perhaps I should point out here that medical intervention for mental conditions such as schizophrenia aren't exactly ideal solutions either - at best they are marginal attempts to manage the symptoms the patient is experience ... but the patient is much better off with that imperfect treatment than with no treatment at all!

. . . they expect me to swallow this whopping big lie about "gender dysphoria", a "neurological disorder" for which no neurological therapy exists. Instead, major cosmetic surgery including breasts and reproductive organs is the only effective treatment! It's the most demented thing I've ever heard of.

For those who experience and live with whatever the causes of being trans happen to be, the consequences are very intensely real. To the point that the suicide rate (and suicide ideation rates) among transsexuals in particular are many, many times higher than the population as a whole. It's not just suffering, Mr. Charles, it can be so destructive as to be beyond debilitating. While I would agree that the clinical models used to date are imperfect, they are a damn sight better than nothing.

In this case, the pit in question is a "civilization" that seethes with entrenched transphobia. That's the abnormality that needs to be corrected . . . and it's still there! Quackery like "gender dysphoria" and Frankengender "sex change" operations keep it there.

I will agree that there is an entrenched degree of transphobia in society, and that it deserves to be expunged from society. One of the things Mr. Charles' has misunderstood, and misrepresents through his entire argument is the role of the therapist (at least the good ones).

A good therapist will help their client work through and beyond the transphobia in society and themselves. Guess what? - even after that process has worked its way through in a reasonable fashion, we still find that there are transsexuals who are not willing to live with the incongruity of feeling and living as female in our society without the gender surgery to align body and soul.

The point, Mr. Charles, is that for a fair number of transfolk surgical intervention is part of the solution. The rest of the solution comes from within - an inner journey that is at least as moving and powerful to those who undertake it as your own journey into faith no doubt was.

As for changing society's paranoia about transgender people as a whole, the only way that's going to happen is for those who are trans to live well and be positive examples within our circles. Sadly, when the most generous of estimates place the rate of transgender identity at somewhere in the 1 in 3000 range(and personally, I think that's very optimistic), the odds of there ever being enough transsexuals to influence the greater mass of society into a more engaged, thoughtful place are tiny indeed.

It is one thing to argue for excising transphobia from society, but it is quite another to do so without acknowledging the very real need for transsexuals to change their bodies.

If you get angry e-mails about your posts on the subject, it is no doubt because so many would read what you are advocating as an attempt to erase their own narratives. Generally speaking, erasure tends to result in cranky people. Not everyone who is transgender is content to live in the nether world betwixt and between.

Personally, Mr. Charles, I would strongly suggest spending some time talking with therapists and other treatment professionals who are part of WPATH, and a little more time in the clinical literature about transsexualism before you go making proposals like "fixing the mind". It seems to me that your own thinking is filled with as much subjective nonsense on the topic as comes from the likes of Peter LaBarbera and Julie Bindle.

[Update 19/08/10]
Reductio ad Absurdum

In the comments over at Jerry Maneker's blog, the conversation took a turn for the surreal and outright ridiculous when Jerry writes the following in reply to one of my comments:

If there were no transphobia in society, it is unlikely that there would be many transexuals who would feel "like they were born into the wrong body."

Ummm...right. So eliminating transphobia will reduce the number of transsexuals - I can't even begin to express how ridiculous that kind of reasoning is. The degree and extent of transphobia in society today is enormously lower than it was thirty years ago; and the numbers of transsexuals hasn't exactly dropped off, has it?

As for the argument that eliminating transphobia would allow more transfolk to live comfortably without pursuing surgery, that's at best a bald assertion with no evidence to back it up.

I'm sorry to say it, but even within the broad GLBT community, there's an immense amount of misunderstanding of transgender folk as whole, and transsexuals in particular. It's truly sad when people opine about how to deal with the plight of others without bothering to inform themselves in a meaningful way about those people.
[/Update]

About That "Traditional Marriage" Thing

Ms Magazine has an excellent writeup that reminds us of just how "traditional marriage" used to work:

Arguably the most influential definition of “traditional” marriage came from William Blackstone, a well-thumbed copy of whose “Commentaries on the Laws of England” could be found on the desk of every Colonial or Early American lawmaker, judge and attorney:

By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law; that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband, under whose wing, protection and cover, she performs everything.

The two became one–that one being the husband–while the bride underwent “civil death” to become his legally invisible appendage. Virtually every asset of hers–personal possessions, every penny of wages earned, the very clothing on her back, and even her children–was placed under the absolute control of her husband, though inherited real estate was restricted in that husbands could use it for their own benefit, but not arbitrarily dispose of it without her free consent, as it was meant to provide for her during widowhood then be passed on to her children. Like a child, she could not sign a contract, make a will, buy or sell a business, or sue in court (except for divorce–where legal–or for failure of her husband to adequately support her.)

Hmmm...and the "anti-gay marriage" crowd wants to go back to this? How delightful.

More From The Illogical File

If you haven't encountered Dale O'Leary before, you can be forgiven - one has to tread into the swamps of religiously driven pseudo-science to find his writings. (He was one of the authors of the horrendous paper on the "ethics" of gender reassignment surgery I dissected back here)

He's surfaced again - a year late, it seems, to respond to the APA's study on reparative therapy - and like other attempts at reason from this sector, he's busy cherry picking facts and in doing so gets it entirely wrong. (The actual APA report is here)

1) Same-sex sexual attractions, behavior, and orientations per se are normal and positive variants of human sexuality—in other words, they do not indicate either mental or developmental disorders.

The use the term "per se" confuses the issue. It is true that same-sex sexual attractions, behavior, and orientations are not in and of themselves (per se) indicative of anything. Given the variety of human behavior and attractions in different cultures, throughout history, and among the variety of mankind, nothing can be said about all persons with same-sex attraction, everyone who engages in same-sex behavior, or claims a particular sexual orientation. However, there is substantial evidence that same-sex attraction is a sequel of disturbed early childhood, in particular a failure to achieve a secure attachment to the mother1 and a failure to identify with the same sex parent and peers2. There is also evidence that persons with SSA are more likely to have been victims of childhood abuse,3 including sexual abuse,4 or other exposure to age inappropriate experiences. A number of well designed large sample studies have found that persons with SSA are more likely to suffer from psychological disorders, substance abuse problems,5 and suicidal ideation.6 Men who have sex with men are at high risk for contracting an STD, including HIV.7 While not every persons with SSA falls into these categories, a significant percentage do. There is on the other hand no replicated evidence that SSA is genetically or congenitally predetermined and therefore a natural and unchangeable variant.8 Therefore, it can be argued that there is evidence that SSA in some cases (or some might argue in most cases) is associated with a psychological or developmental disorder.

O'Leary makes several assertions here which, had he bothered to actually read the report in its entirety, he would find it addresses.

Assertion: Homosexuality is a result of childhood and/or family dysfunction.

From the APA Report:

Theories that certain patterns of family relationships cause same-sex sexual orientation have been discredited (Bell et al., 1981; Freund & Blanchard, 1983; R. R. Green, 1987; D. K. Peters & Cantrell, 1991).

Assertion: Homosexuality is associated with childhood sexual abuse

From the APA Report:

Some individuals who present with requests for SOCE may have clinical concerns that go beyond their sexual orientation conflicts. These may include mental health disorders, personality disorders, or trauma- related conditions that influence the presentation of sexual orientation conflicts and distress (cf. Brown, 2006; Drescher, 1998a; Glassgold, 2008; Haldeman, 2001; Iwasaki & Ristock, 2007; Lasser & Gottlieb, 2004; Mohr & Fassinger, 2003; S. L. Morrow, 2000; Pachankis et al., 2008; Schneider et al., 2002; Sherry, 2007; Szymanski & Kashubeck-West, 2008). Such conditions may require intervention separate from or in conjunction with the intervention directed at the sexual orientation distress. For instance, some clients who seek SOCE may have histories of trauma (Ponticelli, 1999), and in some individuals sexual abuse can cause sexual orientation identity confusion and other sexuality-related concerns (Gartner, 1999). Other individuals seeking SOCE may make homosexuality the explanation for all they feel is wrong with their lives (Beckstead & Morrow, 2004; Erzen, 2006; Ponticelli, 1999; Shidlo & Schroeder, 2002). This displacement of self-hatred onto homosexuality can be an attempt to resolve a sense of badness and shame (cf. Brandchaft, 2007; Drescher, 1998a), and clients may thus need effective interventions to deal with this self-hatred and shame (Brandchaft, 2007; Linehan, Dimeff, & Koerner, 2007; Zaslav, 1998).

Please note the language of the APA report. Unlike O'Leary, the APA is very careful to describe these conditions as coincidental with, not causally related to, the client's sexual identity. The APA is very cautious about drawing causal relationships between conditions for good reasons - when one looks at the broad spectrum of people who were (for example) victims of child abuse, it's not clear that even a significant fraction of those people turned out to be homosexual.

Assertion: Homosexuals are at a higher risk for other psychological conditions.

The APA Report addresses this concern in the quote I provide above.

Assertion: Men who have sex with men (MSM) are at higher risk for STIs

From a purely psychological perspective, this hardly seems relevant. Although it certainly is indicative of O'Leary's biases, since it is a common assertion made by the religious set to justify their "opposition" to homosexuality.

Assertion: While not every persons with SSA falls into these categories, a significant percentage do. There is on the other hand no replicated evidence that SSA is genetically or congenitally predetermined and therefore a natural and unchangeable variant.8 Therefore, it can be argued that there is evidence that SSA in some cases (or some might argue in most cases) is associated with a psychological or developmental disorder.

Ah ... the classic circularity which confuses correlation with causation. The APA is very careful not to make any assessment of causal factors related to homosexuality because what evidence exists is far from conclusive. Unfortunately for O'Leary, his fantasy that because there has been no "gay gene" found that the causes must lie in other correlations doesn't exactly hold up. (I discussed this in more detail here, here and here.

O'Leary doesn't let reason get in his way though, as he proceeds to try and disprove other basic tenets of the APA's report.

2) Homosexuality and bisexuality are stigmatized, and this stigma can have a variety of negative consequences (e.g., minority stress) throughout the life span.

Sexual acts between two persons of the same sex, along with adultery, fornication, and sexual paraphilias, are condemned by a number of religions as always contrary to God’s law. Since these religions are based on unchangeable revelation, these doctrines cannot be altered. Therefore, engaging in same-sex relations will always be considered by some as unacceptable. Love and compassion for those who struggle with temptation does not require acceptance of these behaviors. Freedom of religion protects the right of persons, who believe that homosexual acts are always wrong, to state their belief publicly and teach this conviction to their children without fear of discrimination. Such convictions are not bigoted, discriminatory, homophobic, or hate speech.

It is true that the realization that a significant portion of the community believes that a person’s behavior is not acceptable may make that person feel bad. Persons engaging in homosexual behavior may wish to silence those who disapprove. They may wish to have their behavior universally accepted; but so long as people have freedom of religion this situation will not change.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry over this self-serving bunch of tripe. Instead of addressing the very real issue of stigmatization, O'Leary provides us with a self-serving justification of why he thinks it's his right to demand that GLBT people be limited in their lives.

I would argue that his interpretation of "Freedom of Religion" is deeply flawed - at least with respect to the Canadian Charter of Rights. I've discussed the principles of how different rights intersect with each other elsewhere on my blog.

... and yes, when those anti-gay statements amount to propaganda, they are no better than what the Nazis spread about Jewish people in the 1930s. Make no mistake about it.

3) Same-sex sexual attractions and behavior occur in the context of a variety of sexual orientations and sexual orientation identities, and for some, sexual orientation identity (i.e., individual or group membership and affiliation, self-labeling) is fluid or has an indefinite outcome.

Gay activists would have us believe that SSA is a normal, and unchangeable variant, but numerous studies have found that SSA is fluid.9 If as the evidence shows it is possible for SSA and behavior to change spontaneously, then why can’t a person seek psychological therapy or spiritual counseling to affect a change in SSA or behavior?10

The APA report doesn't actually say this. What it does say is that the evidence supporting reparative therapy is deeply flawed (big shock there), and that reparative therapy doesn't produce the results claimed.

What the APA does advocate is a therapeutic environment that will help the client achieve a degree of self awareness and self acceptance that they did not have before - in a manner that respects the spiritual, social and sexual context that the client lives in.

4) Gay men, lesbians, and bisexual individuals form stable, committed relationships and families that are equivalent to heterosexual relationships and families in essential respects.

Same sex relationships differ in many essential aspects from a marriage between a man and a woman. Two persons of the same sex cannot consummate a marriage - the one and only act that joins a man and a woman as one flesh. They cannot conceive a child that is the fruit of their union and their joint biological offspring. Every child acquired by a same-sex couple has been separated from one or both biological parents. Such a separation is perceived by the child as a loss. Every child raised by a same-sex couple lacks a parent of one or the other sex. Two persons of the same sex lack the psychological and emotional complementarity that is part of a husband and wife union. Finally, it is interesting to note that exclusivity is not considered essential for male couples.11

The usual "but homosexuals can't procreate" argument. I've heard this a thousand times as an argument against gay couples. It's a crock. This argument is based on a myriad of assumptions about heterosexual relationships and how they differ from homosexual relationships ... and aren't based on a single scrap of evidence that I've ever seen.

As for exclusivity, as much as the religious set likes to get their panties in a twist every time they talk about gay promiscuity, they do so while turning a blind eye to the frequency of what they should rightly call adultery among heterosexuals. Extra-marital affairs (on both sides of the marital bed) are surprisingly common, and to criticize homosexual couples for being open about them is hypocritical at best, and a double standard at worst.

As for offspring, how many children are raised in single parent households? By step parents? ... by adoptive or foster parents?

5) Some individuals choose to live their lives in accordance with personal or religious values (e.g., telic congruence).

Some individuals not only choose to live their lives according to God’s revealed law, but also believe that since truths of revelation and the truths discovered by science come from the same source, when both are properly understood they will agree. The term "values" degrades this belief into mere personal opinion; one person "values" one thing, another "values" something else. Those who believe in the congruence of revelation and science, reject this kind of relativism. They hold that it is possible through revelation and science to approach truth and that certain opinions are simply wrong. However, they respect the right of those who oppose them to be wrong and to defend their beliefs. While gay activists demand universal acceptance and affirmation for themselves, they use every method within their grasp to silence and marginalize those who disagree with them.

More self-serving malarkey from O'Leary. He clearly hasn't bothered to read the entire report from the APA - or if he has, he failed to comprehend a sizable chunk of it. If he had bothered to read the APA's report thoroughly he would have realized that this forms a significant part of how the clinical environment should be managed.

Dear Anti-Marriage Bigots

Figure it out.

Equality means equal - not "separate but equal".

I'm not so naive as to think this is the end of the discussion in California, but it's good to see the judiciary calling Prop 8 (aka Prop Hate) out for what it is.

The Lengths Some Bigots Will Go To

Wow, when I first heard about Constance McMillan being told she couldn't bring her girlfriend to the school prom, I imagined that not much was going to happen except the school cancelling the prom.

It's a stupid, childish approach to a non-problem. A couple at the prom is a couple - whether male/female, male/male or female/female, or trans come to that.

Then there is the fake prom that they put together. This is truly offensive - not just on the part of the school administration, but a group of the parents as well.

This meant a serious amount of collusion on the part so many people - all of whom should have known that what they were doing was morally repugnant. Lies upon lies upon lies ... and these people want to stand in judgment over a young couple who had the honesty and spine to tell others about their plans.

That's some moral high ground isn't it?

Scripture and Transgender Issues

Recently, I found myself engaged in a discussion about whether the Bible has anything meaningful to say about transgender people - and in particular, transsexuals.

For the most part, the other party in the conversation was repeating the "but it's a SIN, the Bible says so" line. However, eventually he did post a list of Bible verses that he thought were germane to the discussion. Here they are:

Gen 1:26-28; Gen 3:4-5; Gen 5:2; Gen 13:13; Gen 19:4-9; Lev 18:22; Lev 20:13; Deut 22:5; Deut 23:17-18; Deut 32:4-5; Judges 19:22-26; 1 Sam 16:7; 1 Sam 18:1; 1 Sam 19:1; 1 Sam 20:3, 1 Sam 20;41; 2 Sam 1:26; Psalm 14:1-3; Psalm 72:14; Psalm 139:13-16; Prov 12:20; Prov 18:2; Prov 20:17; Eccl 7:29; Eccl 11:5; Jer 1:5; Jer 9:6; Jer 9:8; Jer 17:9; Amos 2:4; Matt 5:17-18; Matt 19:4-6; Matt 23:25-28; Mark 7:22; Mark 10:6; Rom 1:21-32; Rom 3:4; Rom 3:13; Rom 3:23; Rom 8:5-8; Gal 5:3-7; Gal 5:19-21; Eph 5:3-7; Eph 5:31-32; Col 2:8; Col 3:5; 1 Cor 11:3; 1 Cor 11:14-15; 1 Cor 6:9-11; 2 Cor 7:1; 2 Tim 3:2-5; Titus 1:16; Heb 6:18; James 1:13-15; 2 Peter 2:10-14, 17-19; 1 John 1:10; 1 John 2:4; 1 John 2:22; 1 John 4:20; 1 John 5:10; Rev 22:15

I'll come back to this list in a little bit. First, I must lay out some of the foundations of my interpretations.

(1) I view the Bible as a whole as a historical document - one that reflects the society and era in which it was written.

(2) Because the Bible is a religious document, it cannot be assumed to be entirely factually accurate. That is to say that some stories will be deliberately exaggerated or outright fabrications in order to make a point.

(3) The modern notion of history as a reflection of documented, verifiable facts is relatively recent. The tradition of Roman historians, for example, was to "enhance" the stories of their subjects in order to further glorify them. I suspect strongly that the Roman tradition of history is reflected in significant aspects of scripture, even when they are otherwise factual.

(4) I do not dispute whether the current versions of the Bible have been correctly translated from their original forms. For the purposes of this discussion, I assume that the translation is at least nominally accurate.

The Language of the Bible and the Language of Transgender

The first point that I will make is that scripture is at least 2,000 years old, and the parts consider Old Testament are older still. This means that we would be talking about a society where the notion of gender would have been firmly rooted in the binary notion of male and female exclusively. The rare cases of physical hermaphroditism would be so rare that it is unlikely that an author of scripture would have more than a passing awareness of the phenomenon, much less integrating it with the concepts of 'male' and 'female' that would be commonly held.

Clearly, the language of scripture will not contain the modern words like 'transgender' or 'transsexual'. Further, I claim that the scripture itself cannot meaningfully be read to have any clear statements about transgender people as a whole.

Why do I make such a claim?

The answer lies in the reality that at best scripture will speak to the acts and outward symbols, but will be semantically unable to address the subtleties that underly those symbols and acts. So, for example, while Deuteronomy 22:5 proscribes cross-dressing, it does so in the context of a man dressing in the clothing of a woman. Such proscriptions are based on a very limited understanding of what it means to be 'man' or 'woman', which I will show to be deeply flawed - especially in today's world.

Let me address the notion of male and female first. I interpret this as being primarily a physiological discussion. I'm pretty certain that writers of the scripture understood male and female as absolutes. One either has a penis or a vagina, and that's about it. In the 2,000 years that have elapsed, we have learned that nature is seldom so absolute as that. We have learned that you can't even use chromosomes to determine male and female with absolute certainty - rare conditions such as mosaicism do occur naturally, and can result in ambiguity in the determination of whether an individual is male or female. Similarly, Klinefelter's Syndrome is more common, and also muddies the waters of determining someone's sex. As much as culturally we accept a binary notion of male and female, when one inspects nature closely, it is hard to claim that there is such a strong absolute.

Having shown that the obvious tests for sex are at best problematic, let's turn to the brain - the seat of personality and thought. If the rest of the body is sex-differentiated, and that differentiation is not always as clear as we might think, then we should consider the same of the brain. It's well known that male and female brains differ in some interesting ways, and referring to Zoe's collected evidence of ambiguous brain structure in transfolk, I would argue that the notion that it's exceptionally difficult to claim that someone's mind is either exclusively masculine or feminine in structure.

I think I've shown that the 'male and female' dichotomy that scripture assumes is an absolute is far from being so when we shine the light of modern science on it.

So, let's consider the Deuteronomy 22:5 proscription briefly. The concepts of 'man' and 'woman' are certainly derived from the fundamentally physical 'male' and 'female' binary that I have already shown to be deeply problematic. If the physical is so deeply problematic, then how can we possibly think that there is an absolute around 'man' and 'woman'? After all, in the modern world, I know women who are steelworkers; men who are nurses and so on; families where the woman is the wage earner, and the man cares for the children at home. It's hardly like one can look at someone's sex and know or assume their role in society.

When we consider the notion of crossdressing, we have to establish if the person crossdressing is a man (or a woman - there are FTM crossdressers out there). I'll put aside the polarizing extreme of the transsexual for a moment. Many crossdressers talk about 'expressing their feminine side', or something of that nature. Thinking about this in the context that masculine/feminine are hardly absolutes, even in the brain, one has to raise the question as to whether in fact the MTF crossdresser is in fact 'a man wearing woman's garment', or is it actually someone giving expression to a part of their being that is in fact rooted in the feminine? In other words, if the notion of man and woman are not truly social absolutes, one has to consider that such a proscription can only apply to the hyper masculine or hyper feminine. Otherwise, we walk into a world where suddenly one's apparent sex ends up defining every aspect of the individual's existence - from job prospects to hobbies - something that we know is far from so absolute.

Where the transsexual is concerned, one might in fact argue that they were crossdressing constantly before the individual transitioned to live in their correct gender. As the Garcia-Fulgeras and Swaab
paper suggests, there are in fact coherent reasons that a feminine brain may reside in an otherwise masculine body, so the interpretation of Deuteronomy 22:5 in such a situation almost inverts itself in order to make sense.

Much of what my adversary referenced are the usual proscriptions against homosexuality, deceit etc. Anything that references the usual proscriptions against homosexuality, I will ignore. To equate transgender identities with homosexual identities is like saying a giraffe is a form of cat.

However, one of the references of particular interest is 1 Sam 16:7 which reads:

7: But the LORD said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.

This is part of many aspects of the scripture that essentially order us to live honest lives. From the perspective of a transgender person, one might well look upon this passage as demanding that in fact they give honest expression to themselves.

Among transsexuals, there are many who express their pre-transition lives as "living a lie". While I think that such an expression is perhaps a little too simple - not unlike the 'a woman in a man's body' aphorism is overly simplistic. Certainly, living in the incorrect gender socially is a crippling experience for many. There is no doubt that most transsexuals fully and honestly believe that to the very core of their being that they were meant to live in the other gender to what was assigned at birth.

Similarly, for crossdressers and others whose transgender identity does not oblige them to transition fully, the expression of their cross-gender nature in a constructive form is an honest expression of their individual spirits.

I would argue that based on what I have shown above about the complexity and subtlety of gender as expressed in the human body that it would be quite reasonable to interpret 1 Sam 16:7 as in fact proscribing transgender people from burying their feelings and needs as human beings, rather than proscribing the expression of those needs.

Building on the notion of deceit as it applies to transgender people, we move on to Proverbs 12:20 which reads:

20: Deceit is in the heart of them that imagine evil: but to the counsellers of peace is joy.

and Prov 20:17:

17: Bread of deceit is sweet to a man; but afterwards his mouth shall be filled with gravel.

For so many transfolk I know, the very acts of transition and self exploration are the pursuit of inner peace. When an individual finds their place along the transgender spectrum, they almost inevitably express a sense of peace and joy. It seems to me that there is much to be said for being honest with oneself, and it is ever the more important for those around that person to acknowledge their peace, and not judge them harshly for being different.

Being transgender is not about being deceitful, it is in fact a challenge to be be honest with oneself to the degree that transgender people must be in order to overcome the social prohibitions that western society imposes that serve as powerful barriers to the inner honesty of the transgender experience.

It is difficult for those who are not transgender to understand that a transperson is not engaging in a deception, but rather is simply giving expression to their reality.

Mark 7:22 reads:

22: Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:

The inference is that the transperson is somehow engaging in these sins. Yet, such an accusation rests upon the assertion that being transgender is necessarily dishonest. I think the reality is that most transgender people are being excessively honest with themselves, and in their expression of their identity are being similarly honest. There may be a period of significant struggle during which they are coming to that honesty of self and self-expression. During this time, it is entirely possible that they may transgress these proscriptions, but when we talk about people being fundamentally honest with themselves, and in their lives, most transgender do not engage in these sins. (It is quite ridiculous to accuse a MTF transgender person of 'coveting' the feminine - they already are feminine)

Romans 3:4 is also cited:

4: God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

This is mostly a variation on the 'man can lie to himself' routine. Okay, fine - we can lie to ourselves. That's hardly news. However, the nature of a lie is that the liar is fully aware that it is in fact a lie. The transgender people I know in general would argue that they are not in fact lying to themselves, or those around them.

Further, referring back to 1 Sam 16:7, this particular piece creates a logical conundrum. If someone is deceiving themselves, and they are unaware of it, what will God see when he looks through to the heart of a person? Presumably, if one accepts the notion of omniscience, that God would witness both the deceit and the honest intent in the person's actions.

However, I don't have any reason to believe that a transperson is engaging in any kind of deceit - either knowingly or unknowingly.

A Little Example

GLBT folk are often targets for discrimination and persecution - especially in this era of increased travel security.

It is a sad statement that TSA staff are creating their own little games based on other people's lives and appearances.

The board, resembling the TV game show "Jeopardy," includes categories such as "pickle smokers," "our gang" and "creatures," which sources said were names used by managers for gay men, African-Americans and lesbians.

This is nothing more than an invitation to TSA staff to engage in increased harassment of GLBT and coloured people - for no better reason than the amusement of TSA staff.

As an example of systemic discrimination and bigotry, this is an exceptionally blatant form, and it is an example of what is wrong with the paranoid mentality that has evolved since 9/11. I see this as a symptom of the resurrection of the same kinds of irrationality that gave us McArthy's 'better dead than red' anti-communist propaganda. Anyone who is 'different' is immediately a target.

From Ideology Comes Sloppy Logic

I've heard about You're Teaching My Child What? for quite a while now and mostly dismissed it as yet another anti sex-ed book.

So, when I spotted this book review, I decided to spend a few minutes reading it to see if there was any reason to think that the book was anything worthwhile.

It isn't.

Although the author is an MD, it's pretty clear that the book is written to reinforce most of the complaints that the anti-sex-ed crowd loves to throw about.

Society has now gone from two STDs, syphilis and gonorrhea, to more than two dozen, some incurable and even fatal. Chlamydia is a common bacterial STD that can cause sterility, but can have no symptoms and is readily transferred back and forth between males and females unnoticed. The protection advocated by sex ed groups is a misnomer; condoms are little protection against many of these STDs. On the other hand, as the good doctor notes, all STDs are 100 percent avoidable, through abstinence, and then monogamy.

Uh huh. We all know just how well that policy works in reality.

Of course, when they turn their attention to sexual minorities, the argument degenerates into the usual "oooh - look how creepy this is".

...keep in mind that most of the “experts” spewing forth information on these websites are not physicians or psychologists or psychiatrists or educators, but are activists, and many are so gender confused because of their own behaviors and sex changes they don’t know who they are. Some are “peer educators,” and the rest would have been described as sexual deviants just 50 short years ago, as they dabble in every kind of unnatural behavior, then describe it, and share it with teens, encouraging imitation.

Oh yes, people who are GLBT are just soooo strange aren't they? Not so much in reality. But this has been part of the anti-gay arsenal for decades - an attempt to erase the person by lumping them into the category of "alien" and "bizarre".

Chapter Seven in the book, devoted to “Genderland” is a real eye opener. Blaming society’s culture for what they described as an assigned bipolar male and female gender system, the transformers described here make a serious departure from reality as they try to address the gender identity issues they have created. On some teen websites there are quizzes to help one determine one’s gender. (Gender is no longer biological fact, you see, but how one identifies oneself, e.g., female at birth now male or transgender, or intersex but identify as male.) This goes far beyond even the homosexual/heterosexual/transgender labels we’ve come to know, and is accompanied by new language; “ze” to replace “he” and “she”, and “hir” an alternative for “his” and “her.”

Let me point out a couple of things here - puberty - and therefore teen years - are when cross-gender identities become real issues for those who have them. There is little more horrifying than to see your body turn into something that you weren't meant to be.

Second, the language of "ze", "hir" etc. is not a commonly used construct in the transgender world. Those are terms that have emerged out of the world of gender and queer theory studies, and are not commonly used - even within the communities that would benefit from them in principle. Again, this is little more than more of an attempt to signal to the reader how unimaginably bizarre the world of cross-gender identities must be.

It’s hard enough, says Doctor Grossman, when teens and pre-teens feel mixed up about many issues, but the question “Who am I?” needs to be answered before the challenges of adulthood present themselves. Teens are not miniature adults. Theirs is a world of emotional intensity, with strong drives and hormone overloads. Documented in the book are expert findings showing adolescents have a lesser ability to reason. One neuropsychologist explained: “adolescents are more prone to react with ‘gut instinct’ when they process emotions but as they mature into early adulthood they are about to temper their instinctive ‘gut reaction’ response with rational reasoned responses.” Hard science reveals that it’s not a lack of information, but a lack of judgement that gets teens into trouble.

I'll agree that lack of judgment frequently does get teens into trouble. However, lack of information - especially about matters related to gender and sexual identity is asking for even more trouble. It's the teen years when sexual awareness and identity develop, and to blithely tell them to "wait until you're 20" is beyond daft, it's unrealistic. For those who struggle with gender identity issues, there are good reasons to make the information - along with access to appropriate therapists - available. Teens aren't stupid, and contrary to the popular fear-filled mythology of the religious right wing, hiding sexuality related subjects from them doesn't stop them from exploring. It never has, and likely never will.

Dr. Grossman makes clear in the book, which is very well documented, that the real goals of the sex education lobby are not to prevent pregnancy or disease, but to indoctrinate the young. It is this politicization of sex that will morally bankrupt our nation. The sex-obsessed want to spread their unnatural behaviors as they curry favor for dangerous and unhealthy sexual activity by relying on emotions and pleasures. They craft a false perception of the realities of free and open sex, desensitizing our youth to subject matter that used to be avoided in conversation among polite company.

And these sex transformers want to start earlier and earlier, with your child. Anatomically correct verbiage is to be used in kindergarden, and feelings expressed. Third graders are to have an exaggerated version of the birds and the bees talk. And teens, who are scared into avoiding tobacco and alcohol, are to be made to understand the pleasures of all types of illicit sex.

Oh yes, sex education is all about a political agenda. That's right up there with the alleged "Gay Agenda" (which I've never seen a copy of, but every homophobe out there is absolutely convinced it's real). This is another strawman argument, and by the sounds of this review, the entire book is essentially built on the same kind of silly, sloppy and hysterical reasoning.

A Little Window Into The World Of The Anti-Gay Conservatives

I have often wondered what really makes the religious conservatives so rabidly hate-filled when it comes to homosexuality. It has often seemed to me that the anti-gay message is rooted in a particularly narrow, literalist view of scripture.

After reading this gem ... and in particular the comments over at No Apologies, I'm afraid I must revise my opinion.

The vitriol is not really rooted in any meaningful understanding of Scripture - at best, that seems to be an excuse - something that they can point to that allows them to justify not taking personal ownership of their feelings and reactions.

What needs to be understood about these people is that they are not content to be sodomites and just carry on with life. They want to promote that wicked lifestyle. We know this because God says so.

Hmmm...what an interesting set of inferences. First of all, there's an underlying wish that GLBT people would quietly stay in the closet - after all, why on earth would anyone that was GLBT want to be a full participant in society? When someone from the GLBT community does participate in our society's government, they are immediately accused of "promoting their wicked lifestyle" or "recruiting".

Underlying this seems to be two basic themes:

(1) A desire to keep the unknown ("the Others" in society) from being full and equal participants in society.

(2) Fear - plain old fear. Once you make another human being "the Other", it becomes easy to think of them as less than human; of being capable of all sorts of malfeasance and misdeeds.

In short, although the mask they draw over their words and deeds is made of the fabric of faith, it is but a mask. Underneath it lie attitudes steeped in fear and ignorance. When confronted with evidence that contradicts their assumptions, they will inevitably dismiss it out of hand, rather than trying to assimilate it.

Iran as a Case Study in GLBT Politics

Iran is interesting from the perspective of GLBT politics for a number of reasons. First, it has flipped the roles of the Transgendered part of the GLBT spectrum and the GLB. Being homosexual in Iran (and getting found out) carries a death penalty; meanwhile the country seems ironically almost enlightened when it comes to transgender rights - creating a situation where GLB equality movements have to find a way to build on transgender rights in Iran.

In many respects, Iran is the example that shows why politically GLBT equality are inseparable even if they are somewhat distinct. Iran uniquely creates a situation where in many same-sex couples one partner will transition and have GRS - regardless of whether they identify internally as a member of the opposite sex.

This creates a situation for the person who transitions which is as devastating post-transition as transsexuals in Western societies experience before they transition. A common aspect of transsexual narratives prior to transition is a fervently expressed sense of distress over the disjoin between their body and their identity - it leads many into self destructive behaviours and even suicide. Yet, for the homosexual in Iran, transition may indeed be the only option in order to keep body and soul together.

I'd be very, very curious as to what the suicide rate among post-operative transsexuals in Iran is, and how that compares with the suicide rate among pre-operative transsexuals in other countries.

Returning to my opening point though, it seems to me that the situation in Iran holds a mirror up to the GLBT movement in western societies, and is an object lesson in why Transsexual equality must be a part of the overall GLBT equality drive - even though the objectives and needs are somewhat different. Fundamentally, if one excludes the other, we end up in a situation where some percentage of people end up living in lives that don't really fit them simply to ensure their survival. In Iran, it's GLB people transitioning in order to live with their chosen partners; in Western societies it is no doubt a sizable number of transsexuals who never even attempt to transition out of fear for the consequences.

As long as the GLBT movements allow laws to exclude one subgroup or another, this situation continues to be perpetrated and exacerbated. Further, the hostility of religious extremists towards GLBT people places all who fall under that umbrella at risk from maliciously designed laws and ballot initiatives.

The Harper Government's Implicit Bigotry

The actions of the HarperCon$ in handling Canadians who are stuck abroad for one reason or another carry the seeds in them of a rising tide of conservative prejudice against anyone who doesn't subscribe to their narrowly defined sense of norms.

First up is this editorial from Embassy Mag (sorry, it's a sign-in site - but it is free).

The second lesson is about the lack of political concern for Canada's reputation in dealing with these matters. The treatment of Ms. Mohamud combined with other recent cases strongly suggests to the world that non-white and Muslim Canadians do not get the same attention from Ottawa as white native-born Canadians.

Stephen Harper and three of his ministers—Jason Kenney, Lawrence Cannon and Peter Van Loan—may not realize the seriousness of this problem. But this perception of institutional racism is a smoldering coal that, if left unchecked, runs the risk of igniting more than negative perceptions.

Along with certain overly heavy handed changes to our policies with respect to requiring Visas, the Harper government has taken a particularly heavy-handed approach to dealing with Canadians abroad, and visitors coming to Canada. The excuses they have provided to date seem at best inadequate.

It's time to bring the tough talk to an end. Canadians in trouble don't need to be lectured by the prime minister. And immigrant and refugee applicants don't need ministers to constantly complain about "queue jumpers." If the leaders set a tone of compassion, rather than the hardball language popular in Cabinet today, the world might not be so tempted to think us racist.

But then, when you combine that picture with the implications of recent changes to the "approved language" for DFAIT, it gets a whole lot uglier:

"The broader focus [of gender equality] certainly does include an understanding of the importance of the rights of the GLBT [gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender] community. I think that there is a real concern about whether or not those rights are going to have less of a focus from the Canadian government perspective from that change," said Lindsay Mossman.

"[Equality of men and women] is language that was used in development circles years ago—language has progressed for reasons and moved forward and the Canadian government doesn't seem to be reflecting that in its language."

Mr. Cannon told Embassy on July 30 that some of the language changes were semantics, but said others reflected a change in policy. He didn't say which terms indicated a policy shift.

If the terminology does mean a change to government policy, it's a change that matters when you step outside Canada to look at how other countries treat gay and lesbian people, say advocates.

"On the ground, if the Ugandan Gay and Lesbian Association asks for some money to hold a workshop or something, [Canada] still could sponsor it, but we couldn't use our gender priorities as a justification. We'd have to just sponsor it on its own. Because that is less clearly about equality between men and women," Mr. Brown said.

Brown says the change at CIDA happened about a year ago. He believes the language shift indicates changing government policy because it has hit two departments.

Frankly, I think Cannon, like his master is being a little bit of a weasel when he tries to be evasive about what the various changes represent. Canada's government is trying to reinstate the kind of institutional bigotry that was commonplace through the first part of the 20th Century and before. It is a sad statement indeed that they either do not understand this, or have not managed to move beyond that period of time themselves.

TransBashing Matt Barber Speaks On HRT For Inmates

Sometimes, looking over the fence into the cesspool of neoChristianist media is a frustrating horror show - especially when they start bashing GLBT people.

Being transgender in a prison can't be a pleasant experience - especially if one has not had surgery yet. It's particularly nasty if the adminstrators won't even provide access to treatment.

So ... two inmates sued. That's good news. In fact, the revised policies that Idaho is implementing are quite interesting:

The new policy says inmates must be given information about available treatment for gender identity disorder, that inmates can't be harassed by staffers for having been evaluated for the disorder, and that they must be moved to appropriate housing units while they are evaluated. It also spells out that outside consultants may assist in the diagnosis and that a recommendation for treatment must be completed within two months of a gender identity disorder diagnosis.

Also under the new policy, if an inmate is taking cross-sex hormones when they enter prison, they will be allowed to continue unless another medical condition makes it unsafe or inadvisable to continue.

Then there is what comes out of neoChristian wingnuttia:

Barber believes prison officials are doing transgendered inmates a disservice. "The American Psychological Association still considers gender confusion -- GID, gender identity disorder -- a disorder. It is a mental disorder," he contends.

According to Barber, prisons throughout the U.S. should help suffering inmates to overcome their gender delusions.

Barber...Barber?...That sounds familiar... oh right, that Matt Barber.

Ironically, what Mr. Barber ignores is that the WPATH Standards of Care actually recommend the very treatment he is opposing:

After the diagnosis of GID is made the
therapeutic approach usually includes three elements or phases (sometimes labeled triadic therapy): a real-life experience in the desired role, hormones of the desired gender, and surgery to change the genitalia and other sex characteristics.
...
Typically, triadic therapy takes place in the
order of hormones = = > real-life experience = = > surgery

Additionally, Barber doesn't seem to understand that a GID diagnosis bears no resemblance whatsoever to either clinical delusion or other disorders. In fact, those other conditions would explicitly preclude a GID diagnosis until dealt with adequately from a clinical perspective.

In Outer Wingnuttia ... The Howling Begins

I wrote about the APA's report on "change therapy" for sexual orientation yesterday.

Today, we have the loons in Outer Wingnuttia squawking about it - and they aren't happy at all.

I'll let Mr. Hooper over at the Good As You blog take apart the pathetic attempt at spin from Exodus.

NARTH, on the other hand delivered some whoppers in their press release.

Unfortunately, however, the report reflects a very strong confirmation bias; that is, the task force reflected virtually no ideological diversity. No APA member who offers reorientation therapy was allowed to join the task force.

Oh dear, apparently NARTH's all upset because nobody "from their team" was on the task force. I think this tells us a great deal about NARTH's approach to research. Good research is impartial. That is to say, it is evidence based, not rooted in political ideology.

The APA report doesn't make any statements without citing what research those statements are based on. There's a lot of a research that they reviewed from NARTH's Nicolosi, Byrd and others - in addition to all the other material they reviewed.

They selected and interpreted studies that fit within their innate and immutable view. For example, they omitted the Jones and Yarhouse study, the Karten study, and only gave cursory attention to the Spitzer study.

Ummm...bullfeathers. Spitzer's work is cited multiple times through the document, as is work by E. Karten. Similarly, the Jones & Yarhouse study from 2007 is in fact cited in the bibliography. NARTH can't even be bothered to read the documents they are criticizing!

In a fit of complete irony, Mark Yarhouse served as one of the scholarly reviewers of this study.

Further, the APA report actually takes the time to explain the problems with reports like Jones & Yarhouse, or Spitzer come to that:

65 A published study that appeared in the grey literature in 2007 (Jones & Yarhouse, 2007) has been described by SOCE advocates and its authors as having successfully addressed many of the methodological problems that affect other recent studies, specifically the lack of prospective research. The study is a convenience sample of self-referred populations from religious self-help groups. The authors claim to have found a positive effect for some study respondents in different goals such as decreasing same-sex sexual attractions, increasing other-sex attractions, and maintaining celibacy. However, upon close examination, the methodological problems described in Chapter 3 (our critique of recent studies) are characteristic of this work, most notably the absence of a control or comparison group and the threats to internal, external, construct, and statistical validity. Best-practice analytical techniques were not performed in the study, and there are significant deficiencies in the analysis of longitudinal data, use of statistical measures, and choice of assessment measures. The authors’ claim of finding change in sexual orientation is unpersuasive due to their study’s methodological problems.

Then NARTH goes on to try and spin the issue of Reparative Therapy causing serious harm to clients:

We believe the report indirectly supports the findings published in the current Journal of Human Sexuality that reveal no significant ill-effects of therapy. Further, if some clients are dissatisfied with the therapeutic outcome, as in therapy for other issues, the possibility for dissatisfaction appears to be outweighed by the potential gains.

The Journal of Human Sexuality? Oh NARTH's Journal of Human Sexuality - their in-house vanity journal. Somehow, I'm not thinking that this is exactly seen as a high value journal outside of NARTH's membership. As Ex Gay Watch points out, the study NARTH is referring to is flawed from the start - and its authors have admitted as much.

I find it deeply troubling that NARTH simply tries to dismiss the prospect of psychological harm experienced by clients of Reparative Therapy dismissively as "dissatisfaction".

The APA report is much more honest about the issue, and state the following:

We concluded that research on SOCE (psychotherapy, mutual self-help groups, religious techniques) has not answered basic questions of whether it is safe or effective and for whom. Any future research should conform to best-practice standards for the design of efficacy research. Additionally, research into harm and safety is essential.

In short, the APA is saying that the research done into various attempts to change one's sexual orientation is so limited, and flawed, that it neither refutes nor substantiates claims of harm.

The problem that groups like NARTH face is that their "research" is simply not credible when you hold it up to scrutiny.

So Much For Reparative Therapy

For the last ten years or more, the "Pray away the Gay" crowd in the religious right has been trying to prop up NARTH to provide the appearance of legitimacy for their position that "homosexuality can be changed/cured/prayed away".

As reported on CNN, the American Psychological Association chose to review the real research on such programs (not the spewage from Paul Cameron, or the various lobby groups, but actual peer reviewed research that has been published in reasonable journals), and released their report titled Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation.

The upshot of their findings:

The appropriate application of affirmative therapeutic interventions with adults is built on three key findings in the research: (a) an enduring change to an individual’s sexual orientation as a result of SOCE is unlikely, and some participants were harmed by the interventions; (b) sexual orientation identity, not sexual orientation, appears to change via psychotherapy, support groups, or life events; and (c) clients benefit from approaches that emphasize acceptance, support, and recognition of important values and concerns.

In short, reparative therapy is snake oil. Something which most critically thinking people would have long ago figured out.

Ironically, NARTH founder Joseph Nicolosi's work is heavily cited in this study:

Nicolosi, J. (1991). Reparative therapy of male homosexuality. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.
Nicolosi, J. (1993). Healing homosexuality. Northvale, NJ:Jason Aronson.
Nicolosi, J. (2003). Finally, recognition of a long-neglected population. Archives of General psychiatry, 32, 445-447.
Nicolosi, J., Byrd, A. D., & Potts, R. W. (2000). Retrospective self-reports of changes in homosexual orientation: A consumer survey of conversion therapy clients. Psychological Reports, 86, 1071-1088.
Nicolosi, J., & Nicolosi, L. A. (2002). A parent’s guide to preventing homosexuality. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Although, Nicolosi's work is cited primarily in the background chapters describing the discussion itself, and in particular advocacy from groups like NARTH.

Where Nicolosi's research is actually cited or discussed for its merits, it comes in for some fairly harsh criticism:

A meta-analytic review of 14 research articles (Byrd & Nicolosi, 2002) is not discussed in this report. The review suffers from significant methodological shortcomings and deviations from recommended meta-analytic practice (see, e.g., Durlak, Meerson, & Ewell-Foster, 2003; Lipsey & Wilson, 2001) that preclude reliable conclusions to be drawn from it.

For instance, to assess whether sexual orientation had changed, Nicolosi et al. (2000) performed a chi-square test of association on individuals’ prior and current self-rated sexual orientation. Several features of the analysis are problematic. Specifically, the nature of the data and research question are inappropriate to a chi-square test of association, and it does not appear that the tests were properly performed. Chi-square tests of association assume that data are
independent, yet these data are not independent because the row and column scores represent an individual’s rating of his or her past and present self.

Recent studies have investigated whether people who have participated in efforts to change their sexual orientation report decreased same-sex sexual attractions (Nicolosi et al., 2000; Schaeffer et al., 2000; Spitzer, 2003) or how people evaluate their overall experiences of SOCE (Beckstead & Morrow 2004; Pattison & Pattison, 1980; Ponticelli, 1999; Schroeder & Shidlo, 2001; Shidlo & Schroeder, 2002; Wolkomir, 2001). These studies all use designs that do not permit cause-and-effect attributions to be made. We conclude that although these studies may be useful in describing people who pursue SOCE and their experiences of SOCE, none of the recent studies can address the efficacy of SOCE or its promise as an intervention.

Childhood interventions to prevent homosexuality have been presented in non-peer-reviewed literature (see Nicolosi & Nicolosi, 2002; Rekers, 1982). ... Thus, we concluded that there is no existing research to support the hypothesis that psychotherapy in children alters adult sexual orientation.

Not exactly a promising assessment ... and arguably invalidates many of the shibboleths held by the advocates of "change therapy".

H/T: Commenter "SB" for bringing this to my attention