Submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
UPDATED: It is the position of the American Psychological Association that homosexuality is not a choice or a mental illness, but rather a normal variant of sexual orientation for a certain percentage of society. They came to this stand based upon scientific research that showed no connection between homosexuality and psychopathology. In addition to considering homosexuality a normally occurring human behavior, the APA does not support therapies to change sexual orientation and points out that there is no reliable science to suggest such therapies are effective. The APA also issued a resolution opposing discriminatory legislation and initiatives aimed at LGBT people.
In addition, geneticists have also found a link between genes and sexual orientation. While the ongoing studies have not been definitive is establishing genetics as the sole determining factor in human sexual orientation, they do indicate that both genes and environmental factors do play a role in determining sexual orientation. This comports with the research upon which the APA used to set their policies.
The stance of the country’s most recognized psychological professional association and the psychological, sociological and genetic research goes right to the heart of what’s going on in Anoka, Minnesota. Suicide, like sexual orientation, has environmental components influencing the behavior. Research has shown that ambient temperature and duration of sunlight are the dominant environmental influences on suicide, but that social cohesion, socioeconomic status, and social support are also important influences. The situation in Anoka involves students, teachers, school policies, religiously based politics and the suicides and attempted suicides of teenagers. It is not a pretty story.
Over a little less than the last two years, the Anoka-Hennepin school district has had seven student suicides, four of which involved students that were either gay or perceived to be gay and two of those cases involved direct anti-homosexual bullying. Since January of this year, seven Anoka Middle School students have been hospitalized for attempting or threatening suicide. Considering that studies since the 1990’s indicate that homosexual teens have a suicide rate at least twice that of heterosexual teens, this becomes a greater concern when the Anoka-Hennepin school district has been identified by Minnesota public health officials as a “suicide contagion” area due to their abnormally high numbers of suicides and attempted suicides.
Without question, Minnesota is a region with a higher risk for suicides given that it is in a high enough latitude to experience lower average ambient temperatures as well as shorter days on average than regions closer to the equator. But what about the other factors that influence suicide; social cohesion, socioeconomic status, and social support? Anoka is a fairly well to do suburb of Minneapolis, so socioeconomic influences aren’t likely contributors to the abnormally high suicide rate. Social cohesion and support are another matter all together.
Over the last two years, students in the Anoka-Hennepin school district have faced a concerted campaign degrading homosexuals that is driven by local religious and political leaders, but the issue dates back to the mid-90’s when the district instituted a policy known as “no pro homo”. Under this policy, teachers were forbidden to discuss homosexuality, even in the health terms of HIV/AIDS education, and told they could not teach that homosexuality was a “normal, valid lifestyle.” Later the policy was amended to order teachers to remain neutral on the issue of homosexuality. A policy change that only created confusion in the staff by contributing to their uncertainty on how to address bullying and reasonable questions students might have had. Both of these policies were driven by religious conservative activist groups like the Minnesota Family Council (MFC), and its local affiliate, the Parents Action League (PAL). These groups went so far as lobbying to put discredited “reparative therapy” materials in schools. The MFC is also behind a seven year battle to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to ban gay marriage. The amendment comes up for vote next year.
If all of this sounds vaguely familiar, these are the kinds of “therapy” discredited and disapproved of by the APA, but are reportedly practiced by Marcus Bachmann (husband of politician Michelle Bachmann) at his Bachmann & Associates mental health clinics. That is not the only connection the Bachmann’s have to the MFC. Before entering politics, Michelle Bachmann served as a consultant to the MFC. She continues in this role today. Last May, she headlined an MFC Annual Dinner along with Newt Gingrich. As far back as 2004, Bachmann was a proponent of creating an intentionally hostile environment for teen homosexuals in Minnesota schools. As a state representative, Bachmann joined demonstrators seeking the amendment to ban gay marriage, telling the crowd in her now infamous “irrational leaps in logic” style that “In our public schools, whether they want to or not, they’ll be forced to start teaching that same-sex marriage is equal, that it is normal and that children should try it.” Michelle Bachmann, like a lot of people, obviously doesn’t understand what a false equivalence is. Teaching that homosexuality is a normal variant in human sexuality is just good science, teaching that homosexual pairs deserve the same respect as heterosexual pairs is just good civics if you believe that all people are created equal, and nobody is saying that schools should endorse any kind of relationships – heterosexual or homosexual. Endorsement and education about are not the same things. Education is about providing information (and logical skills) so that people can make informed decisions. Endorsement is about pushing a specific agenda; whether it be “buy this product”, “choose this God” or “hate people for no other reason than they are different”. Endorsement of any kind has no place in education. If you think it does, you are free to send your children to religious or other indoctrination based private schools. The drive to oppress homosexuals is not scientifically or legally valid in its basis. The drive to oppress homosexuals is a religious doctrine, specifically a right-wing Christian conservative doctrine. The answer is simple: If you don’t like homosexuality, don’t be one, but you cannot force your religious beliefs on others via state run institutions like public schools without running afoul of the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.
Since the revelation of the higher than normal rate of suicides within the school district, Michelle Bachmann has been curiously silent on the matter. She is, however, on record as opposing anti-bullying legislation. Addressing the state legislature, she said “I think for all us our experience in public schools is there have always been bullies, always have been, always will be. I just don’t know how we’re ever going to get to point of zero tolerance and what does it mean?…What will be our definition of bullying? Will it get to the point where we are completely stifling free speech and expression? Will it mean that what form of behavior will there be—will we be expecting boys to be girls?” Her indifference if not outright hostility to a problem that is related to the unusual number of suicides in her home school district is enough to make one question Bachmann’s willingness to serve all the people of her district and not just the heterosexual conservative Christians she has associated herself with both past and present.
Do we need another state politician that doesn’t represent all of their constituents? Do we need a possible Presidential candidate that has telegraphed that she has no interest in representing the needs of constituents that don’t meet her personal religious standards? When politicians contribute to an environment of intolerance and hatred and this intolerance has a measurable effect on our youth, no matter its basis, should they be held accountable for their misdeeds at the ballot box? Are stronger measures such as Sen. Al Franken’s (D – MN) push for legislation that protects LGBT students necessary? Are the facts of science ever enough to discourage the bad behavior of zealots? What can and should be done to help the youth of Anoka, Minnesota? Bullied and bullies alike?
What do you think?
UPDATE: Civil rights groups the Southern Poverty Law Center and the National Center for Lesbian Rights plan to sue the Anoka-Hennepin School District in Federal court over their neutrality policy and the Department of Justice and the Department of Education investigating the bullying incidents. CNN will air a special report this Sunday, August 7, at 8PM EST. The following is a CNN story leading up to that special report.
If you or someone you know is in crisis and is considering suicide call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-TALK (8255) or the Trevor Project Lifeline for LGBT youth at 1-866-488-7386.
The hotlines are free, confidential, and run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Source(s): CNN, Mother Jones, The Guardian, The American Psychological Association, Science Daily, The Anoka-Hennepin School District
Kudos: Liberty and justice for some and Elaine M.
~Submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
KD, I am thoroughly familiar with the Ethical Principles, state law and general policy. When I said “peril” I meant exactly that. It is a guaranteed way for a psychologist to lose their license.
This is what the American Psychiatric Association has to say on the subject of homosexuality as a disorder:
@OS, “Violate it at your peril if you are a psychologist.”
VIolate what? there is no proscription in that paragraph.
@Spinwell, You need another read through. I don’t think you get it yet.
@Howington
Compare what you wrote:
“homosexuality is not a choice or a mental illness, but rather a normal variant of sexual identity”
with the APA’s position:
“homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality and is not a disease or disorder of any kind”
Yours doesn’t even make sense. Sexual identity implies a choice — a choice of how the person self-identitifies his or her sexual identity. That’s why the APA chose “human sexuality” not “sexual identity.”
And bear in mind that what they wrote is in a amicus brief which is a form of advocacy, their scientific papers refer to it as a “positive variant” which doesn’t contain any normative judgments.
As I said, if you want to base your posts on science, use the science language and don’t mix in the advocacy/policy language.
The official position of the APA on “homosexual reparative therapy.”
That has been the official stance of APA since that resolution was passed in August 2009.
Violate it at your peril if you are a psychologist. I fail to understand why the state licensing board has not brought him up on charges. He must be walking a semantic tightrope to avoid identifying himself as a psychologist in his public statements.
I have always found it helpful when citing a source of knowledge to have read through it and be familiar with its contents. Just as say a Lawyer, perhaps a patent attorney, would want to read through documents submitted as evidence. One should read through their cited material first as a display of intellectual honesty and secondly because it is the smart thing to do. however, if one doesn’t care about honesty then they could cite material out of context to prove their point. I’ve heard this method is always a failure in courts, but then I’m not a lawyer, merely a trained psychotherapist.
The quote below is the conclusion from the above cited report from the APA Committee.
“Conclusion
We were asked to report on three issues for children and adolescents. First, we were asked to provide recommendations regarding treatment protocols that attempt to prevent homosexuality in adulthood by
promoting stereotyped gender-normative behavior in children to mitigate behaviors that are perceived to be indicators that a child will develop a homosexual orientation in adolescence and adulthood. We found
no empirical evidence that providing any type of therapy in childhood can alter adult same-sex sexual orientation. Some advocates of these treatments see homosexuality as a mental disorder, a concept that has
been rejected by the mental health professions for more than 35 years. Further, the theories that such efforts are based on have not been corroborated by scientific evidence or evaluated for harm. Thus, we recommend that LMHP avoid such efforts and provide instead multicultural,
client-centered, and affirmative treatments that are developmentally appropriate (Perrin, 2002). Second, we were asked to comment on the presence of adolescent inpatient facilities that offer coercive
treatment designed to change sexual orientation or the behavioral expression of sexual orientation. We found that serious questions are raised by involuntary and coercive interventions and residential centers
for adolescents due to their advocacy of treatments that have no scientific basis and potential for harm due to coercion, stigmatization, inappropriateness of treatment level and type, and restriction of liberty.
Although the prevalence of these treatment centers is unknown, we recommend that some form of oversight be established for such youth facilities, such as licensure and monitoring, especially as a means of
reporting abuse or neglect States have different requirements and standards for obtaining informed consent to treatment for adolescents; however, it is recognized that adolescents are cognitively able to participate in some health care treatment decisions and that such participation is
helpful. We recommend that when it comes to treatment that purports to have an impact on sexual orientation, LMHP assess the adolescent’s ability to understand treatment options, provide developmentally appropriate
informed consent to treatment that is consistent with the adolescent’s level of understanding, and, at a minimum, obtain the youth’s assent to treatment. SOCE that focus on negative representations of homosexuality
and lack a theoretical or evidence base provide no documented benefits and can pose harm through increasing sexual stigma and providing inaccurate information. We further concluded that involuntary or
coercive residential or inpatient programs that provide SOCE to children and adolescents may pose serious risk of harm, are potentially in conflict with ethical imperatives to maximize autonomous decision making
and client self-determination, and have no documented benefits. Thus, we recommend that parents, guardians, or youth not consider such treatments”.
IMO it is not at all odd to me that Ms. Bachmann would be opposed to an anti-bullying law or campaign (that would benefit homosexuals) and that she would be unopposed to a policy that could be characterized as ‘no pro homo’. She is a religious fundamentalist and her husband makes money off of ‘curing’ homosexuality.
They are anti-gay and believe a myth that allows the murder of homosexuals. That kids are killing themselves is also not a problem but entirely appropriate (based on their biblical status) for a certain twisted segment of the population and from everything I’ve read about her and her and her husbands belief, they are firmly in that camp. Her positions in these regard is simply doing her ghods’ work.
“The research and related policy statements cited by APA in its brief state that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality and is not a disease or disorder of any kind. APA also cited a deep body of research showing that gay and lesbian couples lead lives just as healthy, productive and well-adjusted as straight couples”.
http://www.apa.org/monitor/2011/01/amicus.aspx
Here’s something that should have been read thoroughly before articles and defenses of said articles are posted.
Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation
We concluded that the early high-quality evidence is the best basis for predicting what would be the outcome of valid interventions. These studies show that enduring change to an individual’s sexual orientation is uncommon. The participants in this body of research continued to experience same-sex attractions following SOCE and did not report significant change to othersex attractions that could be empirically validated, though some showed lessened physiological arousal to all sexual stimuli. Compelling evidence of decreased same-sex sexual behavior and of engagement in sexual behavior with the other sex was rare. Few studies provided strong evidence that any changes produced in laboratory conditions translated to daily life. Thus, the results of scientifically valid research indicate that it is unlikely that individuals will be able to reduce same sex attractions or increase other-sex sexual attractions through SOCE.
Notice how some sceintific evidence exists but it isn’t exactly strong or compelling. But, it is there. Which is why the APA has adopted a somewhat a moderate, tolerant, middle-of-the-road position on “conversion counseling” unlike the overheated rhetoric used by Howington and the misleading “defense” presented by Otteray Scribe.
Meh.
@Mike Spinwell, did you say something?
@OS
Didn’t you just say a few threads back how Gene didn’t need any defense third party defense when you were trying to weasel out of that non-denial denial defense of yours? Now you’re back making another half-hearted unsupported defense. Make up your mind.
“If anyone wants to criticize Gene for not being on “sound scientific ground,” think again. He is on sound scientific ground.”
No proof except your word and we know how shakey that is.
“As for the APA, it has been the official stance of the American Psychological Association for years that homosexuality is NOT a mental disorder.”
Strawman. There is a distance between a mental disorder and, as Howington puts it, “a normal variant of sexual identity for a certain percentage of society.” Not being a mental disorder doesn’t make it a normal variant of sexual identity. (Unless you want to cite some evidence for that assertion.) The APA appears to have abandoned their former position (DSM-II) but haven’t exactly taken a new one other than define it as what it no longer is (DSM-II), as you concede. Now they merely rely on unsubstantiated policy proscriptions for their opinions.
“The only reason to treat homosexuality with psychotherapy is if it is ego-dystonic. And that ego-dystonic state comes from outside the person; e.g., it is exogenous and not endogenous.”
Another bold unsupported statement and another strawman. Unfortunately the APA is not so bold in its pronouncements regarding “conversion therapies” which appear not to be psychotherapy.
and
Concerns and oppositions to homophobia do not a prohibition make. No doubt because the science her is far from settled, notwithstanding your unsupported allusions to the contrary. I guess there is no “consensus.”
Homosexuality may not be a a mental disorder requiring psychotherapy, but then again “conversion therapy” isn’t psychotherapy either apparently. And homosexuality appers not to be fixed but rather is a state that may may be fluid and change over time and thus has some aspects that can be affected by counseling services.
A strawman argument on top of another strawman argument does not a defense make for poor Gene.
If you want to defend science, at least get the science part right.
Kenny,
Yet again off topic. It must be tough being unable to muster a coherent argument on anything.
Gene, thanks for the important update!
OS,
thanks for the interesting information about Michelle’s husband. He is as shady as his wife is.
If anyone wants to criticize Gene for not being on “sound scientific ground,” think again. He is on sound scientific ground. As for the APA, it has been the official stance of the American Psychological Association for years that homosexuality is NOT a mental disorder. The only reason to treat homosexuality with psychotherapy is if it is ego-dystonic. And that ego-dystonic state comes from outside the person; e.g., it is exogenous and not endogenous. People like the Bachmanns who, by their public stance, create a hostile environment for gays, resulting in depression, anxiety and at times, suicidal behavior.
If a psychologist or psychiatrist wants to run afoul of their state licensing board in a hurry, set up a clinic like “Dr.” Bachmann’s. Look at the APA Ethical Principles and Code of Conduct. Such pseudotherapy is a violation of the General Principles, Sections A & E, Section 2.04, Section 3.04 and the Preamble to the Ethical Principles.
I notice that although Bachmann has a degree in clinical psychology, he does not have a license to practice. I am not sure how he gets away with that, because in most states he would be in violation of licensing statutes. I also find it telling that he is secretive about what his therapy consists of. His public statements are at variance with what investigators and former “patients” are saying.
Bachmann got a Ph.D. in clinical psychology from an institution called Union Institute & University, which appears to be a distance learning operation. It is not accredited by the American Psychological Association. In order to be licensed, one must have graduated from an APA accredited program. Under that rubric, Bachmann will never even be able to sit for the licensing examination.
Source: http://www.apa.org/ed/accreditation/programs/clinical.aspx
Please notice that Union Institute is not on that list of accredited graduate schools.
Homosexuality is not in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision edition (DSM-IV-TR). That removal came as the result of research into gender identity, brain development and other seminal research on the subject. It was NOT the result of being politically correct, but being scientifically sound. The presence of Homosexuality associated with an ego-dystonic state is present so that ethical treatment of the depression and anxiety can be properly diagnosed.
A bit of history: The DSM-I and DSM-II both had Homosexuality listed as a mental disorder. By the time the DSM-III came out in 1987, it was clear enough to the mental health community that it was not a disorder and did not need to be in the diagnostic manual.
@Blousie,
Your comments range from the uncivil and contentless at one extreme all the way over to civil and contentless at the other. Quite the range.
How about just including some content and then gauge your civilness on how much civility you’d like in return? That way the discusions will at least stay on point and you’ll have made a positive contribution in some small way at least.
kderosa,
“His wit invites you by his looks to come,
But when you knock, it never is at home.” (Cowper)
Now that was pretty darn civil of me.
@James in LA and Blouise, you’ve got that reversed
The contimnued lack of “civil debate” by Howington has caused the “pattern of laser-like convergence” of which you speak. Also, both of you are hypocrites when it comes to your own lack of civil debate. Just sayin’.
anon nurse,
Thanks for the catch! The correction has been made.
Seconded