Matt Barber Distorts Reality

Over in the far right echo chambers, we find Matt Barber trying once again to associate homosexuality with pedophilia.  

Consider, for instance, a study published in the left-leaning Archives of Sexual Behavior of over 200 convicted pedophiles and pederasts. It found that “86 percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.” This demonstrates, as notes Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council, that “homosexual or bisexual men are approximately 10 times more likely to molest children than heterosexual men.”

We see this bunch of fiction trotted out on a fairly regular basis in the religious right-wing's attacks on homosexuality (and frankly all sexual minorities).  It took me a little bit of digging to figure out precisely which study Barber was quoting from, but it turns out to be W. D. Erikson et. al.'s study "Behaviour Patterns of Child Molesters".

As the University of Toronto's Dr. Cantor points out, this study has been widely critiqued, and the way in which it is often quoted  distorts reality by using imprecise language.

Published estimates of the proportion of pedophiles who offend against male children and are homosexual span a staggering range from a low of 2% (Jenny, Roesler, & Poyer, 1994) to a high of 86% (Erickson, Walbek, & Seely, 1988). The methods of the authors at each extreme have been criticized, and indeed, both sides are guilty of poor methods. ... At the other end, Erickson and colleagues (Erickson et al., 1988) reported that 86% of their sample of offenders against male children were homosexual. This estimate, however, is based on the self-report of the offenders, and offenders are highly motivated to claim any self-descriptor other than pedophile. In fact, methodologically sophisticated studies of pedophiles rely solely on non-admitting pedophiles (e.g., Blanchard, Klassen, Dickey, Kuban, & Blak, 2001). 

 ...

It is here that the political right takes advantage of imprecise usage. Although non-specialists correctly use the word pedophile, that is, to be without regard for whether male or female children are targeted, the colloquial use of the word homosexual refers to homosexual teleiophiles and not homosexual pedophiles. Thus, statements such as “6–8 million boys were abused by age 18 by 1–2 million adult homosexuals” (Walker, 2001) are half truths. Although it might be reasonably said that these perpetrators were homosexual pedophiles, there is no basis on which to believe they were homosexual teleiophiles (i.e., gay men). To refer to the sex in which the offenders’ were erotically interested and not the age is mere sophistry.

The point here is that Barber is using much the same rhetorical device in his argument.  It's a falsehood in a very subtle way.  First of all, it uses the terminology in a subtly imprecise way that blurs lines, second he draws a connection that the evidence being used does not actually support.

This makes perfect sense when coupled with another 2001 study in the same peer-reviewed publication. It found that nearly half of all “gay”-identified men who participated in research were molested by a homosexual pedophile as boys: “46 percent of homosexual men and 22 percent of homosexual women reported having been molested by a person of the same gender. This contrasts to only 7 percent of heterosexual men and 1 percent of heterosexual women reporting having been molested by a person of the same gender.” 

Really?  I love the fact that Barber (and others) are citing a study without specifying which study they are in fact drawing from.  At best, I could make an educated guess or two based on the bibliography at the end of Dr. Cantor's piece, but that would be just a guess.

But, let's look somewhat more closely Cantor's comments, because he draws out an important distinction between molestation by a pedophile and molestation by a non-pedophile:

Although having a genuine erotic interest in children is the strongest predictor of sex offender recidivism (Hanson & Bussiere, 1998), some offenders engage in their behaviors for other reasons (Barbaree & Seto, 1997). Little is known about these other offenders. It is possible that at least some are pedophilic, but lie beyond the ability of psychophysiological tests to identify them. Other factors have been suggested as causing their sexual assaults on children, including alcoholism and anti-social personality (e.g., Marshall, 1997). It is well-established, however, that sex offenses committed by non-pedophiles are largely associated with incest, while the extra-familial offenders are more likely to be genuinely pedophilic (e.g., Blanchard et al., 2001). Furthermore, very few incest victims are male. Estimates are typically 6–8% (e.g., Carlstedt,Forsman, & Soderstrom, 2001; Langevin, Wortzman, Dickey, Wright, & Handy, 1988), substantially lower than the overall proportion of males among all victims (i.e., 20–30%). The most logical conclusion is that sex offenses comprise two phenomena: genuine pedophilia producing offenses against either male or female, extra-familial children and an incest pattern producing offenses against primarily female children. This conclusion is also consistent with the data suggesting that offenders against male children have more victims than offenders against female children. The offenders against male children are more likely to be genuinely pedophilic, while a sizeable group of the offenders against female children are incest offenders and have only a finite number of potential victims. (Additionally, incest offenders are usually removed from contact with their underage relatives after discovery of the offenses.) Nonetheless, the data provide little indication that homosexual teleiophilia plays any greater role in sexual offenses by non-pedophiles than those by pedophiles.

It is perhaps the last sentence of a rather dense paragraph that stands in stark contrast with the conclusions that Barber and others draw:

The connection between homosexual abuse and “gay identity” is undeniable. Although clearly not all “gay”-identified men and women abuse children, or were abused as children, the verifiable reality is that an alarmingly high percentage of them do and were. As with most forms of abuse, the cycle is both circular and vicious. “Born that way?” Not so much. “Made that way?” Sadly, it appears so.   

Of course, they love to try tying it all back to cases like this:

Egan has filed suit against Singer and several other high-profile Hollywood figures for homosexually assaulting him and other boys repeatedly at several “‘infamous‘ coke and twink pool parties” back when Egan was 15 and Singer was 32. (In the “LGBT” vernacular “twinks,” also called “chicken,” are highly sought-after underage boys used for sex by adult “gay” men.) 

Let's be clear about something here.  At 15, we are not talking about a child any more.  Sexually speaking, the individual is pretty well developed at that point, whether male or female, and is likely as not actively exploring their own sexual identity.  (and yes, experimenting with homosexuality is not unusual or abnormal).  Age of consent laws in this part of the world are a mixed bag, but most recognize that there can be consensual sex happening somewhere between the ages of 14 and 16.

Further, the technical definition of a pedophile refers to an attraction to children who have not undergone puberty.

Pedophilia is used for individuals with a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children aged 13 or younger.^[1][2] Nepiophilia (Infantophilia) is pedophilia,^[13] but is used to refer to a sexual preference for infants and toddlers (ages 0–3 or those under age 5).^[13][28] Hebephilia is defined as individuals with a primary or exclusive sexual interest in 11-14 year old pubescents.^[29] The DSM-5 does not list hebephilia among the diagnoses; while evidence suggests that hebephilia is separate from pedophilia, the ICD-10 includes early pubertal age (an aspect of hebephilia) in its pedophilia definition, covering the physical development overlap between the two philias.^[30] In addition to hebephilia, some clinicians have proposed other categories that are somewhat or completely distinguished from pedophilia; these include pedohebephilia (a combination of pedophilia and hebephilia) and ephebophilia (though ephebophilia is not considered pathological).^[31][32]  

These distinctions are far too subtle for the likes of Barber, whose stock-in-trade is political activism, and reality isn't a big issue to him.  Distorting science doesn't exactly bother him as long as it enables him to put forward more fear-based tactics.  

Exodus Shuts Down ... And Is Replaced

While LGBT people in North America have been celebrating the shutdown of Exodus International, the moment of schadenfreude has perhaps resulted in overlooking something equally important that has been happening in parallel.

Alan Chambers has issued a heartfelt apology for the damage his organization did to the lives of so many over the decades of its existence.  I will applaud him for that - although it is much easier to applaud his recent change of understanding than it will ever be to forgive what his organization did to so many.

However, at the same time that Exodus was collapsing, another organization was being created to take its place - Restored Hope Network.  This is, to say the least, an evil little twist.  One look at their advisory board is pretty much an index of the most extreme hardline cases in the anti-gay world.  It contains Matt Barber, Dr. Michael Brown, Joseph Nicolosi and Mat Staver to name a few.

About the only crazy they don't have on their board are the discredited ones like Peter LaBarbera and Paul Cameron.

I expect that we will start seeing propaganda out of this group in the not too distant future.

The real question is whether this "ministry" (propaganda machine, more like) is actually able to draw in new membership, or is it simply going to be reflective of the increasing concentration of activity in a group that is increasingly isolated and dwindling in numbers?  I don't have an immediate answer to this, it is the question that will only be answered by time.

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.

Medical Treatment Should Never Be About Popularity

In recent weeks, the shrieking out of the right wingnuts over the idea of the US government actually implementing a meaningful taxpayer funded medical system has been alternating between stupid and funny.

Until two of the loonier members of America's right wing - Matt Barber and Peter LaBarbera decided to weigh in.

I could give their joint idiocy a detailed analysis - but it boils down to one fundamental point that is worth addressing.

Both men seem to have a problem with the idea that providing treatment to transsexuals shouldn't be done. In fact, I'd go so far as to argue that they don't merely argue against treatment funded by taxpayers, but in fact both argue against any kind of meaningful treatment.

And yes, the idea of subsidizing body-disfiguring “operations” surely would be considered “queer” by the average tax-paying American.

“Gender Identity Disorder” (GID) may also be provided – free of charge – courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. The current price tag for such a procedure can exceed $50,000.

This falls into the classic trap of making access to needed medical treatment conditional upon the "charisma" of the condition, instead of talking about the best interests of the patient. Transsexuality will never be a "charismatic" condition - it's far enough from so many people's understanding that it seems unlikely to ever have "popular support".

However, using that kind of approach for one treatment means it can be used for others. Let me illustrate. In the last thirty years or so smoking has become quite the social evil. Smoking has two well known consequences - emphysema and lung cancer. Can you imagine having either of these conditions, and finding that your access to treatment is based suddenly on how much public sympathy there is for ex-smokers with emphysema?

That is essentially what many people are arguing when they make statements like "I don't think my tax dollars should pay for that".

Access to medical treatment - when medically necessary - should never be conditional on public opinion. This is as true in Canada as elsewhere. Using minority populations as political footballs is despicable, bordering on criminal.