The CRC's Informational Meeting
I gave the CRC a hard time this week for announcing an "informational meeting" where they would explain their "medically accurate" viewpoint and promote a "scientifically fact-based" curriculum, and prove how "tolerant" they are. It appeared that they had noticed people like our message better than theirs ... and so they stole it.
Yesterday they had their meeting, and it was hard to tell whether they brought in the wrong speakers, or have simply adopted TeachTheFacts' perspective for how the Montgomery County sex education curriculum should go. Let me tell you about it.
A few of us from our side attended the meeting. It began with the usual silliness from Michelle Turner, their President, a PowerPoint presentation that made sure to point out that TeachTheFacts.org was on the MCPS citizens advisory committee that will evaluate the new curriculum, and they quoted a couple of things I've said here on the blog to prove how unworthy I am (I'm the TTF rep on the committee). She said the stuff we expect, like "Heterosexuals have rights, too," and "tolerance does not necessarily mean approval," and other very wise sayings. Whatever, we taped it, like we taped their last get-together.
Ms. Turner announced again that our group is associated with GLSEN, which, while it might have a kernel of truth -- we have at least one GLSEN member in our Yahoo group -- we don't have any special relationship with them or work for them as CRC likes to imply. And besides, it wouldn't matter if we did work with them. She put up a slide that said that some of our group had had a training session in dealing with the media with some guys from GLAAD, which is true, and absolutely irrelevant. I think she may have thought it was incriminating or something. Basically it's nobody's business if we talk to people, but ... OK, so what? People'd been trying to guess, GLAAD apparently put it on their web site, now you know.
She was followed by Ruth Jacobs, a local doctor who speaks at nearly every single school board meeting, and always talks about gross stuff. Yesterday she talked about rimming and fisting and ingesting feces and told us how dirty sex is and how many germs you can get and described the sores they make. She told us what proportion of gay men (in the 1970's) had more than 1,000 sex partners in their lifetime according to some survey.
If you haven't seen Ruth Jacobs speak, you definitely have to catch it. Yesterday her point seemed to be that the curriculum should include discussion of the risks of sexual behaviors at the same time it describes the behaviors. I have heard that state law requires the disease discussion to go in the disease unit of the health curriculum, but I don't know. That's where it is now. At any rate, it is clear that Dr. Jacobs likes to talk about her patients' private lives and about how disgusting sex, especially homosexual sex, is, and it is never clear how her colorful examples are supposed to affect the health curriculum.
Then Warren Throckmorton talked. Throckmorton is a shrink, a psych professor at a little Christian college in Pennsylvania, and I hate what he does for living. He uses psychotherapy to try to turn gay people straight, and goes around to nutty groups and tells them about how gay people can learn to become heterosexual. Personally, I think the energy would be spent better if it was used to spread tolerance and respect through our society, rather than "helping" persecuted people comply better with those who mistreat them.
But yesterday Throckmorton wasn't talking about that. He talked mostly about research on sexual orientation.
He was good enough to mention that most mental health organizations do not consider homosexuality a disorder, and then noted a section (he cited section 302.9) in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual that does allow a diagnosis when sexual identity causes distress. (However, I just looked up that category in the DSM, and ... it doesn't say that, in either DSM IV or DSM IV-TR. But ... I'll still give him a few points for telling this group that the other shrinks don't consider being gay to be a disorder.)
Interestingly, Throckmorton talked about some of his patients who have been stereotyped as gay, but aren't gay. OK, that would be a bummer, I don't doubt it. But ... this was a close as he got to talking about "ex-gays" -- is that what they mean, is an "ex-gay" somebody who people used to think was gay but now they don't? Very weird. I mean, if some psychologist wants to help people with that, dealing with people who think they're something they're not, then what's the big deal? This was a long way from saying that gay people become straight.
He did mention that most psychologists feel that sexual orientation does not change very often.
You might remember that Throckmorton and somebody else wrote a report criticizing the Montgomery County curriculum within a few weeks of its being adopted by the school board. It's all up and down the Right Coast of the Internet -- certain people loved it.
Yesterday Throckmorton said his quarrel with the curriculum is that it "didn't give enough nuance" about sexual identity. For instance, there is no solid research that shows the biological factors that cause someone to be attracted to their own sex; likewise, there is no evidence of any environmental causes. And Throckmorton was good enough to go through the major studies and their refutations, not exactly unbiased but quite fair. He concluded that the MCPS curriculum didn't say "enough" (actually, it didn't say anything) about the causes of homosexuality.
He further complained that it didn't go far enough in exploring some of the dimensions of sexual identity. For instance, he noted, it should "distinguish between same-sex attractions and a gay/lesbian identity." It should have discussed more fully the complex interactions between a person's behaviors and their identity, giving the example of women who have female lovers because they feel closer emotionally to another woman, not because they prefer it sexually.
In other words, Throckmorton wanted the curriculum to go into the question of sexual identity much more than it did.
And I was sitting there thinking, wow, that sounds good to me, too. The curriculum that CRC arranged to throw out had a pretty good discussion of sexual identity, went into several dimensions of it, and talked a little bit about sexual orientation. And here's Throckmorton, patron PhD of the CRC, saying the problem is that it didn't go far enough.
He ended his talk by pointing out a 2001 letter written by Jack Drescher, who was chairing the American Psychiatric Association's Committee on Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues, which discussed some controversial research by Robert Spitzer. Spitzer's research is sometimes taken to demonstrate that people's sexual orientation can be changed -- Spitzer had interviewed a number of people who claimed to have gone from gay to straight, and concluded that some of them actually had. Drescher spends a good part of his letter agreeing with everybody else that Spitzer's research is badly flawed and cannot support his conclusions. But Throckmorton put this paragraph of Drescher's on the screen:
OK, I'm good with that. I think I have been consistent on this web site. If somebody thinks they have to go straight they're certainly free to try it. And if it works, cool, I hope they're happy. And if it doesn't work, which is almost always, that's fine, too, and I hope they come to accept themselves as they are.
After Throckmorton's talk there were questions. Ms. Turner got in a good one. Somebody asked if anybody knew about the people on the new citizens committee, and she said, "I know one, and they don't have a medical background."
Mmm, like their nominee does, right?
(I don't think it's particularly vain to assume that she may have meant me. My doctorate is in social psychology, not medicine.)
In response to one question, Throckmorton argued that the "new" curriculum (now thrown out) implied that a person is born with their sexual identity (in reality the curriculum didn't speculate on the question), and that "you should take that identity if you have those feelings." Now, that is a subtle point, and I kind of like it. Your stated identification is another axis of sexual identity; just like a person doesn't walk around thinking every second what color eyes they have, you can be gay or straight but not consider it an important part of your identity. Really, I think part of the reason "being gay" is such a big deal is because nutty people make such a big deal out of it, right? What if nobody cared? That would be good to me. Just love who you fall in love with, and don't think twice about it. That could be part of a health class, I guess.
There were more questions, mostly the usual whining about how unfair everybody is to the CRC. At one point, interestingly, Ms. Turner did mention that they had filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the criteria used by the board to select people for the citizens committee, but the board had refused to provide it. Hey, nice try, they didn't respond to our FOIA either.
At another point, Peter Sprigg, the Family Research Council guy who is PFOX's representative on the committee, expressed a concern that the committee was going to be "marginalized," and not have a very important role in the development of the curriculum. Uh, I believe I have said that myself before...
In the question-and-answer period, a lady raised her hand and had this interaction with Throckmorton:
Well, as you can imagine, I was sitting there thinking what an interesting twist to the plot this was. In case you don't remember, the CRC's last public meeting had all these extremist speakers saying everything terrible about gay people they could possibly dream up. It was purely venomous, and the CRC's officers tried to say afterwards that their views weren't really that extreme. Honestly, I had expected more of the same yesterday. But here they were, hearing the science, hearing from their own guy that their bigotry was not supported by the research; there they sat, admitting that they've "lost already."
I think this is similar to the current meltdown of the Republican Party at the federal level. You had the nutty ones running the show, and at first the brainy conservatives liked that because it meant they got a lot of votes and could do what they wanted. But then it turned out that the nuts really thought they should make decisions and impose their ways on everybody, and the intelligent ones had to put a stop to it. In the CRC, the haters have gotten the attention of the extremist media, but the people of Montgomery County do not accept their views. Oh, you can package a sound-bite about how parents should have control of the children's education or how your "family values" are being violated, but when you get down to it, most folks around here want to treat gay people fairly, and want their kids to learn the truth, not some bizarre religious interpretation of things.
They set out to overthrow the status quo altogether, but the best they'll do in reality is to move the compromise a little bit one way or the other. As it should be.
I found myself raising my hand to speak. And here's what I said, in its entirety, for the record:
I'll admit, it was a little weird agreeing with them. I had gone to the meeting expecting the worst, after the last one. But at least Throckmorton's part was OK. He may be a little creative with his diagnostic categories and treats people for something that's not wrong with them, I'm not saying he's my hero all of a sudden, but his talk yesterday was just fine, as far as I'm concerned.
I agree with Warren Throckmorton, let's look at the research, let's not go beyond it. As MCPS develops new curriculum outlines for the sexual variation units, let them go to the scientific and medical literature, and let them put together a fact-based course that challenges students and brings them forward into the world. Open their minds, don't harangue them with silly stuff.
This controversy is not really one between people who want X and people who want Y. There are both X and Y in the world, and a compromise is not only possible but necessary. The controversy is between people who want to talk about it and people who don't. As I review Throckmorton's talk, in fact I don't agree with every word he said, but I agree with saying it. We might shift the boundaries back and forth, that's fine with me, we might say "abstinence" more or less times or go into more or less detail about some phenomenon. But to say sex is dirty and disgusting and we shouldn't teach students about it, to say that gay people are immoral and dirty and we don't need to teach students about sexual orientation, to say that knowing how to use a condom will only encourage kids to become wildly promiscuous and we shouldn't teach students about them ... no, I don't buy into that.
If they want to open up the journals of science and lay the knowledge on the table, pick and choose what is appropriate for a middle-school or high-school health class, debate where the focus and the emphasis should be, well, yes, that's what this should be about.
Yesterday they had their meeting, and it was hard to tell whether they brought in the wrong speakers, or have simply adopted TeachTheFacts' perspective for how the Montgomery County sex education curriculum should go. Let me tell you about it.
A few of us from our side attended the meeting. It began with the usual silliness from Michelle Turner, their President, a PowerPoint presentation that made sure to point out that TeachTheFacts.org was on the MCPS citizens advisory committee that will evaluate the new curriculum, and they quoted a couple of things I've said here on the blog to prove how unworthy I am (I'm the TTF rep on the committee). She said the stuff we expect, like "Heterosexuals have rights, too," and "tolerance does not necessarily mean approval," and other very wise sayings. Whatever, we taped it, like we taped their last get-together.
Ms. Turner announced again that our group is associated with GLSEN, which, while it might have a kernel of truth -- we have at least one GLSEN member in our Yahoo group -- we don't have any special relationship with them or work for them as CRC likes to imply. And besides, it wouldn't matter if we did work with them. She put up a slide that said that some of our group had had a training session in dealing with the media with some guys from GLAAD, which is true, and absolutely irrelevant. I think she may have thought it was incriminating or something. Basically it's nobody's business if we talk to people, but ... OK, so what? People'd been trying to guess, GLAAD apparently put it on their web site, now you know.
She was followed by Ruth Jacobs, a local doctor who speaks at nearly every single school board meeting, and always talks about gross stuff. Yesterday she talked about rimming and fisting and ingesting feces and told us how dirty sex is and how many germs you can get and described the sores they make. She told us what proportion of gay men (in the 1970's) had more than 1,000 sex partners in their lifetime according to some survey.
If you haven't seen Ruth Jacobs speak, you definitely have to catch it. Yesterday her point seemed to be that the curriculum should include discussion of the risks of sexual behaviors at the same time it describes the behaviors. I have heard that state law requires the disease discussion to go in the disease unit of the health curriculum, but I don't know. That's where it is now. At any rate, it is clear that Dr. Jacobs likes to talk about her patients' private lives and about how disgusting sex, especially homosexual sex, is, and it is never clear how her colorful examples are supposed to affect the health curriculum.
Then Warren Throckmorton talked. Throckmorton is a shrink, a psych professor at a little Christian college in Pennsylvania, and I hate what he does for living. He uses psychotherapy to try to turn gay people straight, and goes around to nutty groups and tells them about how gay people can learn to become heterosexual. Personally, I think the energy would be spent better if it was used to spread tolerance and respect through our society, rather than "helping" persecuted people comply better with those who mistreat them.
But yesterday Throckmorton wasn't talking about that. He talked mostly about research on sexual orientation.
He was good enough to mention that most mental health organizations do not consider homosexuality a disorder, and then noted a section (he cited section 302.9) in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual that does allow a diagnosis when sexual identity causes distress. (However, I just looked up that category in the DSM, and ... it doesn't say that, in either DSM IV or DSM IV-TR. But ... I'll still give him a few points for telling this group that the other shrinks don't consider being gay to be a disorder.)
Interestingly, Throckmorton talked about some of his patients who have been stereotyped as gay, but aren't gay. OK, that would be a bummer, I don't doubt it. But ... this was a close as he got to talking about "ex-gays" -- is that what they mean, is an "ex-gay" somebody who people used to think was gay but now they don't? Very weird. I mean, if some psychologist wants to help people with that, dealing with people who think they're something they're not, then what's the big deal? This was a long way from saying that gay people become straight.
He did mention that most psychologists feel that sexual orientation does not change very often.
You might remember that Throckmorton and somebody else wrote a report criticizing the Montgomery County curriculum within a few weeks of its being adopted by the school board. It's all up and down the Right Coast of the Internet -- certain people loved it.
Yesterday Throckmorton said his quarrel with the curriculum is that it "didn't give enough nuance" about sexual identity. For instance, there is no solid research that shows the biological factors that cause someone to be attracted to their own sex; likewise, there is no evidence of any environmental causes. And Throckmorton was good enough to go through the major studies and their refutations, not exactly unbiased but quite fair. He concluded that the MCPS curriculum didn't say "enough" (actually, it didn't say anything) about the causes of homosexuality.
He further complained that it didn't go far enough in exploring some of the dimensions of sexual identity. For instance, he noted, it should "distinguish between same-sex attractions and a gay/lesbian identity." It should have discussed more fully the complex interactions between a person's behaviors and their identity, giving the example of women who have female lovers because they feel closer emotionally to another woman, not because they prefer it sexually.
In other words, Throckmorton wanted the curriculum to go into the question of sexual identity much more than it did.
And I was sitting there thinking, wow, that sounds good to me, too. The curriculum that CRC arranged to throw out had a pretty good discussion of sexual identity, went into several dimensions of it, and talked a little bit about sexual orientation. And here's Throckmorton, patron PhD of the CRC, saying the problem is that it didn't go far enough.
He ended his talk by pointing out a 2001 letter written by Jack Drescher, who was chairing the American Psychiatric Association's Committee on Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues, which discussed some controversial research by Robert Spitzer. Spitzer's research is sometimes taken to demonstrate that people's sexual orientation can be changed -- Spitzer had interviewed a number of people who claimed to have gone from gay to straight, and concluded that some of them actually had. Drescher spends a good part of his letter agreeing with everybody else that Spitzer's research is badly flawed and cannot support his conclusions. But Throckmorton put this paragraph of Drescher's on the screen:
I know Dr. Spitzer plans to respond to you himself and I am confident he will make his own thoughts clear about the misuse of his study by political and religious groups opposed to gay and lesbian civil rights. Despite our differing interpretations of his study, both Dr. Spitzer and myself are of the opinion that there is a small group of people whose sexual orientation can change, sometimes even without any therapy. But neither of us believe that everyone's sexual orientation can change. To claim that everyone can change or that everyone should change is simply not true. To scientifically argue for that position in opposition to gay and lesbian civil rights is not only a misuse of Dr. Spitzer's study but a travesty of science itself.
OK, I'm good with that. I think I have been consistent on this web site. If somebody thinks they have to go straight they're certainly free to try it. And if it works, cool, I hope they're happy. And if it doesn't work, which is almost always, that's fine, too, and I hope they come to accept themselves as they are.
After Throckmorton's talk there were questions. Ms. Turner got in a good one. Somebody asked if anybody knew about the people on the new citizens committee, and she said, "I know one, and they don't have a medical background."
Mmm, like their nominee does, right?
(I don't think it's particularly vain to assume that she may have meant me. My doctorate is in social psychology, not medicine.)
In response to one question, Throckmorton argued that the "new" curriculum (now thrown out) implied that a person is born with their sexual identity (in reality the curriculum didn't speculate on the question), and that "you should take that identity if you have those feelings." Now, that is a subtle point, and I kind of like it. Your stated identification is another axis of sexual identity; just like a person doesn't walk around thinking every second what color eyes they have, you can be gay or straight but not consider it an important part of your identity. Really, I think part of the reason "being gay" is such a big deal is because nutty people make such a big deal out of it, right? What if nobody cared? That would be good to me. Just love who you fall in love with, and don't think twice about it. That could be part of a health class, I guess.
There were more questions, mostly the usual whining about how unfair everybody is to the CRC. At one point, interestingly, Ms. Turner did mention that they had filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the criteria used by the board to select people for the citizens committee, but the board had refused to provide it. Hey, nice try, they didn't respond to our FOIA either.
At another point, Peter Sprigg, the Family Research Council guy who is PFOX's representative on the committee, expressed a concern that the committee was going to be "marginalized," and not have a very important role in the development of the curriculum. Uh, I believe I have said that myself before...
In the question-and-answer period, a lady raised her hand and had this interaction with Throckmorton:
Q: Can you clarify how presenting what you were presenting today benefits from the CRC perspective? To me, it's appearing that we give a diluted version of what we want to present and make us a little more ambiguous, rather than a stronger position.
TH: My point is, at least with the science we have, it is ambiguous. We need to be accurate when we teach things to kids, and not let the, I suppose, our feelings make it seem more strong than the science would let it be. And so, I think we're gonna view this as something [unintelligible], let's present what we know, and then when we don't know, let's say we don't know.
Q: That's also assuming though that we basically have lost already, that we cannot prevent them from adding this to the curriculum, is that what you're saying?
TH: I'm only saying that, at least from my perspective, if something's going to be taught, that takes a particular perspective, as I felt the old curriculum did, then we need to balance it with accurate factual information.
Q: I think you ought to clarify exactly what the old curriculum perspective was.
... [some chatter] ...
TH What I am saying here is that there is a good bit more uncertainty about that, and if students are presented with a view that you're either homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual, and this is kind of who you are from the beginning and it's always gonna be that way, I think that's an inaccurate picture of what we know right now. And so if we're gonna do anything, which they were doing, then I want to try to balance it out with factual information about what science teaches. There might not be a need to do all of what I have here. But if the school system's going to do one thing they need to do another.
Q: What is the strategy then for even getting this in to their consideration, given what we just said about the advisory committee?
[Other person]: -- Michelle, maybe you can address the CRC perspective ... [discussion drifts off into pity-party]
Well, as you can imagine, I was sitting there thinking what an interesting twist to the plot this was. In case you don't remember, the CRC's last public meeting had all these extremist speakers saying everything terrible about gay people they could possibly dream up. It was purely venomous, and the CRC's officers tried to say afterwards that their views weren't really that extreme. Honestly, I had expected more of the same yesterday. But here they were, hearing the science, hearing from their own guy that their bigotry was not supported by the research; there they sat, admitting that they've "lost already."
I think this is similar to the current meltdown of the Republican Party at the federal level. You had the nutty ones running the show, and at first the brainy conservatives liked that because it meant they got a lot of votes and could do what they wanted. But then it turned out that the nuts really thought they should make decisions and impose their ways on everybody, and the intelligent ones had to put a stop to it. In the CRC, the haters have gotten the attention of the extremist media, but the people of Montgomery County do not accept their views. Oh, you can package a sound-bite about how parents should have control of the children's education or how your "family values" are being violated, but when you get down to it, most folks around here want to treat gay people fairly, and want their kids to learn the truth, not some bizarre religious interpretation of things.
They set out to overthrow the status quo altogether, but the best they'll do in reality is to move the compromise a little bit one way or the other. As it should be.
I found myself raising my hand to speak. And here's what I said, in its entirety, for the record:
I'm Jim Kennedy, I'm the TeachTheFacts representative on the citizens advisory committee that we're talking about. I sometimes hear people say that sexual identity is what you learn in the bathtub, and I think that the topic is probably much more subtle and more nuanced than that. I'd have to say after listening to Dr. Throckmorton that I didn't hear anything that I would disagree with and I think I'm hearing a call for more nuance in the understanding of sexual identity, that sexual orientation, sexual role adoption and things like that are orthogonal dimensions and students can learn these concepts and learn to identify the features of their social landscape, including their own identities in a reasonable and scientifically informed way. So as I'm sitting on the committee, even though I'm the bad guy, I know, I'm in total agreement with what I'm hearing today from Dr. Throckmorton.
I'll admit, it was a little weird agreeing with them. I had gone to the meeting expecting the worst, after the last one. But at least Throckmorton's part was OK. He may be a little creative with his diagnostic categories and treats people for something that's not wrong with them, I'm not saying he's my hero all of a sudden, but his talk yesterday was just fine, as far as I'm concerned.
I agree with Warren Throckmorton, let's look at the research, let's not go beyond it. As MCPS develops new curriculum outlines for the sexual variation units, let them go to the scientific and medical literature, and let them put together a fact-based course that challenges students and brings them forward into the world. Open their minds, don't harangue them with silly stuff.
This controversy is not really one between people who want X and people who want Y. There are both X and Y in the world, and a compromise is not only possible but necessary. The controversy is between people who want to talk about it and people who don't. As I review Throckmorton's talk, in fact I don't agree with every word he said, but I agree with saying it. We might shift the boundaries back and forth, that's fine with me, we might say "abstinence" more or less times or go into more or less detail about some phenomenon. But to say sex is dirty and disgusting and we shouldn't teach students about it, to say that gay people are immoral and dirty and we don't need to teach students about sexual orientation, to say that knowing how to use a condom will only encourage kids to become wildly promiscuous and we shouldn't teach students about them ... no, I don't buy into that.
If they want to open up the journals of science and lay the knowledge on the table, pick and choose what is appropriate for a middle-school or high-school health class, debate where the focus and the emphasis should be, well, yes, that's what this should be about.
posted by JimK at 12:25 PM
38 Comments:
"I agree with Warren Throckmorton, let's look at the research, let's not go beyond it."
Which the old, discarded curriculum did.
Which the old, discarded curriculum did.
Sure, Anon ... give one example.
I won't hold my breath.
JimK
"experts agree that homosexuality is not a choice"
Yeah, a guy like you shouldn't hold his breath, Jim. Your brain needs all the oxygen it can get.
"experts agree that homosexuality is not a choice"
Anon, I saw that David Fishback tried to explain this to you and you weren't able to get it. Look. The sentence is "Experts agree that X." It is absolutely true. The sentence does not assert that X is a fact, but does appeal to the student to trust the knowledge and authority of the experts.
There is no research, anywhere, indicating that sexual orientation is a choice, and there is lots of research pointing to the conclusion that it is not.
JimK
"The sentence is "Experts agree that X." It is absolutely true."
It goes beyond research, though, doesn't it?
Besides it's not absolutely true. At least some experts disagree and I've yet to see a poll of these experts or even a definition of "experts" and which field their expertise is in. Wonder why the curriculum used this vague term.
As we've seen, associations have made policy statements not accepted by most practitioners and then started expelling those who disagree. Seems manipulative.
The research doesn't seem to point to homosexuality being beyond control.
Moreover, students shouldn't be taught to accept the knowledge and authority of any experts without understanding it. Especially, when the "experts" aren't even specified. Historically speaking, we wouldn't be where we are if students in the past had.
Absolutes" again. Nothing is "absolute" in science, and you know that. Nothing is "absolute" among religions, nor even within most religions, either. Maybe in your own mind, but when you look around you can't help but see there is no absolute. And you have no business imposing your "absolutes" on anyone else.
Dana
You're usually above this kind of thing. Jim is the person that used the word "absolute". I merely pointed out that he used it incorrectly.
At the CRC's meeting on Saturday, November 19, 2005, Warren Throckmorton discussed statements on one of his handouts entitled "Sexual Orientation: What Do You Think?"
Statement #5 reads, "People choose to be attracted to the same or opposite sex." Throckmorton said this statement is false and discussed scientific research about various genetic and environmental factors that might lead one to experience same sex attraction.
Experts DO agree that homosexuality like heterosexuality is not a choice, even the CRC's expert.
Christine
Cilly
Wasn't there and you didn't give details so I can't make a comment. Any way you could post a PDF of that handout?
As I said before, stating the opinions of experts is "going beyond" the research.
"discussed scientific research about various genetic and environmental factors that might lead one to experience same sex attraction."
The curriculum didn't do this, did it? It went beyond by erasing the "might".
"discussed scientific research about various genetic and environmental factors that might lead one to experience same sex attraction."
The curriculum didn't do this, did it? It went beyond by erasing the "might".
Anon, do us a favor and take a minute to look at what the curriculum did say, OK? It's over on the right, both 8th and 10th grade.
Your accusation is interesting, and typical. The curriculum didn't say anything at all about what "causes" homosexuality. But here you are trying to make it sound like it went beyond the research and asserted your hallucination of what it said as fact.
JimK
I think the AMA and the APA are specific enough- we can spell them out if you like.
"The curriculum didn't say anything at all about what "causes" homosexuality."
I've read it. Doesn't say a word about science. Yet, you keep trying to claim to have scientific facts on your side.
"I think the AMA and the APA are specific enough- we can spell them out if you like."
These are associations not experts. As we have seen, it's actually possible for an association to misrepresent the members of its association. The curriculum doesn't even say doctors and psychiatrists- it just says "experts".
The AMA and the APA represent doctors. Of course, you would contend that the statements of these organizations are not representative and are purely political. If the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association do not represent experts- who does? We know it can't be the American Counseling Association-they throw out people for ethics violations and selling snake oil. I understand that you are just arguing for the sake of argument. How about if we list the last 5 or 10 presidents (by name)of the American Psychiatric Association saying that Homosexuality is not a choice and as one former pres told me "Reparative therapy is BS".
Andrea
They may now represent their members. I don't know. I did document that when these organizations first declassified homosexuality as a mental disease, they didn't represent their members so they don't deserve any presumptions.
I'd like to see a survey of practitioners before I assume anything. Does one exist?
Anonymous wrote:
"They may now represent their members. I don't know. I did document that when these organizations first declassified homosexuality as a mental disease, they didn't represent their members so they don't deserve any presumptions.
"I'd like to see a survey of practitioners before I assume anything. Does one exist?"
All of these professional associations are run democratically. If their well-publicized conclusions, going back more than three decades, did not withstand scrutiny and were not (certainly over time) agreed to by their membership, there would have been changes long ago.
So, there are no independent surveys of practitioners then, David?
I apologize if I misspoke.
Anon, I personally have no idea if there is an independent survey available. As David said, if there were substanital and substantive disagreement with the policy there would have been action a long time ago. And a lot has changed on the science front since 1973.
As I've pointed out to you, and admitted myself, there is always disagreement in science. The DSM still lists transsexualism as a mental disorder. I am working with my colleagues to change that. These things take a lot of time, and there is an entrenched bureaucracy to move. But the science is there, as I've pointed out, and eventually that science will out.
You keep complaining there isn't enough science. I agree. Why don't you get Michelle and Dobson to turn their attention to getting the NIH more money so they can pursue these issues further? The Dalai Lama would support you.
And while there might not be enough science backing up our side, there is none behind yours. I've also pointed that out before.
Anon- where are the real experts- and please don't say Peter Sprigg - and practitioner survey to support your ideas? You dismiss the AMA and APA but have nothing to support your side- and despite the good will of some other people here- my sense is that if the AMA had a practitioner survey- you would dismiss it. Call the AMA or the APA yourself if you really want to know- I accept the position of the AMA.
There you go again, Andrea. I'm not claiming enough support to start teaching kids my side. You are. And you're wrong.
Of course you accept the AMA. They're telling you what you want to hear. I read Wertsch's support. It was pretty thin. We will discuss it point by point.
"And while there might not be enough science backing up our side, there is none behind yours. I've also pointed that out before."
So should we be teaching kids things that we hope science will someday prove?
Anon said...
I did document that when these organizations first declassified homosexuality as a mental disease, they didn't represent their members so they don't deserve any presumptions.
Since you insist on not even using a fake name, it is difficult to know what documentation you provided.
After going back through recent comments here, I found one that refers to a February 1978 Time magazine article about a 1977 poll of APA members. Is that the comment in which you "document that when these organizations first declassified homosexuality as a mental disease, they didn't represent their members?" The statement I'm asking about is found on The Sincerest Form of Flattery blog entry.
Christine
Anonymous said...
"So, there are no independent surveys of practitioners then, David?"
I do not know. Do you?
I think my earlier response pretty much deals with the implication of your question.
yes, that's what I was talking about, Silly
Of course, anon- I am wrong because you say so. The AMA and the APA are dishonest. The Surgeons General who disagree with you are wrong-everyone but you and your CRC friends. Why don't you start calling every psychiatrist in the phone book and ask them what they think?
Oh Andrear, you are so testy! I think Anonymous has bent over backwards being cordial and honest and all you can do is put him down. He (or she) has had to put up with being ganged up on -- just re-read the posts, I think Anonymous has done a marvelous job of keeping up with you all and keeping his or her cool too. I can't say the same about you.
Sarah
"Of course, anon- I am wrong because you say so. The AMA and the APA are dishonest. The Surgeons General who disagree with you are wrong-everyone but you and your CRC friends. Why don't you start calling every psychiatrist in the phone book and ask them what they think?"
Andrea,
I don't think they're necessarily dishonest but they may have jumped to a conclusion without sufficient evidence because of political (and, perhaps, social) pressure.
Sarah said as Anonymous said...
Oh Andrear, you are so testy! I think Anonymous has bent over backwards being cordial and honest and all you can do is put him down. He (or she) has had to put up with being ganged up on -- just re-read the posts, I think Anonymous has done a marvelous job of keeping up with you all and keeping his or her cool too. I can't say the same about you.
Sarah
****************
HA HA Sarah you cannot really believe that anyone takes anonymous seriously? Oh yeah you apparently do...pretty funny.
Great laugh for today..Thanks Sarah!
"anon free"
anonymous said....
I don't think they're necessarily dishonest but they may have jumped to a conclusion without sufficient evidence because of political (and, perhaps, social) pressure.
*****************
Come up with one example and if needed seek Sarah's assistance to provide it.
"anon free"
Uh, one example of what?
Poor anonymous now feigning ignorance when asked for example on statements.
Ask Sarah for help she is your fan.
"anon free"
Sarah, thanks for helping anon out- but if you think Anon has done a marvelous job- of what? Denying the AMA and APA, saying that the published opinions of these major medical organizations are political and don't represent the members- and not providing any expert or documented evidence to the contrary? all anon has done is say "no, no, no". . Don't think that saying that anon is a jolly good fellow and a good sport and bad old us gang up on him is going to make any difference to us. I am sure if dear anon feels we are too awful for him to engage- he will retreat. If you have anything to offer- besides moral support for anon- please do.
OK Anon,
To remind readers, here's how you documented "that when these organizations first declassified homosexuality as a mental disease, they didn't represent their members so they don't deserve any presumptions"
You said, "...as reported by Time magazine in February 1978:
"In a much debated vote by its membership four years ago, the American Psychiatric Association decided that homosexuality should not be defined as a disorder. For many psychiatrists, that poll has hardly disposed of the issue—as a new survey by Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality shows. The journal sent questionnaires to 10,000 members of the A.P.A.. Of those answering, 69% said they believed "homosexuality is usually a pathological adaptation, as opposed to a normal variation," 18% disagreed and 13% were uncertain. Similarly, sizable majorities said that homosexuals are generally less happy than heterosexuals (73%) and less capable of mature, loving relationships (60%). A total of 70% said homosexuals' problems have more to do with their own inner conflicts than with stigmatization by society at large."
But you skipped something in your Time Magazine quote. Here's what Time wrote, with the parts you skipped in bold:
"In a much debated vote by its membership four years ago, the American Psychiatric Association decided that homosexuality should not be defined as a disorder. For many psychiatrists, that poll has hardly disposed of the issue—as a new survey by Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality shows. The journal sent questionnaires to 10,000 members of the A.P.A., and compiled the first 2,500 responses. Of those answering, 69% said they believed "homosexuality is usually a pathological adaptation, as opposed to a normal variation," 18% disagreed and 13% were uncertain. Similarly, sizable majorities said that homosexuals are generally less happy than heterosexuals (73%) and less capable of mature, loving relationships (60%). A total of 70% said homosexuals' problems have more to do with their own inner conflicts than with stigmatization by society at large. Many of the doctors doubted that homosexuals could be trusted with important jobs. To the query "Are homosexuals generally a greater risk than heterosexuals to hold positions of great responsibility?" 43% of the therapists answered yes."
Here we go again, Anon. Why can't you CRC supporters get your quotes correct? You didn't even bother to put in the dot dot dot to indicate you'd skipped the fact that rather than 10,000 responses, the survey results were based on 2,500 responses.
Further, you never note the fact that in 1977, there were nearly 30,000 members of the APA so only one third of the membership was even polled. The 2,500 respondents represent fewer than 10%.
Also note that nearly half of these 2,500 self-selected responders were of the opinion that homosexuals are not trustworthy in important jobs. It seems reasonable to consider the possibility that holding this opinion caused them to respond to the survey in greater numbers than APA members who did not share this lowly view of gays.
Further, the American Psychiatric Association is one professional organization. Your "documentation" says nothing about all the other mainstream American medical and mental health professional organizations that agree homosexuality is not a disorder.
It seems you haven't documented much at all.
Christine
Maybe anonymous and Sarah would like to liven up that poor pitiful excuse of a not so public message board that CRC claims to all it has. They would be welcomed there as lame as that board is. Someone pointed out that board sucked.
One thing we know for sure that if anyone does not repeat the CRC homophobic bigoted mantra over there they are kicked off that board.
One could always point how how inclusive and tolerant we are...right anonymous in allowing posters...even like you.
"anon free"
"Here we go again, Anon. Why can't you CRC supporters get your quotes correct? You didn't even bother to put in the dot dot dot to indicate you'd skipped the fact that rather than 10,000 responses, the survey results were based on 2,500 responses."
You're right, Silly. I should have put a ... in. Instead, I left the phrase "of those answering". Doesn't detract from the significance of the survey, however. 25% is actually a good response from a mail survey. Time and Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality (MAHS) obviously thought the results were noteworthy. I checked out MAHS before I put that post up. They're still around and hardly seem a conservative group.
You might remember that when I put this post up, one of your board members agreed that it reflected the general attitude of practitioners at the time.
"Further, you never note the fact that in 1977, there were nearly 30,000 members of the APA so only one third of the membership was even polled. The 2,500 respondents represent fewer than 10%."
I'm assuming they used proper stastical sampling techniques. If they did, the survey shoud reflect the membership.
Obviously, with any survey, it's always possible the survey takers inadvertently or by random chance chose an unrepresentative sample but it's unlikely.
"Also note that nearly half of these 2,500 self-selected responders were of the opinion that homosexuals are not trustworthy in important jobs. It seems reasonable to consider the possibility that holding this opinion caused them to respond to the survey in greater numbers than APA members who did not share this lowly view of gays."
I didn't include that statistic because it wasn't agreed to by over half of the responders. I don't think I agree with the logic of your second sentence.
"Further, the American Psychiatric Association is one professional organization. Your "documentation" says nothing about all the other mainstream American medical and mental health professional organizations that agree homosexuality is not a disorder."
APA is the group that maintains the list of disorders. Once they took this step, the others followed and probably deferred to their judgment.
"It seems you haven't documented much at all."
Again, I think it's a valid survey and have no reason to question it. What do you think? Do you think most practitioners agreed with the association at the time? Show some integrity.
None of this is relevant except from a historical perspective. As I've mentioned, most psychiatrists feared (and I dare say even hated) trans women through the 70s. Straights feared us, gays feared us, lesbians feared us, feminists feared us. No religion, except some stirrings within Catholicism, had anything nice to say about us.
So, does the fact that no one showed us any respect thirty years ago mean that we didn't deserve any? That they were all right to fear and hate us? As I pointed out, at least as far as the ecientists were concerned, there was data to back up our intersex status, and none to defend a diagnosis of mental illness. It didn't stop them from willfully blind rejection.
Straights thought we were trying to deceive them into sex. Gays thought we were really just gay men afraid to admit that fact. Lesbians thought we were the vanguard of the patriarchy sent to secretly invade women's space, because we weren't real women in their eyes.
Now, thirty years and dozens of scientific papers behind us, the CRC still mouths the same vile nonsense from the 70s, as do the few practitioners that haven't stopped performing on "That 70's Show."
This is an example that is opposite to the one on homosexuality. As far as I can tell, the majority of shrinks, psychs and social workers accept us as biologically variant and not mentally ill. But the DSM cannot be changed until 2010. In 1973 the majority of shrinks may very well have still thought of homosexuality as a disease, and their leadership, which studied the growing body of data, concluded otherwise and took the lead. So what? The difference really is of little consequence.
If you're going to keep quoting surveys from the 70s on homosexuality, why not give credence to the previous medical view that epilepsy is due to Satanic possession? Or Tourette's syndrome?
Well, Dana, it does show and, yes, it's historical proof, the associations aren't necessarily right or necessarily representative of professionals. I don't know what the professionals think right now, but as I've stated before and, I think you agreed at one point, it's just a value judgment. The professionals are no better at making value judgments than the rest of us.
Seems like you keep bringing up "intersex" and I don't think I've ever said anything that I meant to refer to that situation. I don't know much about it. Nor do I refer to lesbians. I'm usually talking about gay males.
I'm going to observe Jim's suggested moratorium for the rest of the weekend. Enjoy giving thanks. And remember, whether you like white meat or dark meat, you can't really choose that preference. It's all biological.
You may personally not be interested in intersex issues, or in gay women, but your organization surely is. You can't dissect the guys out of it, especially since the hatred pervades the entire issue. And it certainly says something that you're so concerned only about gay males. How come?
And, no, when expert organizations make judgments it is not simply a "value judgment." At its best, it is a judgment based on scientific fact and clinical experience. I don't see you making your judgments on that basis, and that is the only basis that is valid for secular schools. Yes, they can get it wrong, but they can also admit to their mistakes and then get it right. I don't see you being able to do that since your beliefs are based on "inerrancy."
And while I speak in most cases from the scientific perspective, I also believe this is a human rights issue. And on that basis the CRC's position, as well as that of most Christian fundamentalists, is despicable in my mind. That it is reached from a Biblical interpretation is very sad to me. I know that 2000 years of Christian persecution of Jews was based on the Christian Bible as well. Does that excuse it?
As for preference for white vs. dark, yeah, it's probably biologically based as well. You can certainly choose to eat whatever you prefer, but you cannot fake your preferences.
Enjoy the holiday regardless!
Post a Comment
<< Home