NARTH Protests at APA Convention
I can't find APA's statement (at the end here) on their web site, but it is confirmed by both Wayne Besen and Warren Throckmorton, both sides of the ex-gay controversy, so I am passing it on.
This week the American Psychological Association's convention was held in New Orleans. They had it there, clearly, to make a statement of affirmation for that city; it's a big convention, and when it was first announced there was skepticism about whether New Orleans could handle it. Sounds like it could.
Anyway, NARTH -- the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality -- protested outside the APA convention.
In the news:
I'm not sure exactly what made them do this at this point. Maybe they thought there would be support for the change in today's political atmosphere.
Throckmorton has a picture of the protest on his blog. I see five people with signs. I'm not saying there were only five altogether, but I doubt Throckmorton would try to make the protest look smaller than it was. Maybe only half are in this photo. Maybe there were ten. The news story says two dozen, but I don't think this photograph could be that wrong, especially not on Throckmorton's site.
NARTH does have a petition online that is signed by nearly 70 APA members, asking for APA to consider supporting or at least allowing "re-orientation" therapies, see it HERE.
Let me do some math ... APA has 150,000 members ... let's round this up to seventy ... that makes this one two-thousandth of the membership of APA signed this petition. One twentieth of one per cent. I wouldn't quite think that gets their attention somehow.
A little more from the news story:
And Dr. Nicolosi is free to submit his findings to any relevant peer-reviewed journal and have them published so they can be part of the scientific debate, instead of going to the press and the Family Blah Blah groups with them.
Why not? Hasn't it been through the peer-review process? Oh yeah, it hasn't. This is what scientists call anecdotal evidence. Some guy says something. It doesn't work like that. All he has to do is write it up and submit it. An editor will assign it to referees who know the field. They'll evaluate it and make a recommendation. The editor will read those, read the paper himself or herself, and decide whether to publish it. Once it's published, the topic will come under debate in the scientific community. This is how science works. So far the "ex-gay" issue hasn't even risen to the level of being part of the research dialogue.
Why does NARTH stand in the streets with signs instead of submitting their papers for publication in scientific journals?
Finally:
Like it or not, that's what it comes down to. The practitioner relies on research, and there isn't any to support NARTH's anecdotal assertions.
The APA issued a statement yesterday:
Exactly.
This week the American Psychological Association's convention was held in New Orleans. They had it there, clearly, to make a statement of affirmation for that city; it's a big convention, and when it was first announced there was skepticism about whether New Orleans could handle it. Sounds like it could.
Anyway, NARTH -- the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality -- protested outside the APA convention.
In the news:
NEW ORLEANS -- About two dozen protesters marched for an hour outside the American Psychological Association convention on Friday to protest the organization's stand on homosexuality.
The group, which was sponsored by the conservative ministry Focus on the Family, was protesting what it sees as the APA's views on the immutability of homosexuality.
"We disagree with the APA's stand that people can't change if they want to," said Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, a Los Angeles psychologist and president of the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. "If someone wants to change, they say, `No, this is you, you must learn to accept it.' We say people have self determination, they can make a choice."
In 1974, the APA ceased listing homosexuality as a mental disorder. The protesters demanded that the APA change its current position. Group protests APA's stand on homosexuality
I'm not sure exactly what made them do this at this point. Maybe they thought there would be support for the change in today's political atmosphere.
Throckmorton has a picture of the protest on his blog. I see five people with signs. I'm not saying there were only five altogether, but I doubt Throckmorton would try to make the protest look smaller than it was. Maybe only half are in this photo. Maybe there were ten. The news story says two dozen, but I don't think this photograph could be that wrong, especially not on Throckmorton's site.
NARTH does have a petition online that is signed by nearly 70 APA members, asking for APA to consider supporting or at least allowing "re-orientation" therapies, see it HERE.
Let me do some math ... APA has 150,000 members ... let's round this up to seventy ... that makes this one two-thousandth of the membership of APA signed this petition. One twentieth of one per cent. I wouldn't quite think that gets their attention somehow.
A little more from the news story:
Dr. Clinton Anderson, director of the lesbian, gay and bisexual office of the APA, said the group's position is that homosexuality is not an illness and therefore not in need of a cure. The association is not opposed to people who decide to try to change their sexual orientation if it's an autonomous decision, but would question the motives for such a desire, he said.
"If someone wants to change their sexual orientation, we feel that may be because of an atmosphere that is prejudice against homosexuality," Anderson said. "We are concerned it is a coercive choice that has to do with pressure from their family, their community, or their church."
Marchers, who stayed outside the convention for an hour carrying signs reading "Don't tell me I can't change," and "Diversity includes me," among others, were people who had changed from homosexuality, Nicolosi said.
Nicolosi, who works with people wanting to change their sexuality, said that he has found about a third of his patients experience no change, a third have what he called "significant improvement." and a third adopt a heterosexual life style.
And Dr. Nicolosi is free to submit his findings to any relevant peer-reviewed journal and have them published so they can be part of the scientific debate, instead of going to the press and the Family Blah Blah groups with them.
Nicolosi, who works with people wanting to change their sexuality, said that he has found about a third of his patients experience no change, a third have what he called "significant improvement." and a third adopt a heterosexual life style.
"They marry and are cured," Nicolosi said. "They may have an occasional attraction, but not a major or constant one."
The protesters also had a petition for the APA from a group of psychologists to accept both "gay affirming therapists and reorientation therapists."
The APA does not believe the claim by Nicolosi and others that there is scientific evidence that people can change their sexuality, Anderson said.
Why not? Hasn't it been through the peer-review process? Oh yeah, it hasn't. This is what scientists call anecdotal evidence. Some guy says something. It doesn't work like that. All he has to do is write it up and submit it. An editor will assign it to referees who know the field. They'll evaluate it and make a recommendation. The editor will read those, read the paper himself or herself, and decide whether to publish it. Once it's published, the topic will come under debate in the scientific community. This is how science works. So far the "ex-gay" issue hasn't even risen to the level of being part of the research dialogue.
Why does NARTH stand in the streets with signs instead of submitting their papers for publication in scientific journals?
Finally:
"There has never been a well designed study to show that people can change," Anderson said. "Our concern about the so-called conversion therapy is that it isn't supported by science. There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed."
Like it or not, that's what it comes down to. The practitioner relies on research, and there isn't any to support NARTH's anecdotal assertions.
The APA issued a statement yesterday:
"For over three decades the consensus of the mental health community has been that homosexuality is not an illness and therefore not in need of a cure. The APA's concern about the positions espoused by NARTH and so-called conversion therapy is that they are not supported by the science. There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Our further concern is that the positions espoused by NARTH and Focus on the Family create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish."
Exactly.
posted by JimK at 10:10 AM
45 Comments:
The APA's concern about the positions espoused by NARTH and so-called conversion therapy is that they are not supported by the science. There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed.
what about child molesters? people being treated for sexual compolsive disorder. sex addiction. Sexual idenity confusion? and what prof do they have that orientation cannot be changed? the concept of sexual orientation itself is not sufficently scientifically sound. lets see the evidence?
Do you also hold Jim, that if you are "born bi-sexual" that you cannot change and you are born with an attraction to both males and females ...
And then does this now extend to making polygamy a "right" because bi-sexuals are being discriminated against because they can't have both a husband and a wife ?
Polygamy today
Those who live in their own communities tend to find their additional spouses from within their own communities or networks of like communities. In many cases, this involves daughters of polygamous families entering into arranged marriages with much older men who already have a number of wives. In some cases, a man marries a woman who has children from a previous marriage, then marries the children.
Marriage age is often young and sometimes below the legal minimum. It is also not uncommon for fairly close relatives to marry, leading to inbreeding if not incest, though part of this comes from the difficulty of keeping track of the complex net of familial relations. As there will always be an excess of male children, a significant percentage of young men are compelled to leave their home towns, and sometimes become homeless.
Those who are geographically separated from other polygamists in their culture use other means to find additional spouses. Some polygamists use the Internet.
Mormon fundamentalism
Mormon fundamentalists (who have separated themselves from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) practice polygamy today, more than 100 years after the LDS Church discontinued the practice. Some sects that practice or at least sanction polygamy are the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the Apostolic United Brethren and the Strangites [29]. These fundamentalists practice polygamy by tending to aggregate in communities where they all commonly share their own specific religious basis for polygamy. These small groups ranging from a few hundred to about 10,000 are reported to be located in various communities of the Western United States, Canada, and Mexico including:
Bountiful, British Columbia
Pringle, South Dakota
Ozumba, Mexico
Centennial Park, Arizona
Colorado City, Arizona
Bonners Ferry, Idaho
Rexburg, Idaho
Pinesdale, Montana
Davis County, Utah
Salt Lake County, Utah
Tooele County, Utah
Utah County, Utah
Motaqua, Utah
Cedar City, Utah
Hanna, Utah
Hildale, Utah
Manti, Utah
Rocky Ridge, Utah
Sanpete Valley, Utah
Modena, Nevada
Missouri
Eldorado, Texas
Utah Attorney General's Office and Arizona Attorney General's Office. [http://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/polygamy/The_Primer.pdf The Primer, Helping Victims of Domestic Violence and Child Abuse in Polygamous Communities] (pdf). Retrieved on May 31, 2006.
Muslims & traditionalist cultures
Polygamy, and laws concerning polygamy, differ greatly throughout the Islamic world and form a very complex and diverse background from nation to nation. Whereas in some Muslim countries it may be fairly common, in most others it is often rare or non-existent. However, there are certain core fundamentals which are found in most Muslim countries where the practice occurs. According to traditional Islamic law, a man may take up to four wives, and each of those wives must have her own property, assets, and dowry. Usually the wives have little to no contact with each other and lead separate, individual lives in their own houses, and sometimes in different cities, though they all share the same husband. Thus, polygamy is traditionally restricted to men who can manage things, and in some countries it is illegal for a man to marry multiple wives if he is unable to afford to take care of each of them properly.
In the modern Islamic world, polygamy is mainly found in traditionalist Arab cultures, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates for instance, whereas in secular Arab states like Lebanon and non-Arab Muslim countries, Turkey and Malaysia for example, it is banned or rare, respectively. In traditionalist cultures where polygamy is still commonplace and legal, Muslim polygamists do not separate themselves from the society at large, since there would be no need as each spouse leads a separate life from the others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygamy
Good one, Theresa, it has never occurred to me to make a case by "proving" that absurd rights must be given to hypothetical groups of people, based on attributed beliefs that are inferred on the basis of invalid extrapolation from actual beliefs. Clever. Uh, I think.
I am not sure that true bisexuality exists, at least in men. If it does, it is rare, and probably doesn't really need a whole new set of norms and laws.
JimK
http://www.equalitymaryland.org/News_2006/News2006.08.10.htm
BEYER: I'm bi, but again, it depends on how you define that. I'm not trying to be difficult, but my erotic desire has always been towards men. My experience has always been with women, until the past few years. So by definition I'm bi, right? Right now at this stage in my life, it's tough finding any kind of partner. I would just like to find somebody I could love and be loved by and it really doesn't matter what their sex is. You know how complicated this gets. If you saw a photo of me from 30 years ago and you're thinking, "Well, she was interested in guys so that makes her a gay man." Well, that's the last thing in the world I ever was. I never identified that way. Nobody ever labeled me that way. Nobody ever could have labeled me that way because that was completely wrong. You have to be very careful. You have to define the two protagonists in a relationship before you can define the relationship.
I hope it will be an inspiration to some of my friends and others. Part of why I've been doing all this is to simply give back to those who paved the path before me. I feel that I'm in a position to do it. I feel obligated to do so. I feel I can help out. I know how difficult it was for me all those years to come to grips with this and finally decide to act. I want to see kids transitioning when they're kids, not when they're 50.
Theresa, was there some reason for posting in part of Dana Beyer's interview into our comments section? If this is supposed to "prove" that there are bisexual men, first of all, there are men who claim to be bisexual but the physiological evidence is not very supportive of that conclusion, and second, Dana is a transgender person, which is an entirely different situation. She can explain herself better than I can, but Dana experienced a lifetime mismatch between her subjective gender identity and her physical sex and has finally made the transformation into a woman.
It might be a little confusing for you when things don't turn out as you expected, it's just something that happens sometimes in this beautiful, surprising world.
JimK
if this statment is true than there is no need for TTF you have just argued against the exsitance of your own organization jim.
Nice job theresa
JimK said...
Good one, Theresa, it has never occurred to me to make a case by "proving" that absurd rights must be given to hypothetical groups of people, based on attributed beliefs that are inferred on the basis of invalid extrapolation from actual beliefs. Clever. Uh, I think.
I am not sure that true bisexuality exists, at least in men. If it does, it is rare, and probably doesn't really need a whole new set of norms and laws.
"I would just like to find somebody I could love and be loved by and it really doesn't matter what their sex is."
Hmmm, sounds a lot like a lifestyle choice to me. I can choose to be a with a man or choose to be with a female....
I find Dana's post directly in conflict with the firm positions that you have take all along - that you are born homosexual.
I find Dana's post to be indicative of a deliberate choice.
You clearly don't.
So I suppose we will just disagree, again.
Anyone else want to weigh in ?
Jim said
“I am not sure that true bisexuality exists, at least in men. If it does, it is rare, and probably doesn't really need a whole new set of norms and laws.”
What does he mean by a “whole set of norms and laws”?
Ok - so why does PFLAG and GLSEN etc include that “hypothetical group”? and what are “absurd rights”?
Jim, why does GLSEN, PFLAG etc include bisexuals [those “hypothetical groups of people”] to be included in those “absurd rights”? There is the “B” in the GLBT!
Remember this in the Times the other day?
http://www.washtimes.com/culture/20060808-104605-1600r.htm
Oy, Theresa. If you really, truly, want to uderstand what it means to be transsexual, I will be happy to sit down with you after the election. And I mean that -- coffee, lunch, whatever. I don't know where you live, but I may even be your delegate then.
The only choice I ever made was to make the best of a bad situation. I was born, from week six after conception, as a girl with male genitals because of a toxic drug taken by my mother. I have known no other life. Because I was assigned as male, and lived in an intolerant society, I tried to fit in and to function as one. I forced myself to date girls, got married and had children. I was never happy. I was always attracted to boys, as a girl. I didn't dare explain that to anyone. Period. End of story.
Because I wanted to fit in and have a family, I married women. By definition, to people like you at the time, I was a heterosexual man. To me, biologically, I was a transsexual woman, and therefore in a same-sex relationship. My desire for men makes me a heterosexual woman. Put the two together and I am functionally bisexual -- not by choice, but by making the best of difficult circumstances.
At this point in my life, I simply want to love and be loved. I imagine that is no more and no less than most people want, including you, and I would appreciate it if you and your friends would show a little humanity and get off your religious drive for sexual purity, which doesn't and never has existed.
but dana you could be a homosexual man who is in denial can you prove otherwise?
And Theresa could be a closeted lesbian as well who married and had kids to conform to what she believed society expected...can she prove she is not?
well, I am pretty sure my husband would laugh out loud at such an assertion.
As would I.
No proof Theresa other than you saying so????????
Your argument is false. Theresa is a woman born a woman and living a natural life as nature intended. She is a woman who loves her man and they have children. A lesbian is unnatural and goes against nature so Theresa has nothing to prove. Homosexuality is an act nothing can prove it to be anything else. Theresa is not having sex with another woman so she is not homosexual. It is not just what society expected it is what nature expected. She is what nature created. And her behavior is natural. There fore she has nothing to prove. Dr. Dana was not born a woman and is not acting as nature intended. Her behavior is unnatural and not normal. They’re for your argument lacks logic. And is meaningless.
Not natural you say? Wrong!
You are obviously unaware of the fact that over 450 species of animals exhibit same sex behavior, including penquins, big horn sheep, giraffes, killer whales, and bonobos, to name a few.
I think that you must not know the definition of natural, Also there are some very unusual behaviors in the animal kingdom that I am sure you do not think would be normal or natural for homo sapiens to engage in. Are you really arguing that any behavior that any species of animal engages in is ok for Homo sapiens to engage in?
Sheep? = “Bare Back Mounting” you think that the guys in the movie were doing more than each other.
Anonymous said:
"I think that you must not know the definition of natural, Also there are some very unusual behaviors in the animal kingdom that I am sure you do not think would be normal or natural for homo sapiens to engage in. Are you really arguing that any behavior that any species of animal engages in is ok for Homo sapiens to engage in?"
Then by all means please give us your definition of natural in this context. Animals exhibit what we perceive to be as unusual because we are not of the same species, and also due to the fact that throughout history society has developed standards with which generations are brought up. The morality of behaviours that one might consider ok for humans to engage in is dependent entirely on his or her personal values and beliefs; animals however, are incapable of such thought, and do only what comes naturally to them.
Anonymous said:
"Your argument is false. Theresa is a woman born a woman and living a natural life as nature intended. She is a woman who loves her man and they have children. A lesbian is unnatural and goes against nature so Theresa has nothing to prove. Homosexuality is an act nothing can prove it to be anything else."
Regardless of whether you think Theresa is living a natural life, it's not related and doesn't prove Theresa's sexuality, unless you reduce homosexuality simply to behaviour.
Anonymous said:
"Dr. Dana was not born a woman and is not acting as nature intended. Her behavior is unnatural and not normal."
On the contrary, one could argure that Dr. Dana remaining a biological male would go against nature, as her physical body would not correspond with her gender. Babies are not always born with a clear sex, and can be born with many disabilites. Should this happen, it would require human intervention in order to restore what nature (as you see it) intended. I'm sure you would agree that a baby born with a sixth finger would not be natural, so the extra finger would require surgical removal in order to restore what nature intended.
Anonymous said:
"They’re for your argument lacks logic. And is meaningless."
To you it would appear so due to your differing definitions and viewpoint on nature. It makes perfect sense and fits logic perfectly if one considered homosexuality to be more than simply behaviour and understood the difference between nature's intent versus society's developed standards.
Natural; is functioning as it was designed to, and lacking abnormalities or deficiencies. (Evolution or I.D. is not important to this definition)
I agree with your statement that Animals exhibit what we perceive to be as unusual because we are not of the same species. Making your previous statement,
“You are obviously unaware of the fact that over 450 species of animals exhibit same sex behavior”
meaningless obviously we do not look the animal kingdom as role models for human behavior. Thank you for supporting my point. Now in your second point
“…Throughout history society has developed standards with which generations are brought up. The morality of behaviors that one might consider ok for humans to engage in is dependent entirely on his or her personal values and beliefs…”
You have made a logical mistake first you say that society develops standards than you say that the behaviors one might consider is dependent entirely on are personal values and beliefs.
Well we are social animals and we all live in a society if we engage in behaviors that conflict with that of are society than we can leave or face the consequences of are actions. But you cannot live in a society and expect that society to just let you do what ever you might consider ok.
Until you put forth some evidence for scientific scrutiny than there is no reason to assume anything other than that homosexuality is nothing more than learned behavior.
If you are arguing than Dr. Dana was born an intersexual or a hermaphrodite than I would agree that she has every right to have her deformity changed. But you have to prove that Dr. Dana was born intersexed. You also consider my point that, it is not normal. If Dr. Dana was born with a deformity that would be abnormal. If Dr Dana was not born with an abnormality than we must look at other possibilities as to why Dr. Dana thinks he is a woman. We need to look at the environment, what people and events shaped the doctors view of himself. But this is meaningless Dr. Dana does not consider him/her self an intersexual but a Transgender person so once again with out hard evidance I must disagree.
I did not give my viewpoint on nature. You just misunderstood.
(Just to avoid confusion, I am not the same Anon who made the comments about there being over 450 species of animals exhibiting same sex behaviour.)
Anonymous said:
"You have made a logical mistake first you say that society develops standards than you say that the behaviors one might consider is dependent entirely on are personal values and beliefs.
Well we are social animals and we all live in a society if we engage in behaviors that conflict with that of are society than we can leave or face the consequences of are actions. But you cannot live in a society and expect that society to just let you do what ever you might consider ok."
I made no "logical mistake"; you simply made an assumption. People form their values and beliefs based on their interaction with society, although their personal view on issues may conflict with the majority. Note I did say what "one might consider", so don't try and twist my statements into contradicting each other.
Anonymous said:
"Until you put forth some evidence for scientific scrutiny than there is no reason to assume anything other than that homosexuality is nothing more than learned behavior."
By the same token, you could put heterosexuality under the spotlight and nothing would change. There is no solid proof of cause for either one, and relying on one's view of nature as evidence does not withstand "scientific scrutiny". What causes people to be left-handed? Is there evidence to determine its cause for certain? You can't just assume that it's learned behaviour.
Anonymous said:
"If you are arguing than Dr. Dana was born an intersexual or a hermaphrodite than I would agree that she has every right to have her deformity changed. But you have to prove that Dr. Dana was born intersexed. You also consider my point that, it is not normal. If Dr. Dana was born with a deformity that would be abnormal. If Dr Dana was not born with an abnormality than we must look at other possibilities as to why Dr. Dana thinks he is a woman. We need to look at the environment, what people and events shaped the doctors view of himself. But this is meaningless Dr. Dana does not consider him/her self an intersexual but a Transgender person so once again with out hard evidance I must disagree."
Her gender is the same, regardless of whether she was born biologically male or as an intersexual/hermaphrodite. You agree that in the case of physical abnormality, Dr. Dana has every right to have her deformity changed, but which set of organs would you choose to remove? Biologically, she would be neither male or female, but she would definitely have a gender. No one other than Dr. Dana can know this for sure. In the same way, no one knows for certain whether Theresa is a lesbian other than herself.
Anonymous said:
"I did not give my viewpoint on nature. You just misunderstood."
By continuously asserting what is and what isn't natural in that context, you were giving your viewpoint on nature, and what constitutes as natural.
The primary reason for sex is reproduction. The reason there is men and woman and not just one sex if for reproduction. Any deviation from this norm is abnormal. Men and woman have been reproducing since they walked the earth. Failure to reproduce leads to extinction. Do you not believe that they’re for sex. Any deviation from this is by definition is abnormal.
Dr. Dana clams to be a Transgender person not an intersexual so your argument is meaningless. Dr. Dana was not born with any known deformity.
Logical mistake or poor communication. As for twisting your words, I repeat.
“The morality of behaviors that one might consider ok for humans to engage in is dependent entirely on his or her personal values and beliefs”
Natural has a narrower and more precise context than nature
They are not necessarily the same.
Anon believes "The primary reason for sex is reproduction."
That may be true for you Anon, but it is not true for all of us.
My husband and I have several grown beautiful children and are not interested in producing any more. In fact, having passed through menopause, I am no longer able to conceive, yet my husband and I continue to have sexual relations regularly. It's not for the purpose of reproduction, I assure you.
JA
Anonymous said:
"The primary reason for sex is reproduction. The reason there is men and woman and not just one sex if for reproduction. Any deviation from this norm is abnormal. Men and woman have been reproducing since they walked the earth. Failure to reproduce leads to extinction. Do you not believe that they’re for sex. Any deviation from this is by definition is abnormal."
Abnormal, or simply deviating from the norm, does not mean unnatural. Activity that deviates from sexual reproduction is not abnormal, unless you consider reproduction the only normal sexual activity. Sex can be for many reasons, all of which are normal.
Anonymous said:
"Dr. Dana clams to be a Transgender person not an intersexual so your argument is meaningless."
Incorrect. You're choosing not to accept it despite it being entirely relevant. I'll ask you again: if Dr. Dana had been born an intersexual/hermaphrodite, how would you decide on choosing which organs to remove? The point is that she has a gender, regardless of her sex or the way she was born, and only she knows for certain what it is. Back to the original point, in the same way, only Theresa knows what her sexual orientation is.
Anonymous said:
"As for twisting your words, I repeat.
“The morality of behaviors that one might consider ok for humans to engage in is dependent entirely on his or her personal values and beliefs”"
And you repeating that one statement shows what? A person's personal values and beliefs may not always be in line with society's standards; they are independent, although the former can be influenced by the latter. You attempted to make it seem like I made a logical mistake, when you were the one who made the mistake of connecting the two statements to contradict each other.
Anonymous said:
"Natural has a narrower and more precise context than nature
They are not necessarily the same."
Agreed, and you were using both words in your description: "living a natural life as nature intended", "a lesbian is unnatural and goes against nature", "she is what nature created", "her behaviour natural", "her behaviour is unnatural and not normal".
Dr. Dana had been born an intersexual/hermaphrodite, how would you decide on choosing which organs to remove? The point is that she has a gender
Well Dr. Dana was not born an intersexual nor does he believe he is. If Dr. Dana believed he was god would you believe that? If Dr. Dana believed aliens abducted him would you believe that was also true? Just because the Dr. thinks something does not make to so. I don’t believe something merely because someone tells me it is true. Do you?
Dr. Dana is still a male that is his gender. There is no evidence to the contrary.
“The morality of behaviors that one might consider ok for humans to engage in is dependent entirely on his or her personal values and beliefs”"
This is what you rote it does not make a lot of scene. Philosophy ethically or morally,
Now if you were to say. The morality of behavior that one might consider ok for a human to engage in is dependent on the values and beliefs of the society that they are raised in. That makes more sense.
Bio 101, the reason a man has a pennies and a woman has a vagina is for sexual reproduction. The biological reason for a sex drive is reproduction. The pleasure we get from sex is part of natures was to insure that the species will survive. You do not have to sell sex it sells itself. We are all hard wired with a desire for sex and the reason is reproduction. The sex drive is second only to survival and sometimes survival takes a back seat, in this biological hard wiring. The fact that humans can control this instant where most if not all other animals cannot is unique.
JA the fact that you can no longer reproduce doe not mean you louse the sex drive though it wanes, as we grow older. At least that’s what I have been told though my sex drive is still going strong I suppose it will eventually decrease.
Let me ask you a hypnotical question about Dr. Dana. What if Dr. Dana was sexually emotionally and physically abused from her early life. Say since she was one. Lets say that this abuse went on till she was 12 it was constant and from a primary care giver a member of her family or a close relative. Thousands of studies show that this would have a profound effect on her self-image would cause her brain to develop differently and cause sexual identity confusion. Along with a host of other psychological problems. Some of this damage may be irreversible and some of it could be cured through treatment if not all, some day. Should we deny Dana the treatment he deserved or should we allow Dana to suffer, Rather than face one of the most immoral behaviors that humans engage in?
Hey, I just want to know if the Anon that asked me if I had any proof other than my word that I was not a lesbian is the same Anon that said that I was the only one who would know for certain whether I was or not :-)
Anon, I find your comments offensive as usual, and would have deleted them, but I think you are trying to actually say something. If, however, you continue to refer to Dana as "he" and make other stupid personal comments about her I will delete your comments.
I would think that a truly religious person would find it demeaning to their God when someone claims to know His intentions. The world is such a more beautiful place if we are surprised and challenged sometimes.
Here's my question, Anon. Why is it any of your business what somebody else does? If someone reports a particular sensation, do you think you know better than them how they feel? some people report consistently, over decades, that they feel that they are not the gender that their body is -- why would you question that? You have your ignorant theories about how nature works, I know, but what makes you think it's your role to tell somebody else how they feel and what they should do in their private life?
JimK
"CRC Theresa" said, Hey, I just want to know if the Anon that asked me if I had any proof other than my word that I was not a lesbian is the same Anon that said that I was the only one who would know for certain whether I was or not.
Most likely not----- but if you "know" you are not a lesbian is that any different from someone knowing they are??????????
Gracie
Anonymous said:
"Well Dr. Dana was not born an intersexual nor does he believe he is. If Dr. Dana believed he was god would you believe that? If Dr. Dana believed aliens abducted him would you believe that was also true? Just because the Dr. thinks something does not make to so. I don’t believe something merely because someone tells me it is true. Do you?
Dr. Dana is still a male that is his gender. There is no evidence to the contrary."
I see you've missed the point entirely, and you've still avoided my question. Dr. Dana was born biologically male, but it's entirely possible that her gender was and is female. If someome -- with no ulterior motives or reasons to lie -- tells you personal information about themselves that only they could possibly know for certain, are you going to question all the information that doesn't fit in with your ideology?
Anonymous said:
"Now if you were to say. The morality of behavior that one might consider ok for a human to engage in is dependent on the values and beliefs of the society that they are raised in. That makes more sense."
Hardly. One can have very different values and beliefs compared to the standard's of the society in which they were raised. By your logic everyone brought in the same society would have identical values and beliefs, which is not the case. People can think for themselves.
Anonymous said:
"Bio 101, the reason a man has a pennies and a woman has a vagina is for sexual reproduction. The biological reason for a sex drive is reproduction. The pleasure we get from sex is part of natures was to insure that the species will survive. You do not have to sell sex it sells itself. We are all hard wired with a desire for sex and the reason is reproduction. The sex drive is second only to survival and sometimes survival takes a back seat, in this biological hard wiring. The fact that humans can control this instant where most if not all other animals cannot is unique."
You've supported how homosexuality occurs naturally within animals. Like you say, they cannot control their behaviour like humans can, and you see many species of animals engaging in homosexual sex, and it's not for reproduction. How humans see this behaviour is irrelevant.
Anonymous said:
"Let me ask you a hypnotical question about Dr. Dana. What if Dr. Dana was sexually emotionally and physically abused from her early life. Say since she was one. Lets say that this abuse went on till she was 12 it was constant and from a primary care giver a member of her family or a close relative. Thousands of studies show that this would have a profound effect on her self-image would cause her brain to develop differently and cause sexual identity confusion. Along with a host of other psychological problems. Some of this damage may be irreversible and some of it could be cured through treatment if not all, some day. Should we deny Dana the treatment he deserved or should we allow Dana to suffer, Rather than face one of the most immoral behaviors that humans engage in?"
So you say "thousands of studies" show that abuse can cause sexual identity confusion. You assume that gender and sex are always the same at birth, regardless of any possible factors that could have affected such a result during birth. You assume that the only possible reason for sexual identity confusion is nurture. I'm fairly sure I can make this assumption about your viewpoint considering how you have treated Dr. Dana, although I may be wrong.
If a person's sex and gender were the same at birth, and somehow negative nurture caused them to question their gender as they grew up, then I would agree to treatment if they chose to seek it. "Sexual identity confusion" however is a very difficult subject to provide concrete evidence for, so making assumptions about it is dangerious, especially when coupled with a narrow minded viewpoint.
JimK said...
Anon,” I find your comments offensive as usual. Remember to do as I say not as I do.”
Got it
Enough said.
“Here's my question, Anon. Why is it any of your business what somebody else does?”
If you were not pushing it in the public schools and to my kids I guess it might not be my business Jim you made it my business. Why don’t you start your own private school with your own monies and quit pushing the gay life stile. You say it does not work if that is true why do you still do it? As a matter of fact if the gay rights movement was not shoving this crap in my face I would not have to deal with it at all. But science you’re pushing this in my schools and naborhoods I make it my business. Do you comprehend? Or do I need to use smaller words.
”You’ve missed the point”
You must be the first anon. Look in a world of infinite possibilities anything is possible. We can spend forever contemplating the points on a line, but to what purpose.
If Dr Dana or DD for short were what you are describing than I would hope medical science could some day help her but that will not happen until we look at the hold picture. This is not about my ideology it is about natural and the designs really to what evolutionary purpose can homosexuality have or birth defects. A blind Tiger soon dies in nature. Is there any reproductive benefit to being attracted to someone that you cannot reproduce with? If DD is abnormal than and we can prove what caused this abnormality and fix it that is fine. Science is based on what we know not what we think. Or what we want.
Hardly.
OK than, to fallow your argument if someone in the usa thinks its ok to kill and rob his family than that would be O.K. who are we to judge him?
Now I am not saying “identical” I am saying that the behaviors one might consider ok.
Hardly. One can have very different values and beliefs compared to the standards of the society in which they were raised. By your logic everyone brought in the same society would
The science that was being "pushed" in the schools was hardly anything at all. As far as your big obsession here, there was a two-sentence definition of transgender for tenth grade teachers only, not to be repeated in class, and nothing for eighth graders. So, for all your concern, there wasn't going to be anything in class about being transgender.
As for discussion of homosexuality, there were definitions of heterosexual, homosexual or gay, lesbian, bisexual, mention that some families have same-sex parents, and, as I recall, a comment to the effect that being attracted to someone of your own sex in adolescence doesn't mean you're gay ... again, hardly anything.
We don't know what the new curriculum looks like yet, but the old one that was thrown out after the lawsuit, which anyone can read from the "Resources" page on this web site, and which Teach the Facts supported, was very moderate and vague.
Nice try confusing the issue.
JimK
Just to set the record straight, (and I won't bother directly responding to an ignoramus who believes that by saying "No one is born gay" enough times it will become scientific fact and who spells "penis" as "pennies"), I was born intersexed, with both male and female tissue. Today we are calling this phenomenon VSD, or Variations of Sexual Development. Contrary to Ignoramo-Anon's rantings, there are may reasons for beings who cannot reproduce to exist, there is zero evidence that childhood sexual abuse causes transsexualism, and certainly none that it causes intersexuality.
Anonymous said:
"OK than, to fallow your argument if someone in the usa thinks its ok to kill and rob his family than that would be O.K. who are we to judge him?"
Who said anything about society being okay with an individual's behaviour? If a person thought murder was OK, then he/she is entitled to that view, as long as the behaviour isn't carried out. If it is, then there are laws to deal with that person. In this situation, the morality of murder for that individual differs from the society in which he was brought up.
It appears you misunderstood or attempted to extrapolate from my statement.
Thanks for the clarification Dana. Apologies for the incorrect assumption.
Anonymous quoted JimK: JimK said...Anon,” I find your comments offensive as usual. Remember to do as I say not as I do.”
This blatant lie demonstrates Anonymous' complete disregard for honesty. It is pointless to discuss anything with a liar.
For the record, here's what Jim actually said.
"Anon, I find your comments offensive as usual, and would have deleted them, but I think you are trying to actually say something. If, however, you continue to refer to Dana as "he" and make other stupid personal comments about her I will delete your comments."
"Who said anything about society being okay with an individual's behaviour? If a person thought murder was OK, then he/she is entitled to that view, as long as the behaviour isn't carried out."
WRONG. SO WRONG.
A person is not entitled to a viewpoint that "murder is OK". Society should jump down the throat of someone like that, and not even condone the "well they are entitled to their viewpoint because a person can think anything they want" BS.
Society must stand up and say "NO" "NO" and "NO" somewhere for goodness sake and some things are simply not even up for discussion.
By saying - well it's wrong, but they are entitled to their view - you have now opened it up for discussion.
Some things, like murder, like child pornography, like rape, like incest, people are not entitled to a viewpoint endorsing.
Sorry, not in my book.
Okay, Teresa, I have a question for you. What do you think about what the US has done to the Iraqi people over the last three years? Is that morally acceptable, or does it fall more in the category with murder? Would you have the moral courage to stand up and say NO to the occupation of that country?
The question behind the question. Could it be that evil is only something that other people do?
OK, so how many people per capita were being murdered under Saddam's region ? We know there were mass graves (surely you weren't deny that) and we know that people who felt they were being oppressed (like women, unless you know of any PFLAG Or GLSEN organizations in Irag - pre or post invasion) ...
So pre invasion we have anyone who disagrees with Saddam's regime being murdered, to include any women who try to be educated, and homosexuals would probably be shot on site.
Post invasion Women are voting, not sure if Gay activists groups want to migrate there (hey, I would consider funding tickets) ... thus I don't think homosexual rights has been broached yet (go for it guys, Jim I would seriously consider starting a non profit for the express purpose of funding your trip).
Whatever.
I really am amazed by posts like this. but, okay, let's try and figure out how many folks were killled by Saddam's murderous regime as opposed to ALL causualites, murder/war/or otherwise, during the Iraq war/occupation/whatever you would like to call it.....
folks includes everyone... us and iraqis and insurgents and every human being affected.
If you want to research this, I would love to see the statistics.
Theresa said:
"Some things, like murder, like child pornography, like rape, like incest, people are not entitled to a viewpoint endorsing.
Sorry, not in my book."
Who said anything about endorsing such viewpoints? People are allowed to have their own viewpoints, whatever they might be. Most likely, they'll have to face some consequences due to their extremity, but nothing should dictate what a person thinks.
Teresa. Sadam was captured years ago. Cop-out trying to blame this on him. I mean NOW. What we're doing to the people there. Sadam was out of business about a week into the war. Since then, thousands of people have been killed. Tens of thousands. By us, and because of us.
I think we all knew you wouldn't have the fortitude to admit this. Seems you are very reluctent to call murder what it is, when it's youre side doing it.
It's easy to make black and white moral statements when it's about somebody else, isn't it?
OK, so how many people per capita were being murdered under Saddam's region ?
I don't know. How many people per capita are being murdered under the US occupation in Iraq?
We know there were mass graves (surely you weren't deny that)
And now what? Does the US dig nice neat rows of individual graves for those murdered by US troops run amok thanks to their "bring 'em on" leadership? No. We just leave the bodies of Iraqis murdered by US military to rot wherever they fall and expect their loved ones (if any remain) to clean up our mess.
and we know that people who felt they were being oppressed (like women, unless you know of any PFLAG Or GLSEN organizations in Irag - pre or post invasion) ...
Theresa, PFLAG and GLSEN are LGBT support groups.
Women are much more oppressed by religious governments in the Middle East than they are by secular governments there. The Taliban insists women remain uneducated and under the burqua. You seem to be confusing Afghanistan with Iraq. If you watch FOX NEWS, you are bound to confuse the two wars. To review for you: Afghanistan's Taliban government proudly played host to the Al Qaeda criminals who attacked us on 9/11. The Taliban continues to insist that women remain uneducated and housebound but if they must travel outside their homes, the Taliban requires them to wear a burqua and to be be accompanied by a male relative. Iraq did not. However, once the Iraq civil war we unleashed is over, a new fundamentalist regime may rule Iraq, with similar oppression for women there.
So pre invasion we have anyone who disagrees with Saddam's regime being murdered, to include any women who try to be educated, and homosexuals would probably be shot on site.
Again, it is the Taliban in Afghanistan who is burning down schools because in their fundamentalist religious view, women should not be educated. This reminds me of the CRC view that the 1990s MCPS sex ed curriculum is sufficient, even with all its glaring omissions.
Post invasion Women are voting, not sure if Gay activists groups want to migrate there (hey, I would consider funding tickets) ...
Are you saying that women didn't vote in Iraq before the US invaded and occupied it? You are confused again Theresa. That was Afghanistan, not Iraq.
thus I don't think homosexual rights has been broached yet (go for it guys, Jim I would seriously consider starting a non profit for the express purpose of funding your trip).
Whatever.
I really am amazed by posts like this. but, okay, let's try and figure out how many folks were killled by Saddam's murderous regime as opposed to ALL causualites, murder/war/or otherwise, during the Iraq war/occupation/whatever you would like to call it.....
folks includes everyone... us and iraqis and insurgents and every human being affected.
If you want to research this, I would love to see the statistics.
How interesting, Theresa. You're willing to consider buying Jim a plane ticket to Iraq but not interested in funding or doing the research to prove or disprove your point. We now have a clearer picture of your motives and intent. Thank you.
45 million human beings murdered in the united states since Roe v Wade and there bodies are tosed in a dumpster. does TTF care?
Defender of Truth said... ?
like we did not know that. it was a pointed comment, but thanks for the clarification keep up the good work?
Look Dana if you have a verified birth defect I have no problem with you being treated medically but do not tell me it is normal. There are thousands of papers that confirm that sexual identity confusion is caused by child sexual abuse. Denying this is silly. We know homosexuality is not genetic. This is well documented. And it would make little sense if it were. What use is homosexuality to the survival of the species? None. We do not live in a perfect world, Let us at least be honest about it.
JimK said...
???
jim read what the judge said. then get back to me.
Post a Comment
<< Home