CRC Threatens "Huge Legal Expense"
Henrietta Brown ("Retta") addressed the Montgomery County Board of Education this morning.
She complained about some stuff and then noted that:
We guess those "several other members of the CAC" would be Peter Sprigg, who is the PFOX rep, and Maria Peña-Faustino, who is .. a Republican, I guess, she wasn't on the committee as a representative of any group -- she voted with them on most things. I'll bet you money that "several" in this case really means "two." Or as they say in the CRC, "two thousand."
The next part of the text used some words like "egregious" and "exacerbated," and sounded, well, like somebody else wrote it.
She ended her presentation with a not-very-veiled threat:
It is a sad thing, but a big part of our litigious society, that somebody can push somebody around by threatening to sue. The sheer expense of legal representation is enough to make many people and even corporations back down, and give the blackmailers whatever they're asking for. We don't believe you actually slipped and hurt yourself in our store, but it's cheaper and easier to just give you X dollars than to spend Y dollars on lawyers and make the newspapers.
That's what it's come down to. Do it our way or we'll cause "another round of huge legal expense."
I addressed the board, too, mainly to present them with our point-by-point rebuttal of the CRC "minority report." They have been passing around a draft of this document, and so we put together about nine pages of responses to their points. I also told the board that the citizens committee worked very hard to treat the CRC and PFOX reps fairly, that we had discussed every suggestion no matter how frivolous it was, and that they should not think we had mistreated the suers.
I didn't say "suers." It was in my first draft but I took it out. I didn't want to start laughing, you know, talking about serious stuff. And I didn't want the Board laughing while I was talking. You only have two minutes and that's not very much time.
Some questions. I don't know who is representing MCPS legally right now. The last lawsuit was not won by the anti-MCPS groups, it was lost by school-district lawyers who went into court unprepared and were taken by surprise. Whoever's representing the county should be looking very closely at the stuff CRC is saying. Retta spelled out their legal strategy today, and there is no excuse for any lawyer being surprised when they are sued for 1.viewpoint discrimination issues and 2.students' First Amendment rights. They handed it out today, and Retta spoke into the microphones. It was on the Internet, it's on tape, you can watch it in beautiful Microsoft-Vision in the comfort of your own web browser. If the lawyers see it coming, they can beat this. It's not a strong case, either way, but if you're standing there stratching your head, trying to figure out what's going on and why they're saying these things, it is still possible to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Like last time.
Will the district back down because of the cost? TeachTheFacts exists to support the Board in defending itself from this attack by extremists, but that doesn't work if they won't ... defend themselves. It's not just themselves they're defending, of course, it's all of us, this is for the good people of the county who want to treat others fairly and want kids to get a good, clear-eyed education. I don't think we'll just sit back and watch passively if MCPS decides to avoid the fight, if they concede any of their ground in order to placate this tiny group of radicals. Looking at the new school board, I know their hearts are in the right place -- do they, as a group, have the grit to fight for what they believe?
She complained about some stuff and then noted that:
CRC's representative to the CAC [citizens advisory committee] has joined with several other members of the CAC in submitting a minority report that raises many of these concerns. I would urge the Superintendent, his staff and the BOE to carefully consider the points raised in the minority report and to take them into consideration before approving the new school curriculum
We guess those "several other members of the CAC" would be Peter Sprigg, who is the PFOX rep, and Maria Peña-Faustino, who is .. a Republican, I guess, she wasn't on the committee as a representative of any group -- she voted with them on most things. I'll bet you money that "several" in this case really means "two." Or as they say in the CRC, "two thousand."
The next part of the text used some words like "egregious" and "exacerbated," and sounded, well, like somebody else wrote it.
She ended her presentation with a not-very-veiled threat:
The children, parents and other tax payers of Montgomery County need a new curriculum but they do not need or deserve another round of huge legal expense caused by MCPS continuing to wrestle with what should be settled law.
It is a sad thing, but a big part of our litigious society, that somebody can push somebody around by threatening to sue. The sheer expense of legal representation is enough to make many people and even corporations back down, and give the blackmailers whatever they're asking for. We don't believe you actually slipped and hurt yourself in our store, but it's cheaper and easier to just give you X dollars than to spend Y dollars on lawyers and make the newspapers.
That's what it's come down to. Do it our way or we'll cause "another round of huge legal expense."
I addressed the board, too, mainly to present them with our point-by-point rebuttal of the CRC "minority report." They have been passing around a draft of this document, and so we put together about nine pages of responses to their points. I also told the board that the citizens committee worked very hard to treat the CRC and PFOX reps fairly, that we had discussed every suggestion no matter how frivolous it was, and that they should not think we had mistreated the suers.
I didn't say "suers." It was in my first draft but I took it out. I didn't want to start laughing, you know, talking about serious stuff. And I didn't want the Board laughing while I was talking. You only have two minutes and that's not very much time.
Some questions. I don't know who is representing MCPS legally right now. The last lawsuit was not won by the anti-MCPS groups, it was lost by school-district lawyers who went into court unprepared and were taken by surprise. Whoever's representing the county should be looking very closely at the stuff CRC is saying. Retta spelled out their legal strategy today, and there is no excuse for any lawyer being surprised when they are sued for 1.viewpoint discrimination issues and 2.students' First Amendment rights. They handed it out today, and Retta spoke into the microphones. It was on the Internet, it's on tape, you can watch it in beautiful Microsoft-Vision in the comfort of your own web browser. If the lawyers see it coming, they can beat this. It's not a strong case, either way, but if you're standing there stratching your head, trying to figure out what's going on and why they're saying these things, it is still possible to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Like last time.
Will the district back down because of the cost? TeachTheFacts exists to support the Board in defending itself from this attack by extremists, but that doesn't work if they won't ... defend themselves. It's not just themselves they're defending, of course, it's all of us, this is for the good people of the county who want to treat others fairly and want kids to get a good, clear-eyed education. I don't think we'll just sit back and watch passively if MCPS decides to avoid the fight, if they concede any of their ground in order to placate this tiny group of radicals. Looking at the new school board, I know their hearts are in the right place -- do they, as a group, have the grit to fight for what they believe?
posted by JimK at 10:35 PM
62 Comments:
"It's not a strong case,"
Not Einstein - and not Clarence Darrow either.
"this is for the good people of the county who want to treat others fairly and want kids to get a good, clear-eyed education"
Your goal is to benefit gay advocacy groups. If you were concerned about kids, you'd support telling them the truth about the dangers connected with the behaviors.
Your goal is to benefit gay advocacy groups.
And why would we do that, Anon?
JimK
You are so determined to "defend the rights" of the gay folks you feel are trod upon that you have blinded yourself to the harm it does to not tell kids about the dangers of the behavior.
You not tell kids things like 40% of the new AIDS infections in the US were because of MSM, or the percentage of identified adults males that are HIV positive, because your are afraid of stigmatizing the gay population. It is not fair to the kids.
They are prone to experiment at this age, and you do leave them quite vulnerable if you don't warn them. In one breath you say that the behavior is innate and that you can't change it, and in the next breath you say things like "lots of gays look back and realized they felt different as kids" and not also say "and most of kids recall feeling different during adolescence". Ok, I am not bothering to look up the quotes exactly, it's close though.
You don't say things like "some people take hormones to try and change their sex" without pointing out that a lot of doctors think this is nuts.
You are hurting the kids Jim.
I know you just think you are trying to keep gays from being stigmatized, but one of these days you are going to realize exactly how much harm you have done.
Anon writes,
Your goal is to benefit gay advocacy groups.
To which Jim replies,
And why would we do that, Anon?
Thanks for the laughs Jim...I needed them.
Orin
Anon, there's no way it's "hurting the kids" to suggest that gay people can be happy.
Look at Ted Haggard. He was telling people all day long, every day, the same ugly things you're saying here, and then he was going downtown and doing meth with a gay hooker. How much better would it have been if he had accepted his own nature, found a guy he could love and marry, and settled down? There is no more risk in that situation than in a straight marriage.
But because people like you drive it underground, people like Haggard end up taking risks.
It's not like what we say here is going to make somebody decide to be gay. The best we can do is help them live happily with who they are.
JimK
Orin ... what was humor in my question? I meant it seriously. Why would we care about the "gay advocacy groups?"
JimK
"Look at Ted Haggard. He was telling people all day long, every day, the same ugly things you're saying here, and then he was going downtown and doing meth with a gay hooker. How much better would it have been if he had accepted his own nature, found a guy he could love and marry, and settled down?"
Did it ever occur to you that Haggard wanted to have a heterosexual marriage and just have some gay sex on the side? If so, is that something we should also teach the kids is OK? Truth is most gays don't want a "gay marriage".
Did it ever occur to you that both Haggard and the hooker believed that anal sex with condoms is perfectly safe? Our whole society deserves the truth.
As for what you call "ugly things", the kids deserve the truth. They can make up their own mind if the truth is beautiful or ugly.
They need to be apprised of the dangers of the behaviors your group advocates normalizing.
"Truth is most gays don't want a "gay marriage"."
Correction - most religious gays say they don't want "gay marriage" due to religiously induced internalized homophobia and self-loathing.
"Did it ever occur to you that both Haggard and the hooker believed that anal sex with condoms is perfectly safe?"
Has either Ted Haggard or Mike Jones reported acquiring an STD as a result of their liaison? If not, it would appear the condoms were effective in preventing STD transmission. The worst devastation wrought by Haggard is the emotional harm his lies caused his loved ones. Nothing is going to keep anyone safe from the consequences of such dishonesty.
"Not Einstein - and not Clarence Darrow either."
I thought Anon was a Christian. What happened to "Judge not, that ye be not judged" (Matthew 7:1)?
When the positions of "gay advocacy groups" coincide with the positions of the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Psychological Association, why wouldn't people seek to have that wisdom in the health education curriculum? And why wouldn't people choose to follow the lead of those same professional associations in rejecting ideological attempts to impose contrary views on the health education curriculum?
"most religious gays say they don't want "gay marriage" due to religiously induced internalized homophobia and self-loathing."
I think you've got this bass-ackwards. Religious gays, trying to reconcile their faith with these temptations, are the ones probably more likely to want a new type of marriage to legitimize their attempt. The secular gays are the ones who could care less.
"Has either Ted Haggard or Mike Jones reported acquiring an STD as a result of their liaison? If not, it would appear the condoms were effective in preventing STD transmission."
I don't think there has been enough disclosure about what went on to draw any conclusions. The number of encounters is unknown and, for all we know, they didn't exchange bodily fluids. Finally, for all we know, an STD revelation is coming.
"I thought Anon was a Christian. What happened to "Judge not, that ye be not judged" (Matthew 7:1)?"
To begin with, it was a joke.
To continue with, I'm sure jim would agree he's not Einstein or Darrow.
To go further, I wouldn't mind if anyone said the same of me.
To conclude, the quoted verse was clearly talking about moral condemnation of individuals not assessments of professional expertise.
Oh, and did I say I was a Christian or have I just defended Christians?
"When the positions of "gay advocacy groups" coincide with the positions of the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Psychological Association, why wouldn't people seek to have that wisdom in the health education curriculum?"
There could be many reasons. For example, these associations aren't spiritual or moral authorities. Another reason is that they made these decisions without the support of the majority of professionals in their field. Another reason is that they have came to bizarre conclusions on other matters that tends to create doubt about their wisdom in this area. Oh, and the CDC and Surgeon General often have other ideas. Oh, and the statements are vague and need to elaborated on to have any value.
And who was that Surgeon General again?
JimK
Anonymous said:
"Truth is most gays don't want a "gay marriage.""
When the Washington Times discusses this topic, they only put quotes around the word "marriage." The Times in headlines uses the word gay, but otherwise refers to us as "homosexual" (which many people consider mildly insulting).
Anyway, most of my friends are in committed relationships and would like legal recognition of that. Almost all openly gay people I know support marriage rights.
Do you have your finger on the pulse of part of the gay community I'm not familiar with? How do you know what gay people think? I sometimes get the feeling that you share with us stereotypes that you've heard, without really asking or forming opinions based on real people. There's a word for stereotyping whole groups of people.
Does it start with a b?
Here's a question, Robert:
Homosexuals say they can't help who they're attracted to and it's inhumane to expect them not to fulfill those desires.
How about if marriage were redefined to include homosexuals? You were married to a guy and suddenly felt attracted to another guy. Would you say you had any choice about that feeling? Would it be inhumane to expect you not to have sex with the new guy? How about if you, through no choice of your own, starting experiencing attraction to a new guy every few days? Wouldn't it be inhumane, under the rationale commonly used by gay advocates, to expect you not to have sex with all those guys? I mean you have no choice what to be attracted to and you just happen to feelin' that way without warning, right?
Anonymous asked:
"How about if marriage were redefined to include homosexuals? You were married to a guy and suddenly felt attracted to another guy. Would you say you had any choice about that feeling? Would it be inhumane to expect you not to have sex with the new guy? How about if you, through no choice of your own, starting experiencing attraction to a new guy every few days? Wouldn't it be inhumane, under the rationale commonly used by gay advocates, to expect you not to have sex with all those guys? I mean you have no choice what to be attracted to and you just happen to feelin' that way without warning, right?"
I have a student who says things just so he can get in arguments with other students, not because he has any real interest in what he's talking about. He does it just to provoke people, just to stimulate himself.
I'm trying to convince the other students not to respond to him, with only limited success. They say it's hard not to be provoked, just to "let it go", as I encourage them.
I think I can understand their dilemma.
Robert
Try this Anon:
"How about if marriage were NOT redefined to include homosexuals? You were married to a LADY and suddenly felt attracted to another LADY. Would you say you had any choice about that feeling? Would it be inhumane to expect you not to have sex with the new LADY? How about if you, through no choice of your own, starting experiencing attraction to a new LADY every few days? Wouldn't it be inhumane, under the rationale commonly used by MARRIAGE advocates, to expect you not to have sex with all those LADIES? I mean you have no choice what to be attracted to and you just happen to feelin' that way without warning, right?"
"How about if marriage were NOT redefined to include homosexuals? You were married to a LADY and suddenly felt attracted to another LADY. Would you say you had any choice about that feeling? Would it be inhumane to expect you not to have sex with the new LADY? How about if you, through no choice of your own, starting experiencing attraction to a new LADY every few days? Wouldn't it be inhumane, under the rationale commonly used by MARRIAGE advocates, to expect you not to have sex with all those LADIES? I mean you have no choice what to be attracted to and you just happen to feelin' that way without warning, right?"
No, it wouldn't be inhumane. Pro-family advocates don't consider the concept of self-control to be inhumane. While Robert dodges the issue, the point is that whole gay advocacy movement is based on validity of doing whatever you "feel" like doing becuase you can't help how you "feel".
I wonder how Robert would respond if one of his students asked him to explain this paradox:
How can a movement based on "you can't help your feelings so go with them" claim to want to make a lifelong commitment to anything? What if their feelings changed?
Ok. Jim.
You can tell them that gay people can be happy. But you should also warn them that most gay people AREN'T happy - and of the increased risk of suicide, depression, early death (from AIDS), etc.
Anonymous says:
"How can a movement based on "you can't help your feelings so go with them" claim to want to make a lifelong commitment to anything? What if their feelings changed?"
You trivialize fundamental aspects of people lives and identities, and you do it in a snide way. This is deliberately provocative. It indicates to me that you are not at all interested in the supposed "questions" that you ask, but instead enjoy engaging in empty argument (i.e. you like poking and prodding people).
You should stop.
rrjr
Anonymous said "Truth is most gays don't want a "gay marriage".".
You don't have any evidence for that anonymous. Every gay I've ever met wants someone to love, whether they feel that's necessary to confirm with marriage or not. There's no danger in a committed loving same sex relationship, and that is what we are advocating for gay people.
Anonymous said "Did it ever occur to you that Haggard wanted to have a heterosexual marriage and just have some gay sex on the side? If so, is that something we should also teach the kids is OK?".
The guy said he struggled with being gay all his life. Someone like that doesn't just want a little bit of gay sex on the side, they're using marriage for social approval and as an attempt to hide what they are truly feeling. How many broken heterosexual marriages does it take before you stop advocating this bad, bad idea?
Its not realistic to expect gays to be abstinent and its a bad idea to encourage them to get into problematic heterosexual marriages. If we don't provide guidence to young gays and encourage responsible gay relationships we encourage the very promiscuity you disingenously claim to be against. Of course in the end you really aren't against gay promiscuity, you are against gays period. You don't really care about supposed gay promiscuity because your goal is to denigrate gays and you want them to be promiscuous for this purpose - your goal isn't to help all people live the happiest lives possible.
Regarding the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Psychological Association anonymous said "these associations aren't spiritual or moral authorities".
Anonymous, they have far more moral authority than people who base their morality on the ignorant selfishness of bronze age tribes. As spirits don't exist spirituality is irrelevant. These organizations represent the best current knowledge whereas what you advocate is based on bigotry and ancient ignorance. If having made bizarre conclusions is reason to reject all of a communities ideas no comunity has come up with more bizarre ideas than the religious community and no community is more deserving of having its outlandish beliefs rejected.
No gay believes it is any more inhumane to restrict them to one marriage partner than it is inumane for a heterosexual male to be restricted to one marriage patner. There is no comparing the deprivation of all sex partners with the rejection of multiple sex partners.
"You trivialize fundamental aspects of people lives and identities, and you do it in a snide way."
That's probably how ex-gays feel about TTF.
Randi
It's like the old show tune says:
Promiscuity and gay marriage
Go together like a horse and carriage
This I'll tell you brother
You can't have one without the other
"If we don't provide guidence to young gays and encourage responsible gay relationships we encourage the very promiscuity you disingenously claim to be against."
Actually, they're not really coachable.
"No gay believes it is any more inhumane to restrict them to one marriage partner than it is inumane for a heterosexual male to be restricted to one marriage patner."
This is just bigoted. They have multi-orientation. They didn't choose to want to have sex with lots of different people. They were just made that way. It's just cruel, hateful and bigoted to expect not do it with all the people they love.
Anonymous said "You can tell them that gay people can be happy. But you should also warn them that most gay people AREN'T happy".
As usual anonymous has no actual knowledge of the situtation so he makes stuff up.
Psychological Testing Affirms the Mental Health of Homosexuals
This represents the evidence that homosexuality is not pathological, and comes from studies that were primarily done in the 60's, 70's and 80's. There were a flurry of studies done after the classical study by Evelyn Hooker in 1957, which produced the large body of studies from the 60's -70's. Then the studies dwindle down as the 80's progress, and very few studies can be found in the 90's. This is because all of the evidence is convergent, so no further studies were warranted, and the conclusion was that homosexuality evidenced no pathological characteristics that were significantly different from heterosexuals.
a) MMPI data:
L Braaten-1965, Genetic Psychology Monographs 71:269-310
R Dean-1964, J of Consulting Psychology 28 483-86
W Horstman-1972, Homosexuality and Psychopathology(dissertation)
Adelman-1977, Arch of Sex Beh 6(3):193-201
Oberstone-1976, Psychology of Women Quarterly 1(2):172-86
b) Other tests (Eysenck's Personality Inventory, Cattel's 16PF, California Personality Inventory, etc)
R Evans-1970, J of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 34:212-15
R Turner-1974, Br J of Psychiatry 125:447-49
M Siegelman-1972, Br J of Psychiatry 120:477-481
M Siegelman-1972, Archives of Sexual Behavior 2:9-25
M Freedman-1971, Homosexuality and Psychological Functioning, Brooks/Cole Publ.
J Hopkins-1969, Br J of Psychiatry 115:1433-1436
M Wilson-1971, Psychological Reports 28:407-412
N Thompson-1971, J of Abnormal Psychology 78:237-40
E Ohlson-1974, J of Sex Research 10:308-315
D Christie-1986, Psychological Reports 59:1279-1282
H Carlson-1984, Sex Roles 10:457-67
T Clark-1975, Am J of Psychoanalysis 35:163-68
R LaTorre-1983, J of Homosexuality 9:87-97
P Nurius-1983, J of Sex Research 19:119-36
C Rand-1982, J of Homosexuality 8(1):27-39 J Harry-1983, Archives of Sexual Behavior 12:1-19
E Hooker-1957, J of Projective Techniques 21:18-31
c) Reviews
B Harris-1977, Bulletin of the Am Acad of Psychiatry and Law 5:75-89
J Gonsiorek-1977, Psychological Adjustment and Homosexuality, Select Press.
W Paul-1982, Homosexuality: Social, Psychological and Biological Issues; Sage Publ.
M Hart-1978, J of Clinical Psychiatry 39:604-608
R Meredith-1980, Professional Psychology 11:174-93
B Reiss-1974, J of Homosexuality 1:71-85
B Reiss-1980, Homosexual Behavior a modern reappraisal, Basic Books
P Falk-1989, Am Psychologist 44(6):941-947
Kingdon-1979, Counseling Psychologist 8(1):44-45
V Armon-1960, Journal of Projective Techniques 24:292-309
N Thompson-1971, J of Abnormal Psychology 78:237-40
d) Psychiatric Interviews
R Pillard-1988, Psychiatric Annals 18:51-56
M Saghir-1970, Am J of Psychiatry 126:1079-86
Anonymous said ""How can a movement based on "you can't help your feelings so go with them" claim to want to make a lifelong commitment to anything? What if their feelings changed?"
That's a straw man. No gays are making that open-ended claim. No gays are saying all desires are beyond control. They're saying its just as unrealistic to ask gays to have no sexual contact with men as it is to ask straight men to have no sexual contact with women. It makes just as much sense to say that if straight men can't avoid sex with one woman then they can't be monogamous either - the "arguement" works both ways.
Anonymous, as usual you don't have any proof that gay marriages are promiscuous, if your mouth is flapping that's all the evidence you need to believe what your saying is correct.
Where do you come off saying most gay folks AREN'T happy? How on earth would you know? Because you listen to Christian radio?
And where do you get this? "You don't say things like "some people take hormones to try and change their sex without pointing out that a lot of doctors think this is nuts."
Firstly, that is part of the consensus treatment protocol for being transsexual. There are very few physicians who think it is "nuts." Secondly, no one is "trying to change their sex." They're repairing an intersex condition, just as you would repair a congenital cleft lip or cleft palate.And, as I've pointed out many times, this treatment is one of the most effective in the entire medical profession. The number of people out there like Reverend Grace are miniscule (<1.0%) compared to the hundreds of thousands who are happy with their choice, regardless of the testifiers like Michelle that the CRC trots out to the Board of Ed. And I have no idea if the Reverend ever had any surgery.
David writes,
When the positions of "gay advocacy groups" coincide with the positions of the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Psychological Association, why wouldn't people seek to have that wisdom in the health education curriculum? And why wouldn't people choose to follow the lead of those same professional associations in rejecting ideological attempts to impose contrary views on the health education curriculum?
Uh, having read accounts of the deliberations of the American Psychiatric Association on the DSM-II it is difflicult NOT to conclude that the result was as much a capitulation to politcal pressures as anything else.
Orin when you're restricting your reading to the biased accounts of anti-gay religionists of course that's what you'd hear. Of course an objective person looking at the 15 or so pre-73 studies I mentioned would come to a completely different conclusion than you.
Orin,
Randi makes a very good response. I would also note that the fact that in the 33 years since the American Psychiatric Association changed its position, all other mainstream medical and mental health professional associations have followed suit, and the APsychiatricA has not felt the need to retreat from its 1973 decision. Decades of experience and peer reviewed research following the close study back in the early 1970s is certainly strong indication that the APA had it right in 1973.
Anon,
You assert that TTFers "are so determined to 'defend the rights' of the gay folks you feel are trod upon that you have blinded yourself to the harm it does to not tell kids about the dangers of the behavior." This is a straw man. Those of us who have pressed for revisions in the health ed curriculum have also urged, successfully, that the curriculum make it clear that the only way to guarantee 100% protection against STIs is abstinence until one is in a monogamous, committed relationship. I do not use the word marriage as a substitute, because in most places, gays are not yet legally permitted, in the eyes of the law, to have their unions called marriage.
If you have any doubts about this, ask Retta to play for you the tapes she made of the CAC meetings I chaired.
Anon
I have finally decided that you are an unhappy mean spirited bigot. You don't care about the kids- you care about you. You spout non-scientific nonsense you expect us to take as fact based on your religious beliefs - and on poor sources which you believe trump major medical associations. You claim those associations are all politically motivated. you know, I hear that Jews like me run the media, the gov't and the banks and that immigrants are the cause of all the problems and that minorities make things bad for White Men. All bigotry, all lies- and your statements are no different.
"Orin when you're restricting your reading to the biased accounts of anti-gay religionists of course that's what you'd hear. Of course an objective person looking at the 15 or so pre-73 studies I mentioned would come to a completely different conclusion than you."
And yet despite the overwhelming evicence in these studies, the majority of practitioners five years later disagreed with the APA's decision. I guess they were all "anti-gay religionists".
"Randi makes a very good response. I would also note that the fact that in the 33 years since the American Psychiatric Association changed its position, all other mainstream medical and mental health professional associations have followed suit, and the APsychiatricA has not felt the need to retreat from its 1973 decision."
Yes, and the Surgeon General's office hasn't changed it's warning on anal sex and condoms. The APA hasn't changed its mind on trangenserism.
So, they must be right.
Right, David?
"I do not use the word marriage as a substitute, because in most places, gays are not yet legally permitted, in the eyes of the law, to have their unions called marriage."
That's to your discredit. The latest issue of Time magazine has an article by noted and sucessful family psychologist, James Dobson, explaining the decades of evidence from studies showing that a marriage with a mother and father is the absolute best situation for children.
"I have finally decided that you are an unhappy mean spirited bigot. You don't care about the kids- you care about you. You spout non-scientific nonsense you expect us to take as fact based on your religious beliefs - and on poor sources which you believe trump major medical associations. You claim those associations are all politically motivated. you know, I hear that Jews like me run the media, the gov't and the banks and that immigrants are the cause of all the problems and that minorities make things bad for White Men. All bigotry, all lies- and your statements are no different."
I have repeatedly defended a religion which worships a Jew and whose sacred scriptures were all written by Jews and you have the nerve to accuse me of anti-semitism. You sound like the bigot to me. Anyone who doesn't agree with your simplistic notions is responsible for all the world's troubles. You're the kind of irrational hothead that causes most of the world's problems.
Here's another view:
"Over and again the data show that a loving and safe home environment is important, not the gender of the parents. The mainstream research is so clear on this matter that the American Psychological Association's resolution on Sexual Orientation, Parents, and Children, which was adopted by the APA Council of Representatives in July, 2004, states: "the APA supports the protection of parent-child relationships through the legalization of joint adoptions and second parent adoptions of children being reared by same-sex couples."
The American Psychological Association, one of the world's largest mental health organizations, would not have supported the protection of legalized adoption by gay and lesbian parents if the data had suggested that children were at risk in such households."
--Dr. Christopher R. Martell, President of the American Psychological Association's Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Issues
Soulforce recognizes TIME's history of excellent coverage of LGBT issues. We call on the editors to continue this tradition by checking Dobson's facts on lesbian and gay parenthood."
http://www.soulforce.org/petition/2
Anonymous said " the majority of practitioners five years later disagreed with the APA's decision.".
Let's see the proof of that. And what about today? Odds are most anti-gay people justify it with religion.
Anonymous at December 13, 2006 8:09 PM
Anonymous, James Dobson is a religious quack. The studies religious people like him quote compare children raised in mother/father households with single parents, not with gay parents. Study after study shows that children of gay parents do just as well as children raised in traditional households. In fact some studies show children raised by gay parents do better - no doubt because those children planned and wanted as is not always the case with heterosexual couples.
"The Lesbian Mother," by Bernice Goodman [American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
Vol. 43 (1983), pp. 283-284]
Kirkpatrick, Martha et al; "Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: A Comparative
Study," 51 American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 545 (1983)
"Homosexual Parents,"
by Brenda Maddox [Psychology Today, February, 1982, pp.66-69]
Riddle, Dorothy I.; "Relating to Children: Gays as Role Models," 34 Journal of
Social Issues, 38-58 (1978)
"The Avowed Lesbian Mother and Her Right to Child Custody," by Marilyn Riley,
San Diego Law Review, Vol. 12 (1975), p. 799]
Susoeff, Steve; "Assessing Children's Best Interests When a Parent is Gay or
Lesbian: Toward a Rational Custody Standard," 32 UCLA Law Review 852, 896 (1985)
Gibbs, Elizabeth D.; "Psychosocial Development of Children Raised by Lesbian
Mothers: A Review of Research," 8 Women & Therapy 65 (1988)
Green, Richard; "The Best Interests of the Child With a Lesbian Mother," 10
Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry & Law 7 (1982)
Turner, Pauline et al; "Parenting in Gay and Lesbian Families," 1 Journal of Gay
& Lesbian Psychotherapy 55, 57 (1990)
Golombok, Susan; "Children in Lesbian and Single-Parent Households: Psychosexual
and Psychiatric Appraisal," 24 Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry 551
(1983)
Hoeffer, Beverly; "Children's Acquisition of Sex-Role Behavior in Lesbian-Mother
Families," 51 American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 536 (1981)
Green, Richard; "Sexual Identity of 37 Children Raised by Homosexual or
Transsexual Parents," 135 American Journal of Psychiatry 692 (1978)
Green, Richard; "Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: A Comparison with Solo
Parent Heterosexual Mothers and their Children," 15 Archives of Sexual Behavior
167 (1986)
Gottman, Julie Schwartz; "Children of Gay and Lesbian Parents," 14 Marriage and
Family Review 177 (1989)
Rees, Richard; "A Comparison of Children of Lesbian and Single Heterosexual
Mothers on Three Measures of Socialization," 40 Dissertation Abstracts
International 3418-B, 3419-B (1979)
Sterkel, Alisa; "Psychosocial Develpment of Children of Lesbian Mothers," Gay &
Lesbian Parents 75, 81 (Frederick W. Bozett, ed., 1987)
Mucklow, Bonnie M., & Phelan, Gladys K.; "Lesbian and Traditional Mothers'
Responses to Adult Response to Child Behavior and Self-Concept," 44
Psychological Report 880 (1979)
Whittlin, William A.; "Homosexuality and Child Custody: A Psychiatric
Viewpoint," 21 Concilation Courts Review 77 (1983)
Herek, Gregory M.; "Myths About Sexual Orientation: A Lawyer's Guide to Social
Science Research," 1 Law & Sexuality: A Review of Lesbian & Gay Legal Issues 133
(1991)
Cramer, David; "Gay Parents and Their Children: A Review of the Research and
Practical Implications," 64 Journal of Counseling & Development 504 (1986)
Wismont, Judith M., & Reame, Nancy E.; "The Lesbian Childbearing Experience:
Assessing Developmental Tasks, 21 Journal of Nursing Scholarship 137 (1989)
Meyer, Cheryl L.; "Legal, Psychological, and Medical Considerations in Lesbian
Parenting," 2 Law & Sexuality: A Review of Lesbian & Gay Legal Issues 237 (1992)
"In the 'Best Interests of the Child' and the Lesbian Mother: A Proposal for
Legislative Change in New York," 48 Albany Law Review 1021 (1984) Harris &
Turner, "Gay & Lesbian Parents," 12 Journal of Homosexuality 101 (1985-1986)
Kleber, Howell & Tibbits-Kleber, "The Impact of Parental Homosexuality in Child
Custody Cases: A Review of the Literature," 14 Bulletin of the American Academy
of Psychiatry & Law 81 (1986)
The APA is currently reviewing the issue and changing its mind about gender identity. A lot has happened in the past 16 years.
And, as I've said elsewhere, the only thing at issue here is the classification. There is no longer any dispute about the treatment of such developmental variations.
"Anonymous said " the majority of practitioners five years later disagreed with the APA's decision.".
Let's see the proof of that. And what about today?"
Randi
You can search the blog. We all looked at this about a year ago when I uncovered this poll in a mainstream psychological journal. Any of your buddies here can confirm it's factuality.
At the time, if I remember, Christine was so eager to discredit it that she contacted the guy who conducted the poll and he said that he believed the most likely explanantion was that the APA had acted on "socio-political" considerations rather than scientific evidence when they issued their statement in 1973. Dana, then the conscience of TTF, confirmed that this was her recollection of the common practitioner's opinion at the time.
As for now, the dearth of polling data on current opinion among practitioners is interesting to say the least.
"Anonymous, James Dobson is a religious quack."
Well, considering your assessment of Judeo-Christianity, I don't your opinion would upset him much.
Anonymous said...
""You trivialize fundamental aspects of people lives and identities, and you do it in a snide way."
That's probably how ex-gays feel about TTF."
Dearest Anonymous,
I've talked with people who identify as ex-gay, and they seemed a little resentful that many people don't believe them. The public indignation about this appears mostly to come from PFOX.
Anyway, is this the "he did it first defense?" You should know that doesn't fly.
Robert
I would think that a person who used to be gay and isn't any more would say, "I used to be gay."
Saying they're "ex-gay" seems to indicate their affiliation with a mission, and signals that there's more going on than just a change of heart. That's why people are suspicious of them -- the term itself suggests that their motives are mixed.
JimK
Anonymous at December 14, 2006 10:04 AM
Anonymous, I'm not about to go digging through piles of this blog to see if there's any truth to what you said. If you're so certain of this it shouldn't be a big problem for you to document it.
The fact is the 15 or so pre-73 studies I mentioned showing gays are not mentally ill are plenty of scientififc evidence for the APA to have changed its classification. Not to mention that there was no scientific evidence in the first place to justify putting gayness in the DSM.
"The fact is the 15 or so pre-73 studies I mentioned showing gays are not mentally ill are plenty of scientififc evidence for the APA to have changed its classification. Not to mention that there was no scientific evidence in the first place to justify putting gayness in the DSM."
Well most practitioners in 1978 disagreed with your dubious studies. I think their credentials exceed yours.
1973 was at the apex of the sexual revolution. There was tremendous pressure to conform to this new way of thinking. If you were alive then you might remember this.
Anon, what happened in 1978 that you keep mentioning?
JimK
Here's some insight into the APA's decision from it's president at the time:
"The situation was aptly summed up in an article in the November 1986 Omni magazine: "Disorders come and go. Even Sigmund Freud's concept of neurosis was dropped in the original DSM-III (1980). And in 1973 APA [American Psychiatric Association] trustees voted to wipe out almost all references to homosexuality as a disorder. Before the vote, being gay was considered a psychiatric problem. After the vote the disorder was relegated to psychiatry's attic. 'It's a matter of fashion,' says Dr. John Spiegel of Brandeis University, who was president of the APA in 1973, when the debate over homosexuality flared. 'And fashions keep changing'"
Here's a description of the atmosphere in which the APA's decision took place:
"In the three years leading up to the 1973 APA meeting, the previous national meetings had been repeatedly disrupted by gay activists. At the 1970 meeting in San Francisco certain sessions were broken up with shouts and jeers, prohibiting any rational discussion or debate.
At the APA's 1971 meeting in Washington, threats and intimidation accomplished what discussion could not. Ronald Bayer, in a work sympathetic toward homosexuality and the gay rights movement, recounts: "Using forged credentials, gay activists gained access to the exhibit area and, coming across a display marketing aversive conditioning [i.e., punishing an organism whenever it makes a particular response] techniques for the treatment of homosexuals, demanded its removal. Threats were made against the exhibitor, who was told that unless his booth was dismantled, it would be torn down. After frantic behind-the-scenes consultations, and in an effort to avoid violence, the convention leadership agreed to have the booth removed."
These tactics continued in the same manner at the APA's 1972 national meeting. It was against this backdrop that the association's trustees finally made its controversial 1973 decision. When a referendum on this was sent out to all 25,000 APA members, only a quarter of them returned their ballots. The final tally was 58 percent favoring the removal of homosexuality from their list of disorders.
Four years later, Dr. Charles Socarides — who was at the meetings and was an expert in the area of homosexuality, having treated homosexuals for more than twenty years — described the political atmosphere leading up to the 1973 vote. He writes that during this time, "militant homosexual groups continued to attack any psychiatrist or psychoanalyst who dared to present his findings as to the psychopathology [i.e., the study of mental disorders from all aspects] of homosexuality before national or local meetings of psychiatrists or in public forums." Elsewhere Socarides stated that the decision of the APA trustees was "the medical hoax of the century."
Was this the end of the debate? Did the vast majority of "competent" psychiatrists agree with the APA's decision? In 1977 ten thousand members of the APA were polled at random, asking them their opinion on this. In an article entitled "Sick Again?" Time magazine summarized the results of the poll: "Of those answering, 69% said they believed 'homosexuality is usually a pathological adaptation, as opposed to a normal variation,' and 18% disagreed. 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 that homosexuals' problems have more to do with their own inner conflicts than with stigmatization by society at large."
Anonymous, what's dubious is your fact empty opinion. The fact is that in 1973 there was plenty of scientific evidence that being gay is not a mental illness and none that being gay was a mental illness. My credentials and the credentials of uninvolved anti-gay APA members are not at issue, the issue is the large amount of scientific research available at the time - all of it showing being gay is not a mental illness.
If the APA made an erroneous political decision in 1973 you have a very hard time explaining why 33 years of hindsight hasn't resulted in a reversal. I'll tell you why, its because it was the correct decision, it was supported by the science at the time and as I posted, every study since. There is no evidence supporting your bigotry, get over it.
The poll of 10,000 members of APA in 1977, 4 years after APA changed the designation of homosexuality as a mental illness in the face of violent threats by radical gay advocates, and in which 69% of professionals called homosexuality a "pathological adaptation" was conducted by the journal Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality.
"If the APA made an erroneous political decision in 1973 you have a very hard time explaining why 33 years of hindsight hasn't resulted in a reversal."
No, I don't. It's political. Gays are wealthier than average and have a great deal of political influence. Since it's a value judgment that can't be easily proven or disproven, the APA takes the easiest and safest position.
"My credentials and the credentials of uninvolved anti-gay APA members are not at issue, the issue is the large amount of scientific research available at the time"
So, Randi, your evaluation of psychological research is more valid than 69% of educated and practicing professionals of the APA.
You should tell David. He swears by the APA.
Anonymous, the distorted religionist's account you give does nothing to refute the 34 studies I mentioned showing that being gay is not a mental illness. Socarides died a pathetic discredited failure who despite his twisted beliefs was unable to "cure" his gay son. Time has only reinforced the fact that the APA made the correct decision in 1973:
Historically, psychoanalysts have been the primary opponents to the depathologization of homosexuality in the 1973 APA decision, Socarides and Bieber being by far the most vocal opponents of the decision. However, in a recent survey of psychoanalysts (n=82; Friedman) they found that "no respondents strongly endorsed the type of pathological model proposed by Socarides" (p. 84), and that "the responses of the group as a whole were more towards a health than illness model."
R Friedman-1996; Journal of Homosexuality 32: 79-89
b) In another recent study, it was reported that 47.3% of psychiatric training directors (n=198) view homosexuality as normal or somewhat normal, 51.2% view homosexuality as neutral, and 1.5% view it as somewhat pathological or pathological.
Townsend-1995, Academic Psychiatry 19:213-218
Anonymous said "So, Randi, your evaluation of psychological research is more valid than 69% of educated and practicing professionals of the APA.".
Anonymous, what makes you think any of those people evaluated the research? Where's their rebuttals?If they evaluated the research, no doubt they would have had a different opinion.
The ideas that gays are wealthy is not true. Wealthy gays are more secure and better able to be open about being gay than poor gays. This distorts surveys on the wealth of gays.
The idea that a powerful organization like the APA has been bullied by a tiny portion of the population into doing the wrong thing for 33 years is ridiculous. So is the idea that this is a "value" judgement that can't be easily proven or disproven. Illnesses like schizophrenia and depression hugely impact people's abilities to lead their lives and are readily diagnosable with psychological testing. Its been proven again and again that gays cannot be distinguished from heterosexuals by tests of mental health. You admit you have no proof being gay is a mental illness and the overwhelming scientific evidence is that it is not. Wake up and smell the coffee.
In response to one of those spineless "Anonymous" spouters of hate and ignorance, Randi Schimonsky said:
The ideas that gays are wealthy is not true. Wealthy gays are more secure and better able to be open about being gay than poor gays. This distorts surveys on the wealth of gays.
My Social Security monthly check will increase by $27.00 as of Januaru, 2007. Should I suppose that makes me wealthier and more politically influential than you, Anonymous?
"Anonymous, what makes you think any of those people evaluated the research?"
What makes you think that the minority of APA members who voted the change looked at any research?
Jim K said:
"Saying they're "ex-gay" seems to indicate their affiliation with a mission, and signals that there's more going on than just a change of heart. That's why people are suspicious of them -- the term itself suggests that their motives are mixed."
I would agree. By the Way, do you think our most vociferous anonymous is a real person who really believes what he or she says? He or she comes across as a perfect anti-gay foil: i.e. whatever paints lgbt people in a positive light is wrong to him or her, for a varied collection of reasons. If I were making up an anti-gay blogger, I would create this anonymous.
"I would agree. By the Way, do you think our most vociferous anonymous is a real person who really believes what he or she says?"
You got me again. I'm actually an AI program designed to give TTF someone to argue with. Give thanks.
"He or she comes across as a perfect anti-gay foil: i.e. whatever paints lgbt people in a positive light is wrong to him or her, for a varied collection of reasons. If I were making up an anti-gay blogger, I would create this anonymous."
OK. No more complaints then.
Robert
I swear we're not making them up.
A while back we identified one loudmouth Anon from the server logs, but I'm too busy today to see if this is the same one.
But you're right -- in fact, people have accused us of making these characters up. It would take a very clever person to do that, and one with nothing but time on their hands.
JimK
Anonymous said "What makes you think that the minority of APA members who voted the change looked at any research?".
That their vote was consistent with the research strongly suggests they were influenced by it. Those that chose not to return their ballots obviously weren't particularly concerned one way or the other about the presence of homosexuality in the DSM. Contrary to what you suggest they obviously didn't feel strongly against the decision.
Post a Comment
<< Home