Skip to comments.NEA Cautioned Not to Accept American Psychological Association's "Just the Facts"
Posted on 07/21/2004 2:15:51 PM PDT by EdReform
July 16, 2004 - Dr. Warren Throckmorton, in association with Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays, distributed a paper on sexual orientation at the recent National Education Association (NEA) conference.
Dr. Throckmorton and associates Zoe Gutierrez, Jeralee Smith, and Chad Thompson, produced "A White Paper in Reaction to 'Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation and Youth,'" a document jointly published by the NEA and several mental health organizations, including the American Psychological Association.
In the introduction to this paper, Dr. Throckmorton states: "This white paper reviews the essential claims found in 'Just the Facts,' suggesting a need for caution in the presenting of dogmatic claims about sexual orientation to school children."
He notes four problematic areas in "Just the Facts":
- There's no consensus in current research to show that sexual orientation is fixed or inborn;
- there is credible research showing that sexual orientation can be changed;
- no credible research is available that shows that attempts to change sexual orientation are harmful;
- and the research on sexual orientation has become entangled with the issue of safety in schools for children who experience same-sex attractions.
"We favor both a zero tolerance policy toward harassment and the presentation of accurate information," said Throckmorton.
In the conclusion of this paper, the author says: "Without consensus [on the nature of sexual orientation], it becomes necessary to inform students of the varied opinions on the subject with ample opportunity for equal presentation. For instance, if a proponent of the essentialist position speaks to school students, we believe that someone who has found change in sexuality should be invited to present the constructionist/developmental viewpoint."
NARTH has also published a rebuttal to the "Just the Facts" paper. "NARTH's Response to 'Just the Facts about Sexual Orientation and Youth'" is available for downloading from the NARTH web site.
Copyright © NARTH. All Rights Reserved.
Updated: 19 July 2004
I would never say any study is beyond all possible reproach, and I haven't. However, I would say that Hooker's research was far more fair and scientifically sound than any other work of its kind, and its soundness is demonstrated by how it has held up to scrutiny of peer, it's replicability, and the broadness of its acceptance in the scientific community.
By contrast, the so called science offered by those on the anti-gay side has been universally rejected and denounced by legitimate science.
Hooker and several homosexual researchers' studies were documented to be fraught with flaws in using a sub-standard methodology sure to give an unreliable and inaccurate result, and they used survey participants, supplied by homosexual activist groups, with an inherent bias and motivation to skew the results.
Everything you've said here - flawed methodology, unreliable and inaccurate results, activist subjects, and a motivation to skew results - does not describe Hooker's work. It perfectly describes the work of Paul Cameron, whose work you embrace, who is the one man, anti-gay propagandist who was expelled from the APA for ethics violations and questionable methodology.
But you already knew that.
So, it's your opinion that one has to be a licensed medical professional to give such an opinion? Correct me if I'm wrong. I don't want to misunderstand you.
Are you saying I would be out of line, because I don't have a medical degree, to say it's unethical for a doctor to give opiates to children without a prescription? I shouldn't state my opinion that a doctor shouldn't sexually molest a patient under anesthesia?
Tell me where you draw the line at giving a layman's opinion about medical ethics because I find this desire of yours to silence dissent very curious.
40 Aug 26-Sep 1, 1999
Confessions of a LUG
Throughts on the queer practice of being 'lesbian until graduation'
There is a truth to the conceit we develop in college that the "real world" somehow exists outside our current circumstances. The confined, secluded space of higher learning enables us, ever so briefly, to embark on flights of fancy without the very real repurcussions that await out there, in the real world.
In the faux universe of the ivory tower, idealism grows unchallenged by reality, and experimentation is encouraged and protected.
One manifestation of this temporary cessation of consequences is what's commonly referred to as "Lesbian Until Graduation." The brash, bright hetero girl plunges into the netherworld of girl-girl romance only to emerge years later, diploma in hand, straight as a ruler for the remainder of her days.
I wasn't a LUG in the strictest sense of the word; I never gave up men entirely. Call me a BUG (Bisexual Until Graduation). I had small crushes on women before, but nothing beyond the realm of my imagination had happened -- until I met Amy.
Tall, pale, with long locks of dark blond hair that stretched down her back, I was certain she'd been plucked from Sandro Botticelli's "Birth of Venus" and placed on earth for my enjoyment. She was the editor of the university newspaper, and I was her star columnist. Our attraction was, at first, that of two best friends destined to keep in touch for life. But by the end of one listless summer, when we were both unemployed and mostly single, an undeniable sexual heat had developed between us.
One night, we got drunk on cheap swill and did the deed. Embarassed, we giggled over our small feat for weeks. It was the first and last time we'd make love. But, hot damn, it was amazing!
I had other encounters with women, but none quite matched the heady rush that followed the first. I quickly became disenchanted with the notion of, well, going down. How could men manage this for minutes on end? I wondered, "Breasts?" They couldn't compare with firm shoulders. And the soft, sweet feminine touch was no match for the firm, male thrust.
Emotionally and intellectually, I found more to like in the complicated process of two people attempting to merge from opposite ends of the gender pool than I did in the simpler equation of lady meets lady, hence the toilet seat stays down.
Worse still, after mentioning my lesbian exploits to friends, I found myself pressured to turn these seemingly innocent trifles into something far more serious.
"You must tell everyone you're bisexual," a friend demanded. "It's a political statement."
I wanted to support my gay and bisexual sisters. I really, really did. The problem was, every time I affixed the the word "bisexual" to my long list of identity markers -- white, female, liberal Democrat, carnivore, etc. -- it didn't seem to fit.
"Couldn't I just be sexual?," I asked my politically active friend.
No. Apparently, I could not.
There was no getting around it. I was straight. At the time, it felt very unfashionable, uncool, politically incorrect.
Lesbian friends of mine say there's nothing they hate more than LUGs. Unlike these Lesbians For Life (LFL), we collegiate experimenters never had to endure coming out to our families, confronting a lifetime of discrimination, being refused the right to get married, adopt children, walk down the street holding hands with our significant others. We have our fun, often at the expense of a true lesbian's feelings -- Oops! Thought I was gay. Sorry! -- and move along.
LUGs have the luxury of trying out something different and walking away without any serious repurcussions. Try explaining that to someone whose parents have disowned them or who's been turned down for a job because of sexual preference.
While I understand the LFL's frustration, I wish they felt differently. We former lesbians might have only been messing around with societal constructs, but it's unquestionable that the experience makes us more attuned to gay issues, more likely to speak out against discrimination -- after graduation.
Imagine, if you will, that being Gay Until Graduation was as acceptable in our society as being a LUG. (The unlikelyhood of such a hypothesis makes it clear that the real world, however watered down, still exists even within the ivory tower.) Imagine if fraternity boys could do more than fraternize in the showers. If male college athletes, geeks and hipsters could enjoy each other sexually, if only once or twice. If straight boys trying each other on for size was dismissed as playful experimentation.
Would this not go a long way toward stamping out homophobia and sexism? Wouldn't a congressman, preacher or manager who's had a penis up his ass and liked it be more likely to accept someone for whom it's a regular practice?
There are no real answers to these questions, but in the confined, secluded space of my imagination I like to picture the possibilities. ©
If I understand correctly, the same applies to schizophrenia.
From what I understand, the notion that they are homosexual flies in the face of their very heterosexual bodies. The compulsive inability to accept reality is a mental disorder, although not necessarily a debilitating one. If I believed I was Napolean, everyone would know I was disturbed. However, unless I tried to claim the throne of France, or took other destructive action, most would allow me my fanciful belief.
We can question whether homosexuality should always be treated or can be left alone, but we should not be questioning whether it is mentally healthy. It is a compulsive denial of reality.
Putting aside whatever implication you were trying to make, you are not, in fact, correct. A majority of cases of schizophrenia are easily and successfully treated with medication.
This is probably the most important statement in the entire homosexual debate because it explains the overwhelming desire of most heterosexuals to ignore reality and support homosexual behavior.
To the "reality" point: I have pointed out repeatedly that human bodies are heterosexual. There is no question that humanity is heterosexual. Without the two sexes joining together to reproduce there would be no humanity. This biological fact (as separated from the spiritual and emotional ties that go with sexual behavior) is obvious to any casual observer and should not need debate. So why does it continue to be debated?
The real problem is with having a concept called "sexual deviancy." People don't like the concept. They don't like the idea that they may be deviants. I wouldn't like it. And the problem comes with drawing the line. Is sexual deviancy anything outside of the missionary position with the lights off? Is it OK to do it with the lights on? How about other positions? How about oral sex?
Some people have a hard time with the normal balance that life requires and always want to go to extremes. Either all sexual behaviors are OK (Hey, we like our sex a little rough. Sometimes she gets bruised. You got a problem with that?) or nothing that is not geared toward having children is acceptable (You mean you use birth control?). (Note to Catholics - I'm talking social belief here, not religious belief. I am not intending to comment on the religious belief that birth control is outside the will of G-d. I'm not qualified to make such a comment nor to challenge the Magesterium.) Real life exists in the balance. Honest debate would seek the balance, not the poles. But we are pulled toward the poles anyway because that's the best we can do.
What do I think is an honest balance? I think it's establishing as the norm that sex is intended to be a free and loving expression of the committment of a man and a woman who have committed themselves to each other for life. I believe we can be tolerant of expressions outside of the normative as long as those expressions don't become destructive of our way of life. I believe we have gone too far toward tolerance, such as the "free love" expressions that have lead to the breakdown in the black family and the near destruction of their culture.
I think it's sufficient for schools to not teach this, but to allow the normative expression to be the one that is modelled until well into High School. I believe that parents are the ones with the responsibility to deal with their children's questions about sexuality - both identity and practice.
I also believe that if we could stop polarization of another kind - that only macho men are true men and only bubbilicious babes are true women - that we would solve a lot of the sexual identity problems we have. I know lots of effeminate boys who are affirmed in their basic masculinity by their fathers who grow up to be effeminate, heterosexual men. There's a range of masculine and feminine in all of us, with men balancing toward masculine and women balancing toward feminine. But being a macho woman does not make one a dyke, and being a "girlie-man" does not make one gay. If we could just understand that, and help our teens understand that, much of the rest of this debate would quietly go away.
I will admit to not being an expert on schizophrenia. I do understand that nearly all psychotherapy requires years and a serious effort on the part of the patient toward healing. To say that homosexuality is hard to treat successfully is not the same as to say that it is not a mental illness. It would take more than that.
Q: How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Only one, but only if the light bulb truly wants to change.
It's dismissive and intended to nullify a perfectly valid point, a point he disagrees with and would like to castigate. And the analogies I made demonstrated very well that one need not have professional medical credentials to question the propriety of a doctor's conduct.
I have never seen anyone say that.
So, which Supreme Court Justice is a crackpot?
The one that wrote an essay advocating lowing the age of consent to 12. Most know the wench I'm talking about.
What the heck does it mean ?
He should be permitted to do whatever he feels is best for him, free from the coercion and impelling of others who are not a party to his struggles. I'm not sure what that has to do with the article in this thread.
Perhaps you're not familiar with that particular essay written by Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Most everyone here is. Most here also understand witticism.
Cue spooky music. Arghhhhh.
You really need to lighten up and learn to differntiate between being evasive and being humorously coy. You're making something out of nothing.
You're being captious for entertainment's sake. That's pitiful.
See post #54--Confessions of a LUG.
However, I would say that Hooker's research was far more fair and scientifically sound than any other work of its kind...
Balderdash. Hooker's research is not scientifically sound and you know it. Very serious questions have been raised about Hooker's research methodology as documented here :
"Evelyn Hooker has been among the most influential figures in the highly successful movement to convince the American people that homosexuality is a "normal variant" of human sexual behavior. Her 1957 study, "The Adjustment of the Male Overt Homosexual" (Journal of Projective Techniques, 1957, 21, 18-31) is the most frequently cited scientific source for the argument that homosexuality is not a pathology, that homosexuals are as free from mental disorder as heterosexuals.
Such assertions have not only found their way into standard psychology textbooks but have also provided a scientific basis for decisions in major court cases involving the legality of state sodomy laws and prohibitions against homosexual employment in certain state and local agencies (e.g., schools, police departments). Indeed, when the American Psychiatric Association debated the issue of homosexuality in 1973, Evelyn Hooker's work was Exhibit A for those who wanted to remove homosexuality from the group's list of mental disorders.
For many commentators and activists, the Hooker study effectively ended the debate over whether or not homosexuals were in any way abnormal in their relationships with each other and with the community at large. Today many Americans have accepted the idea that homosexuality is "normal" and "healthy" without realizing that such an opinion is derived in large measure from a single study -- one conducted by a UCLA professor whose previous laboratory subjects had been rats.
In all this extravagant homage to Hooker and her study, several points have escaped her admirers, to say nothing of the federal courts:
1. In her 1957 report, Evelyn Hooker did not use a random sample to test the stability of homosexuals, but allowed gay rights activists to recruit those homosexuals most likely to illustrate her thesis that homosexuality is not a pathology. Individuals who proved unstable were deleted from the final sample.
2. Hooker's published account of how she recruited heterosexual subjects is not consistent with a more detailed later account.
3. Six subjects in her study, three from each group, had engaged in both homosexual and heterosexual behavior beyond adolescence.
4. Hooker made several errors in her mathematical calculations that raise doubts about her care and competence as a researcher.
5. Hooker did not attempt to prove that homosexuals were normal in every way, nor does her study support the idea that homosexuals as a group are just as stable as heterosexuals.
6. Hooker was relatively inexperienced in administering the Rorschach test, and this inexperience may have led to mistakes in the administration and evaluation of the Rorschach.
7. On the Thematic Apperception Test and the Make-A-Picture-Story test -- which require subjects to make up fictional narratives about depicted scenes -- the homosexuals could not refrain from including homosexual fantasies in their imaginary accounts. For that reason, Hooker altered the nature of the study by no longer asking the judges to use the TAT and MAPS in an attempt to determine the sexual orientation of each of the 60 subjects, since the differences were apparent from the narratives...
CITATIONS AND USES OF THE HOOKER STUDY
Perhaps as important as the Hooker 1957 research itself is the use that others have made of her findings. Not only has this single study with only 60 subjects been cited repeatedly by prominent psychiatrists, social critics, and gay activists; but such summaries have also been accepted as part of the expert testimony in high-profile court cases nationwide.
Curiously, many of those who cite the study not only incorrectly summarize its content but do so in remarkably similar fashion. It's as if one commentator misread Hooker and all the rest derived their knowledge from that single erroneous commentary..."
An excerpt from "When Wish Replaces Thought: Why so Much of What You Believe Is False" by Professor Steven Goldberg, Chairman of the Sociology Department at City College of New York, Prometheus Books, January 1992:
"...Virtually every homosexual spokesman who has argued that homosexuals demonstrate no greater pathology has rested his case on an article by Evelyn Hooker without noting that Professor Hooker selected for individuals who did not manifest any of a number of signs of pathology...to invoke this study as demonstrating that homosexuals demonstrate no greater pathology than heterosexuals is like selecting a sample of 30 six-foot-tall women and six-foot-tall men and concluding that women are as tall as men..."
Everything you've said here - flawed methodology, unreliable and inaccurate results, activist subjects, and a motivation to skew results - does not describe Hooker's work.
Flawed methodology, unreliable and inaccurate results, activist subjects, and a motivation to skew results are all indicative of Hooker's study. Hooker's research is rightfully criticized because she went out of her way to stack the deck in favor homosexuals by selecting only those who showed very little psychologic pathology. It's been documented that Hooker actually used a homosexual activist group to carefully select participants for her study:
SELECTION OF SUBJECTS
First, to find her homosexual subjects, she enlisted the early gay rights group Mattachine Society, which, as she put it in her published report, "has as its stated purpose the development of a homosexual ethic...." Members of the Mattachine Society volunteered for the study and also recruited their friends. Hooker, herself, created a "control group" of heterosexuals for the experiment, despite the fact that on the standardized tests she intended to use, norms had already been established.
And not only is Hooker's research rightfully criticized, but several other pro-homosexual researchers as well:
"Hooker, Spitzer, Schidlo and Schroeder: Convenience Samples Differentially Treated
Without being critical of the Hooker research , Friedman and Downey describe the non-representative, convenience samples used in her studies of homosexual men: "Through word of mouth, Hooker recruited highly functional, socially well-integrated homosexual men." (P. 235).
In spite of the non-representative nature of the samples, the authors uncritically accept Hooker's research as being scientifically valid.
Yet they are very critical of Spitzer's similar use of "convenience samples." And they completely ignore the use of convenience samples by Schidlo and Schroeder. For example, Schidlo and Schroeder's solicitation of those who were "harmed by reparative therapy" was a blatant example of bias. (P. 270-271).
Consider the following advertisement for participants in the Schidlo study:
"Help Us Document the Damage of Homophobic Therapies: In association with the National Lesbian and Gay Health Association, we are conducting research on the outcome of treatments that claim to 'cure' homosexuality.
"Our purpose is to document the damage that we believe occurs when a lesbian, gay or bisexual client receives psychological help from a provider who promises to change a person's sexual orientation. We are looking for individuals who have experienced such a program and who are willing to talk about it confidentially by telephone, email or by filling out a written survey."
It is interesting that Schidlo and Schroeder changed the title of their study from "Homophobic Therapies: Documenting the Damage" to "Changing Sexual Orientation: Does Counseling Work?" because some of their study participants actually reported that there were benefits--and, in some instances, change in sexual orientation..."
Very well said!
[Hooker's research]... its soundness is demonstrated by how it has held up to scrutiny of peer, it's replicability...
Please provide citations that support your contention. And when you post your citations, please include an excerpt.
Here's an example:
Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001;58:85-91
Background It has been suggested that homosexuality is associated with psychiatric morbidity. This study examined differences between heterosexually and homosexually active subjects in 12-month and lifetime prevalence of DSM-III-R mood, anxiety, and substance use disorders in a representative sample of the Dutch population (N = 7076; aged 18-64 years).
Results Psychiatric disorders were more prevalent among homosexually active people compared with heterosexually active people. Homosexual men had a higher 12-month prevalence of mood disorders (odds ratio [OR] = 2.93; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.54-5.57) and anxiety disorders (OR = 2.61; 95% CI = 1.44-4.74) than heterosexual men. Homosexual women had a higher 12-month prevalence of substance use disorders (OR = 4.05; 95% CI = 1.56-10.47) than heterosexual women...
Conclusion The findings support the assumption that people with same-sex sexual behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders.
Bump. EdR - Proved his points, conclusively.
td - lost another one, as usual.
You wish. More self delusion on your part. Enjoy your folly. No one with any intelligence or reason is buying it.
Ping ( #82 )