Because They Lie - ALL THE TIME

The right wing hysteria over sexuality continues unabated. Today's installment comes in the form of Lifesite's response to the APA Report on Sexual Orientation conversion therapy.

This is a piece which is filled with ad-hominem attacks, distortions and outright lies about the psychology profession, and in particular how psychologists handle clients with sexual and gender identity issues.

It starts off with a whopper, too:

A man goes to a psychologist with a problem. "Doctor," he says, "I'm suffering terribly. I feel like a woman trapped inside the body of a man. I want to become a woman."

The psychologist responds: "No problem. We can discuss this idea for a couple of years, and if you're still sure you want to be a woman, we can have a surgeon remove your penis, give you hormones for breast enlargement and make other changes to your body. Problem solved."

Gratified, the first patient leaves, followed by a second. "Doctor," he says, "I feel terrible. I'm a man but I feel attracted to other men. I want to change my sexual preference. I want to become heterosexual." The psychologist responds: "Oh no, absolutely not! That would be unethical. Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic!"

The irony of this little tale is that, while reading like a joke, it is in reality an accurate description of the mental health professions today. While dismissing and condemning reparative therapy for homosexual orientation, the majority of psychiatrists and psychologists in Anglophone North America have embraced the concept of "sex change," a procedure that does nothing more than mutilate the patient to appease his confused mind.

Lie #1: The implication that getting a therapist's backing for gender reassignment is trivial. It's not. A good therapist will help their client explore all of the options open to them, and will not make a recommendation for surgery before they are satisfied that the patient is making a choice that is in their best interests.

Lie #2: That there is an equivalence between GRS as part of the treatment for transsexualism and sexual orientation change therapy. The APA is in fact quite consistent in this regard. The long term research evidence has repeatedly shown that sexual orientation does not change measurably over time, nor does gender identity - homosexual identity and cross-gender identities tend to be surprisingly fixed and unresponsive to therapeutic efforts to change them.

Lie #3: Gender Reassignment Surgery is "mutilation". Not for the patient it isn't. For those who truly need it, GRS is part of a three pronged approach to treatment which includes therapy, hormones and yes - surgery. Surgery is the last step, taken primarily when the patient has been living in their chosen gender for a long period of time. From the patient's perspective, having genitalia which are at odds with their overall presentation is a source of ongoing distress. The long term studies (Pfaefflin et. al., 1992) demonstrate repeatedly that the outcomes post surgery are positive in all but a tiny handful of cases.

The refusal of the organization to accept the increasingly strong evidence against its position is another reminder of how entrenched the sophistry of sexual hedonism has become among the leaders of the organization.

In recent years, a number of studies have been published in peer-reviewed psychology journals, indicating that significant numbers of patients who voluntarily participate in therapy to change their sexual orientation are successful and happy with the results. Combined with numerous individual testimonies by former homosexuals, evidence in favor of the practice is overwhelming.

Yet another lie. The APA statement was quite clear about the methodological problems that those published studies suffer from. The APA did not simply dismiss them out of hand, but in fact reviewed them, and pointed out some of the methodology problems that they suffer from. The fact that a paper was published in a journal does not mean that it is without flaws.

However, the authors of Essential Psychotherapy and its Treatment, a standard text in medical schools, disagree with the APA's leadership, and say that the newer studies vindicate sexual reorientation therapy.

The newest edition (2009) notes on page 488 that, "While many mental health care providers and professional associations have expressed considerable skepticism that sexual orientation could be changed with psychotherapy and also assumed that therapeutic attempts at reorientation would produce harm, recent empirical evidence demonstrates that homosexual orientation can indeed be therapeutically changed in motivated clients, and that reorientation therapies do not produce emotional harm when attempted (e.g., Byrd & Nicolosi, 2002; Byrd et al., 2008; Shaeffer et al., 1999; Spitzer, 2003)."

Again, another distortion, bordering on an outright lie. The APA's report is clear in pointing out that the evidence regarding the effectiveness of "reorientation therapy" and its potential to do harm is simply too sparse to be conclusive. The APA clearly left the door open for future research to be methodologically complete.

Although the homosexualist leadership at the APA tries to rationalize these relationships by claiming that they are caused by social stigma or other factors, their claims ring hollow. Many stigmitized groups exist in society that display none of the pathological tendencies of homosexuals, and these tendencies appear even in countries that are very tolerant of homosexual behavior, such as the Netherlands.

Yes, and in any country with a "western Christian" background, no matter how legally tolerant they may be, there is still an enormous amount of social pressure to conform with the Christian view that homosexuality is evil. It will be decades, if not centuries before sexual and gender minorities are free from the constant pressure to conform to a standard they cannot possibly meet.

I must also point out the ad-hominem attack that Lifesite's writer launches at the APA, accusing the authors of the recent report of being "homosexualists", "homosexual activists" etc. This is a recurring standard of attack from those who lack actual evidence to back up their claims - attack the authors of the "opposing" claims instead of actually addressing the subject matter.

The defense and even the promotion of mental health experts who defend child sex abuse is a terrifying, but expectable movement down the slippery slope of sexual hedonism embraced by the powers that be at the APA. It not only threatens homosexuals, who are deceived by the seductive argument that their orientation is nothing to worry about, but psychology and psychiatry themselves.

We've had several centuries of Christian proscriptions against homosexuality. It hasn't worked on the whole, and I have yet to see credible evidence that attempts to change someone's sexual identity actually work. (Much less any serious studies of transsexuals in a similar vein) We know that homosexuality has been a part of our society since the dawn of time. We also know that whatever attempts to suppress or eliminate it that have been undertaken have not been successful.

It seems to me far more constructive to help someone accept who they are, and learn to deal with their feelings constructively. Telling them to deny themselves and attempt to be something that they are not. Those who are free to live their lives openly and authentically are ultimately happier, and more productive members of society.

The outcome of the current battle over the science of homosexuality may well determine the future of the mental health professions as a whole. Will they turn back from the brink, or plunge into the abyss? And what will become of the societies that heed their counsel?

What battle? It strikes me that it's more of a "faith versus science" argument these days. On one hand, we have faith, and faith-based groups masquerading as scientific (NARTH) claiming something about sexual identity and orientation that they have yet to substantiate. Then there's what happens when rational evaluation of the evidence occurs - it tends to result in the very interesting report the APA recently released.

Once again, the religious right has to dredge up the old saw about how society is going to collapse because of homosexuality. It's hard to imagine how society would ever collapse when the incidence of homosexuality appears to have been pretty constant throughout human history - regardless of how open a society is towards it.

US Hate Crimes Deliberations

The lies, intellectual dishonesty and political philandering around the so-called "Matthew Shepard Act" in the United States continues apace. I haven't paid much attention to the bill itself - a lack of time mostly - my own life has been filled with its own priorities that have consumed my energies.

However, it's Sunday, and I have a few minutes to spare and I was just reading the semi-funny, outright ridiculous tripe posted on Lifesite about this legislation.

The first complaint is the cry of "no fair" from the Rethuglicans because the Democrat majority has attached it as an amendment or rider to a defense spending bill:

"Those of us who oppose this legislation - and it is important legislation - will be faced with a dilemma of choosing between a bill which can harm, in my view, the United States of America and its judicial system and a bill defending the nation," protested Sen. John McCain, who denounced Reid's tactic as an "abuse of power."

Now, in general principle, I actually agree with the Republican complaint here - I don't like the way that unrelated topics get tacked on to significant bills in the US legislative system. It has always struck me as a fundamentally dishonest way to get things done.

That said, during the Bush II era, it's not like the Rethuglicans didn't engage in precisely that tactic themselves - repeatedly. There were many times where more noxious legislation was tacked onto legislation that the house would have to pass or risk stalling the business of government entirely.

I won't say that I am sympathetic to the Republican plight here - the tactic in question has been in place for years, and seems to be one the ways that the US legislative process works. I may not like the tactic, but it's a fact of life.

Critics have warned that the bill has a chilling effect on religious free speech against homosexuality, pointing out that similar laws in other nations have facilitated the prosecution of Christians who speak against homosexuality, particularly in Canada and the United Kingdom. More importantly, they charge, "hate crimes" laws violate the guarantees of equal protection under the law by creating preferential classes for justice.

The number of outright falsehoods and bogus comparisons in this is beyond ridiculous.

First of all, The statement about "chilling" religious free speech is provably false. In Canada, there has not been a single religious speaker charged under Sections 318, 319 of Canada's Criminal code.

It is also important to recognize that civil rights in general exist in a state of tension with one another. I have discussed this concept many times before on this blog. It remains ridiculous to me that the argument continues to be made that there is some religious "freedom" to be exercised in "speaking out against homosexuality". Since when did religious freedom override the right of an entire subgroup in our population to live their lives in relative peace? The religious are free to "disagree" with homosexuality all they like - just as I am free to disagree with some particular religion all I like. In neither case is there a right to demand that the members of either be treated as lesser citizens.

"'Hate crimes' laws contradict the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and create unequal justice by elevating some groups of victims at the expense of others," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America. Wright pointed out that under the proposed law, "Victims who engage in homosexual, transgender, or other sexual behavior get special treatment over victims who are military officers, police officers or veterans," such as the military recruiter who was slain in June by a Muslim convert at a shopping mall in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Hmmm...really? Let's consider a few factors here. First of all, Ms. Wright (ironically, probably the first time in ages that CWA has had a female spokesbot) is only partially correct. In many parts of the US, killing a police officer is an automatic ticket to Capital Murder charges. Period. Regardless of the circumstances. This has been the case for years. While I don't know if there are similar statutes regarding military personnel, that's irrelevant - there are already "tiers" of severity in the justice system.

Second, last I checked, there isn't an ongoing epidemic of people deciding to go "roll a cop" or "kill a queer" on a Saturday night. For GLBT folk, this is a common and well-placed fear. Killings like Matthew Shepard's, or for that matter Brandon Teena, are far too common; less dramatic crimes like beatings, vandalism and organized harassment are more frequent.

The use of hate crimes statutes is pretty rare. Only in the most egregious of cases is there enough evidence to suggest that there is a hate crime. Canada's Hate Crimes statutes have been on the books for several years, and have only been exercised a handful of times. In general, there are other, civil law remedies that are far more effective in dealing with the kinds of abusiveness that I will politely call "group slander".

There is also, in my mind, quite a difference between murder and murdering someone because of who they are. To return to CWA's bogus argument about a military recruiter's murder for a moment. The recruiter works for the military - that's what he does. It's his career. However, he can go do a different job if he wishes to. GLBT people are attacked for something that in general they are unlikely to be able to change. (and until someone shows me some actual credible long term follow up of "ex-gay" therapies, I will stick with that position)

However the Senate version of the "hate crimes" bill does not yet reconcile with the House version, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Act, which alarmed conservative lawmakers as the bill fails to define or restrict the term "sexual orientation." One Democratic representative heaped praises on the bill for granting heightened federal protection for all 547 "paraphilias" or sexual aberrations documented by the American Psychological Association.

547 Paraphilias? Really? Wow - I'm going to have to go and review my copy of the DSM IV - because I only recall a handful of sexual paraphilias listed in there. In fact, the DSM IV TR specifically describes 8 specific categories of paraphilia, and one additional category to provide a diagnostic category for other, rarer paraphilic interests that may be encountered in the course of progress.

It does not describe 547 paraphilias per se. Additionally, the only paraphilia that would be covered under any hate crimes statute per se (and at that only indirectly) is formally labelled "Transvestic Fetishism", which may be coincident with some forms of GID. (As I understand it, many crossdressers engage in crossdressing for a combination of reasons, and few are absolutely fetishistic in nature)

In the context of hate crimes, it is important to recognize that the language of sexual paraphilias does not appear in them, nor does it seem to me that the language of the legislation I'm familiar with could be twisted to include most paraphilias - especially those that are known to be damaging or destructive to other, non-consenting parties.

Ironically, as this summary shows, getting the tar kicked out of you for your religious beliefs is already a protected category under existing US hate crimes legislation. (So much for CWA's "special category" lies - unless they are willing to admit that religion is very much a special category before the law already).

The ongoing squawking about including GLBT people in hate crimes legislation is nothing more than the religious right wingnuts demanding that the state protect the industry that they have spawned in their blind hatred of GLBT people. Whether one considers CWA, Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality, MassResistance or for that matter Focus on the Family, all of these organizations exist and depend on their ability to raise fear about GLBT people in the public in order to justify their existence.

Telling Half The Story

When groups like Lifesite take it upon themselves to parrot the news, you can almost guarantee that they'll only tell half the story.

Consider the following story from Lifesite: Contraceptive Hormones Mutating Fish in St. Lawrence River

Estrogen from birth control pills in highly populated areas of Canada is washing into the water table and flooding the St. Lawrence River, a new study has found. University of Montreal researchers said that the St. Lawrence River near Montreal has an alarmingly high level of estrogens that are mutating male fish.

... and oh-my-goodness, the compounds in question just happen to be those used in female birth control pills.

In fact, if you only read the story on Lifesite, which they lifted their facts from this CBC story for, you'd think that there was this looming catastrophe about to occur, all because of female contraceptives.

Then there's reality:

While researchers found estrodiol, a naturally occurring hormone that all women — particularly pregnant ones — release, they discovered synthetic estrogenic compounds as well.

"They're really pharmaceuticals which are used either as contraceptives or in hormone replacement therapy," Sauvé said.

Sauvé said even though HRT use has dropped dramatically in Quebec in the past few years, what ends up in the wastewater is still significant. Some compounds are filtered out at the sediment plant, but most ends up in the St. Lawrence.

Also implicated are the byproducts of plastics as they break down, and effluent from pulp and paper mills.

It's not like nothing is being done about it either:

Environmental engineers are hoping the hormones and other pharmaceuticals in human waste will be destroyed for good once Montreal installs a new ozonation process at its plant.
...
Sauvé's fellow researchers are among those now running tests to make sure the process will work on a grand scale.

Of course, none of that warrants a mention in Lifesite's article.

And, let's not ignore the impact of the chemistry that industrial activity often dumps into the river systems.

Similarly, Lifesite's article implies that what happens to fish applies equally to humans. Of course, what they don't discuss is that mammal biology and response to estrogen ingestion is quite different than that of fish who literally are living in the chemical stew that is being dumped into the rivers.

Lifesite - when you want a 'Chicken Little' version of the world, and real news sources when you want to know what's actually happening.