Gay-to-straight therapy repudiated

[Cedars]

I feel that the wording of the report is such that it does a disservice to those seeking help in understanding what their options are.

 

Bill

 

Yes. A significant portion of the report regarding the studies they looked at, most pre-1980, indicated the methods used in the studies were flawed leading to the inability of this report to conclude whether or not there was successful SOCE treatment or other factors which resulted in changes.

[InfiniteNow]

But, Theory, if you will kindly notice in those statements of mine that you criticize, I was speaking only for myself under the imagination condition of taking on homosexual behavior and what I would want to do about it.

Your first mistake here is in assuming that people just "turn" gay. That is not the case, and is refuted directly by the evidence.

 

Second, you would be free to see a therapist to discuss what had happened, and what you want to do as a result of being gay. The point, however, is that the therapist needs to be up front with you and inform you that therapy is likely to have no effect on your sexual preferences. This has been clarified for you now more times than I can count.

 

 

I also was speaking only for myself when speculated about what I would do if my son turned gay.

Again... People don't "turn" gay. If you wish to continue suggesting they do, then back-up your assertions with evidence and empirical data. Right now, you are making up a scenario which has no basis in reality, then using that scenario as the foundation of your entrire argument.

 

 

Theory, if you can't handle an honest statement about what I would do in my personal life then you are blindly obsessed with your personal reaction to it.

 

Pointing to the flaws in your premises and descriptions should not be dismissed as some personal attack. You are, of course, welcome to your own opinions, Larv, but not your own facts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I feel that the wording of the report is such that it does a disservice to those seeking help in understanding what their options are.

And I feel that a person struggling with their feelings about their own sexuality should speak to a therapist directly to work-out the true nature of their issues and to determine the best course of action for their personal situation and circumstances... not rely on answering their questions and resolveing their issues by seeking help from some journal publication from the APA which speaks only about the ineffectiveness of trying to change ones sexual preference through therapy.

[Larv]

...

It’s critical, I think, to focus on the primary goal of legitimate psychological therapy, which is, IMHO, helping people overcome emotional distress and have happy, productive lives that don’t hurt others. Legitimate goals do not include validating or repudiating religious beliefs, informing legal or government policy, or even advancing the art and science of psychology. Though these are worthwhile pursuits, they are not nor should be allowed to interfere with the practice of helping people.

 

A good psychotherapist or religious minister understands these principles and goals both intellectually and intuitively.

Good post, Craig, and I agree with almost all of it. However, I am concerned that the APA is, in effect, banning all gay-to-straight therapies. This assumes that they all are worthless or even harmful, which is a dubious blanket to throw over the issue. I'm sure there have been worthwhile gay-to-straight conversions that have helped people.

 

It must be very confusing for a gay person when he discovers his sexual orientation. It was confusing enough for me to discovery my heterosexual orientation. What about the struggling twelve-year-old who is already confused about life when he discovers that he is gay? I can't imagine how difficult that would be. And if he went to a psychologist to get help, I would certainly hope that a re-orientation with heterosexuality is one of his therapeutic options.

[Theory5]

What? Lav, you never said anything about imaginary circumstances in the post I replyed to. you did mention If but that had nothing to do with what I was talking about. I was talking about your posts language and structure, which many might find offensive.

 

Good post, Craig, and I agree with almost all of it. However, I am concerned that the APA is, in effect, banning all gay-to-straight therapies. This assumes that they all are worthless or even harmful, which is a dubious blanket to throw over the issue.

 

It must be very confusing for a gay person when he discovers his sexual orientation. It was confusing enough for me to discovery my heterosexual orientation.

What? did you grow up in a gay community? You really dont discover your heterosexual orientation, because it is considered the norm for our civiliation. Everybody assumes they are hetro, which is why people usually discover if they are bi or gay.

 

What about the struggling twelve-year-old who is already confused about life when he discovers that he is gay? I can't imagine how difficult that would be. And if he went to a psychologist to get help, I would certainly hope that a re-orientation with heterosexuality is one of his therapeutic options.

Furthermore, any massive restructuring of somebodies personality like that is not the way therapists work, and it should definatly not be an option for anyone as is probably causes very much damage. Therapists help you accept yourself for who you are, and they are somebody you can go to and confide to without worrying that your feelings will be told to others. And you really dont discover your different sexual orintation until you are 15-16 really, I bet it varies for everybody but that seems like the age for most because it wasnt until highschool that we had a gay-straight alliance, and all that stuff.

[InfiniteNow]

Good post, Craig, and I agree with almost all of it. However, I am concerned that the APA is, in effect, banning all gay-to-straight therapies.

Larv,

 

Do you think that perhaps you can explain for all of us how you get the impression that the APA has banned anything, especially after reading what they actually concluded (as shown below)?

 

 

Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation

The task force conducted a systematic review of the peer-reviewed journal literature on sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) and concluded that efforts to change sexual orientation are unlikely to be successful and involve some risk of harm, contrary to the claims of SOCE practitioners and advocates.

 

Even though the research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality, regardless of sexual orientation identity, the task force concluded that the population that undergoes SOCE tends to have strongly conservative religious views that lead them to seek to change their sexual orientation.

 

Thus, the appropriate application of affirmative therapeutic interventions for those who seek SOCE involves therapist acceptance, support, and understanding of clients and the facilitation of clients’ active coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, without imposing a specific sexual orientation identity outcome.

 

I cannot seem to find the word "ban" anywhere in there, nor can I see what would give you the impression that the APA has "banned" anything at all. Perhaps you can show me what I am missing?

 

 

 

I'm sure there have been worthwhile gay-to-straight conversions that have helped people.

Good, then prove it.

 

 

What about the struggling twelve-year-old who is already confused about life when he discovers that he is gay? I can't imagine how difficult that would be. And if he went to a psychologist to get help, I would certainly hope that a re-orientation with heterosexuality is one of his therapeutic options.

Would you equally hope that a black person who wants to become a white person through therapy should ALSO have that as an option? That's essentially what you're advocating here.

 

Also, how do you know that the 12-year old was originally heterosexual? What is it that makes you assume he is going BACK to being heterosexual? After all, you chose to add the prefix "re" in front of the word "orientation" by stating he should have the hope of "reoritentation" toward a heterosexual lifestyle.

 

 

Righto... I'll leave it at that. I'm sure all of the questions put to you will be addressed in admirable fashion, and I eagerly await your reply. Cheers. :)

[Turtle]

speaking of therapy not repudiated & who could use it, there is the matter of fear & loathing.

 

SELF-Therapy: Bigotry

 

A PREREQUISITE

 

The first thing you need to do is admit that all that bad feeling you have had for so long is not really against the groups you target. You may know your hate started with severe beatings in childhood, or that it started when a certain person from your target group did harm to you or someone you cared about. You may not even know where you got all this hatred. All you need to know is that your comfortable "targets" are NOT what you are so angry about. ...

 

or Oxford Scholarship Online: From Morality to Mental Health

A case is made for viewing visceral bigotry as both a sickness and a wrongdoing. It is argued that (visceral) bigotry can be understood as pathological without altering our conviction that it is immoral. Doing so allows us to appreciate how overcoming bigotry can be both a moral and a therapeutic process. At the same time, pathologizing prejudice (as with crime) carries risks in the current social climate where sickness is often assumed to be an automatic excuse. We need to ensure that justice remains a key component in an integrated, moral-therapeutic perspective.

 

so on and so forth. . . . . . . . . :)

[Larv]

Turtle, your post is OT. Please refrain from suggestions that bigotry has anything to do with this discussion.

[Cedars]

I for one am tired of the word bigot being misused with calculated intent to attack a poster for their opinion.

 

Noun

 

* S: (n) bigot (a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own)

 

Source:

WordNet Search - 3.0

 

"The term bigot is often misused to pejoratively label those who merely oppose or disagree with the devotion of another. The correct use of the term, however, requires the elements of obstinacy, irrationality, and animus toward those of differing devotion."

 

Source:

Bigotry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Turtle]

I for one am tired of the word bigot being misused with calculated intent to attack a poster for their opinion.

 

my second linked article clinically defines "visceral bigot", moreover i'm as entitled to assert my opinion that bigotry, per your definitions, is at the root of these protests against homosexuality as those who assert an entitlement to repeatedly assert their opinions as facts.

 

 

Turtle, your post is OT. Please refrain from suggestions that bigotry has anything to do with this discussion.

 

no it is not off topic and no i won't refrain. :)

[Larv]

I cannot seem to find the word "ban" anywhere in there, nor can I see what would give you the impression that the APA has "banned" anything at all. Perhaps you can show me what I am missing?

I’ll give you that one. But the meaning of “repudiate” would imply something close to “banning.” However, I don’t believe the article contains the word “repudiate”; it was a journalist’s word, I suppose.

 

Would you equally hope that a black person who wants to become a white person through therapy should ALSO have that as an option? That's essentially what you're advocating here.

As I have said before, the oppression of blacks was nothing like that of gays. You insult a black person when you make that comparison.

 

Also, how do you know that the 12-year old was originally heterosexual? What is it that makes you assume he is going BACK to being heterosexual? After all, you chose to add the prefix "re" in front of the word "orientation" by stating he should have the hope of "reoritentation" toward a heterosexual lifestyle.

Well, I don’t really know if gay-to-straight therapy works or does any harm, and I don’t really know if straight-to-gay therapy works or does any harm. I’m not a psychologist. But why shouldn’t a confused boy of 12 seek psychological help if he finds his attractions are for other boys instead of girls? And why if that troubles him so should he not seek a “reoritentation” toward a heterosexual lifestyle. Especially if that what he wants to do!

[InfiniteNow]

As I have said before, the oppression of blacks was nothing like that of gays. You insult a black person when you make that comparison.

It's rather obvious that you have missed my point. Nobody is talking about a comparison between the oppression of blacks and the oppression of homosexuals, at least, not me.

 

My point was that you are suggesting that people can... through the experience of therapy... change something in them which is genetic in nature.

 

Do you understand now why I would state that your "hope that therapy would be an option available to for homosexuals to be changed into heterosexuals" is equivalent to stating that you "hope that therapy would be an option available for blacks who wish to be changed into whites?"

 

 

 

Well, I don’t really know if gay-to-straight therapy works or does any harm, and I don’t really know if straight-to-gay therapy works or does any harm.

Did you not read the article which you shared in your own OP, or any of the articles shared in the posts of others to this thread since that time? This question you've just asked has been answered countless times, and the answer is clear. The therapy really does NOT work when used in an attempt to change ones sexual preferences, and it CAN be harmful (often resulting in increased depression and also suicide).

 

Case closed.

 

 

I’m not a psychologist.

No way, really? I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell ye! :)

 

 

But why shouldn’t a confused boy of 12 seek psychological help if he finds his attractions are for other boys instead of girls?

He absolutely CAN seek help, and nobody here is suggesting otherwise. The point, however, is that therapy is not likely to change his sexual preferences, only the way he feels about that preference and how he manages to live with that preference throughout his life.

 

 

 

And why if that troubles him so should he not seek a “reoritentation” toward a heterosexual lifestyle. Especially if that what he wants to do!

Because, it doesn't work, and can actually be harmful. Again, did you not read the link you shared in your own OP?

[Cedars]

my second linked article clinically defines "visceral bigot", moreover i'm as entitled to assert my opinion that bigotry, per your definitions, is at the root of these protests against homosexuality as those who assert an entitlement to repeatedly assert their opinions as facts.

 

no it is not off topic and no i won't refrain. :)

 

The topic is the position of the APA. I for one had forgotten the lobbying done by the GLTB community to remove homosexuality as a disorder, which reading the report reminded me of. I also have reservations about the whole realm of psychology and cant help but wonder how much is science and how much is social engineering.

 

A case is made for viewing visceral bigotry as both a sickness and a wrongdoing. It is argued that (visceral) bigotry can be understood as pathological without altering our conviction that it is immoral. Doing so allows us to appreciate how overcoming bigotry can be both a moral and a therapeutic process.

For each argument that bigotry is inherently immoral, I would counter that Bias is inherently natural in people.

 

No one has protested "against" homosexuality in this thread that I have seen. Could you refer me to the post #(s) so I can review it/them?

 

As far as opinion as fact both sides have tossed that around. The thread would be best served by pointing out the issue you have with the words written and give the poster a chance to explain their meaning.

 

I myself have written things meaning it to be understood as one thing, not realizing it could be taken another way and I have appreciated the opportunity to clarify.

 

Not everyone is a text artist.

[Turtle]

The topic is the position of the APA. I for one had forgotten the lobbying done by the GLTB community to remove homosexuality as a disorder, which reading the report reminded me of. I also have reservations about the whole realm of psychology and cant help but wonder how much is science and how much is social engineering.

 

reservations ya say? since this is a science forum then it is incumbent on us to reference the best possible social science data. without reading and evaluating each specific study and identifying what makes it "social engineering" then the expressed suspicion is unfounded suspicion applied broad-brush style. while the "against gay" group, a suitable term as y'all debating me/us certainly aren't "in support" of gay, has provided virtually no links to academic science sources other than the article in the op, while those of us in support of equal treatment for gays have provided copious quantities of said supporting material countering opinions asserted as facts. the anecdotes just don't qualify as evidence.

 

 

For each argument that bigotry is inherently immoral, I would counter that Bias is inherently natural in people.

well, i don't see that as countering any thing, rather another affirmation that judements not based on reason are right on topic in these discussions. humans considering moral issues is natural too by all the best historical accounts we have. as my authoritive link made clear, there may be reasons for visceral bigotry, but there is no excuse.

 

No one has protested "against" homosexuality in this thread that I have seen. Could you refer me to the post #(s) so I can review it/them?

 

i'll refer you to all of larv's et als posts and their general themes & tone. there is no mistaking larv's bent on this issue.

 

As far as opinion as fact both sides have tossed that around. The thread would be best served by pointing out the issue you have with the words written and give the poster a chance to explain their meaning.

 

I myself have written things meaning it to be understood as one thing, not realizing it could be taken another way and I have appreciated the opportunity to clarify.

 

Not everyone is a text artist.

 

we have been round & round in the other threads i mentioned. there have been innumerable oportunities for clarification from all. this very thread is larv spinning off the gay marriage thread and feigning a new topic and material because things weren't going so well.

 

. . . . :)

[Cedars]

reservations ya say? ;) since this is a science forum then it is incumbent on us to reference the best possible social science data. without reading and evaluating each specific study and identifying what makes it "social engineering" then the expressed suspicion is unfounded suspicion applied broad-brush style. while the "against gay" group, a suitable term as y'all debating me/us certainly aren't "in support" of gay, has provided virtually no links to academic science sources other than the article in the op, while those of us in support of equal treatment for gays have provided copious quantities of said supporting material countering opinions asserted as facts. the anecdotes just don't qualify as evidence.

"Because some areas of psychology rely on research methods such as surveys and questionnaires, critics have asserted that psychology is not scientific (due to the largely correlational nature of survey research). Other phenomena that psychologists are interested in such as personality, thinking, and emotion cannot be directly measured and are often inferred from subjective self-reports, which may be problematic."

 

Psychology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Scroll down to Status as a science. Well the whole thing is riddled with point-counter point on the 'science' of psychology.

 

well, i don't see that as countering any thing, rather another affirmation that judements not based on reason are right on topic in these discussions. humans considering moral issues is natural too by all the best historical accounts we have. as my authoritive link made clear, there may be reasons for visceral bigotry, but there is no excuse.

Yes and the religious argument is also based on their authoritive interpretation of 'moral'. But its ok to be dismissive of that interpretation (which is problematic in the circles of psychology and noted in the report). So your 'authoritive link' is on par with the other authoritive interpretations others dismiss. One mans philosophy (when presented as a guide for others) is another mans social engineering. Personally, I have no interest in philo books. They all tend to end with "now lets all join hands and sing kumbaya" or some variant.

 

i'll refer you to all of larv's et als posts and their general themes & tone. there is no mistaking larv's bent on this issue.

 

General theme? Tone? [bent] Take on the issue? How about a quote?

 

His take is pretty normal/typical/average/standard. I wouldnt want the struggle of being homosexual. I am GLAD I am not homosexual. I am glad I am not trans-sexual. I wouldnt want my kid to be homosexual. And I am glad I am not black. Its not about bias/bigotry against these groups, its a clear recognition that being one of/combination of these groups (minority/fringe/whatever) would add to the struggle to thrive/survive. Its not good for me, its not good for my kid.

 

we have been round & round in the other threads i mentioned. there have been innumerable oportunities for clarification from all. this very thread is larv spinning off the gay marriage thread and feigning a new topic and material because things weren't going so well.

While I agree Larv should post a few links supporting his position, I dont agree that its feigning a new topic. Lots of topics are intertwined in some way with others and some peoples interests are broader or narrower than others.

 

As far as the argument not going well for one side or another, sorry but california voted down the gay marriage initiative. And there is little doubt in my mind our current supreme court will refuse to hear the case or rule against it, should it be presented to the court.

[InfiniteNow]

The topic is the position of the APA. I for one had forgotten the lobbying done by the GLTB community to remove homosexuality as a disorder, which reading the report reminded me of. I also have reservations about the whole realm of psychology and cant help but wonder how much is science and how much is social engineering.

So, let me get this straight. Practically all of the data from peer-reviewed studies shows unmistakably how the position that this therapy trying to convert homosexuals into heterosexuals is ineffective and even harmful. The APA has done a meta-analysis of publications from numerous researchers which demonstrates this unequivocally, and has put forth a statement describing the overwhelming convergence and consensus of the data on this issue.

 

 

Then you, on a science forum, suggest that this is all nothing but the result of lobbying being done by the GLTB community.

 

Then you, on a science forum, simply dismiss the entire field of psychology because the evidence based conclusion at which they arrived is not aligned with your personal view of the matter.

 

You, on a science forum, instead of arguing your case on the merits, using evidence to support your own position, or showing any specific flaws or problems in the studies, their methodology, or their conclusions... choose to instead simply poison the well as the foundation of your entire argument... suggesting that the entire science of psychology is just a group of people engaging in social engineering.

 

 

Seriously? Really? I mean, WTF can a person say to that? What a disgusting and ridiculous argument to make.

 

You have provided ZERO evidence that this conclusion from the APA is based on a desire for social engineering.

You have provided ZERO evidence that this conclusion has anything to do with some GLTB community.

You have provided ZERO evidence that this conclusion rests on flawed data, flawed methodologies, or biased studies (studies which were peer-reviewed)...

 

... yet, this argument is still strong enough for you, and you think it supports your position? Really?

 

 

Let's see some evidence to support these completely hollow assertions everyone keeps making, and then maybe people would stop calling you all a bunch of ignorant bigots.

 

Unbelievable the stupidity in your suggestion here, and it shows just how willing people are to completely disconnect themselves from reality if it allows them to hold on to their preconceptions regarding homosexuality. Since you've decided to walk this particular path, would you like to go ahead and deny the validity of evolution, too, while you're at it?

[Larv]

So, let me get this straight...

So let me get this straight (no pun intended). If a 12-year-old boy who discovers his homosexual tendencies and wants not to be a homosexual goes to a psychologist for help, then he should not be allowed to have any treatments to reverse his tendencies. Is that it? Is that what we call freedom in the modern world? Should he be forced to just accept his tendencies and get on with his life as a gay person?

 

These things are not always clear cut, you know. My opinion is that only extreme bigotry on the part of homosexuals would prevent such a boy from seeking gay-to-straight therapy.

 

InfiniteNow is wrong when he says that all gay-to-straight therapies are bogus and cause harm. No one had proven that to be true, not even the APA.

 

Would the gay community wish to deprive this 12-year-old boy of his personal choices? From what I can tell by some postings on this thread the answer is yes. Well, that means only one thing: some posters here are blinded by their own irrational biases on the matter.

 

Let's give this 12-year-old boy a chance to have a normal life, if possible. After all, the LGBT people have done enough complaining about their miserable lot that you'd think they'd want this boy to have a chance for a better life.

[InfiniteNow]

So let me get this straight (no pun intended). If a 12-year-old boy who discovers his homosexual tendencies and wants not to be a homosexual goes to a psychologist for help, then he should not be allowed to have any treatments to reverse his tendencies. Is that it? Is that what we call freedom in the modern world? Should he be forced to just accept is tendencies and get on with his life as a gay person?

OMFG... How many times do you have to be shown what the data in your own OP describes? The treatment is ineffective and harmful. ;)

 

 

Here... let me turn your question back on you, but using a slightly different group to illustrate how silly you appear when asking this. Here is how I read your question:

 

 

If a 12-year-old boy who discovers

his homosexual tendencies

he is black and wants not to be

a homosexual

black goes to a psychologist for help, then he should not be allowed to have any treatments to reverse his

tendencies

blackness. Is that it? Is that what we call freedom in the modern world? Should he be forced to just accept

his tendencies

he is black and get on with his life as a

gay

black person?

 

 

The answer, btw... is, yes, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with force.

 

 

Let's give this 12-year-old boy a chance to have a normal life, if possible.

Yep... and here we go... yet again... because... according to you... being gay is ABnormal.

 

What you're actually suggesting here is that we give the boy a "chance" to experience profound cognitive dissonance, spend the rest of his life pretending to be something he is not, and to suffer with the pain of not being authentic with his own feelings and desires. That's a real winner of a suggestion you've just made, Larv. Well done. Maybe you should head the APA since you seem to know so much.