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
@OS and yet you can”t provide one specific cite and/or supported explanation. Come on, this is your big moment to shine. This is your area of expertise.
Also, that “homosexual reparative therapy” might be illegal/unethical in certain jurisdictions is entirely separate issue than presented in Buddha’s original post. You do, or at least should, realize that?
K,: “@LK, that excerpt is consistent with the one I made. ”
——–
You chose to highlight that there was found to be possibly some small number of persons for whom conversion might be effective. The actual conclusion of the study indicated though that:
“a very small minority of people in
these studies showed any credible evidence of reduced
same-sex sexual attraction, though some show lessened
physiological arousal to all sexual stimuli.
Compelling evidence of decreased same-sex sexual
behavior and increased attraction to and engagement in sexual behavior with the other sex was rare.”
Your quote was posted (it appears) to indicate a variance between what Gene said was the APA policy regarding therapy to change sexual orientation:
GH: “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”
GH further indicated that Mr. Bachmann provided discredited therapy.
Your then wrote:
“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.”
My reading of the exchange:
There is evidence, it is not strong or compelling and the APA study concludes that the methods to change sexual orientation works in only rare cases.
Mr. Bachmann provides therapy that works only rarely at best and according to the study conclusions may have harm to the therapy-seeker built in.
Your posting, the conclusions and knowledge of Mr. Bachmanns “reparative” therapy (as if something is broken somehow) works to prove Gene’s statement that the value of the therapy is not advocated by the APA as effective and that Mr. Bachman provided such generally worthless therapy. Unless you are concluding after reading the study (including the conclusion) that some small number considered “rare” by the APA is a statement by the APA that therapy to change sexual orientation is actually “effective” (in the normal usage of the term) then GH’s statement is correct regarding reparative therapy. Your own quote reinforces that idea.
What’s then was the point of publishing that quote if not to call the previous assertions regarding the value of the therapy in question since your follow on “There it is then…” implies disagreement that the therapy is ineffective.
———-
K,: “@LK, …Your characterization goes beyond both.”
Right, It’s my opinion. It’s not a characterization of the conclusions, they speak for themselves. It’s obviously my opinion.
Here ya go. Happy reading. I have this book. Kind of turgid reading, but go ahead and spend the money.
http://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4312015.aspx
And here is a little more light reading. Only 974 pages. Really up to date, since release date will be in September, but you can pre-order.
http://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4311504.aspx
In their title list, APA alone has about a dozen books. There are a lot more if you look on Amazon.
Kd sez: “OS, ok, then why don’t you google us some support for those contentions. Some board decisions and case law would be nice that deal with these nuances.”
**************************
Once again you butt your head against a stone wall and expect the wall to change. I have no intention of conducting an ethics seminar for your personal benefit. I charge money for doing that. First of all, I taught a seven hour course on the practical side of ethics a couple of years ago and have a PowerPoint presentation that takes four hours just to wade through the slides. I know of which I speak. I do not need to provide you case law, because if you knew anything about case law, that only appears on appellate cases. Licensing board actions are administrative law and do not appear in case law reports. However, if you are interested, there are a number of books on ethics which you can buy from APA and other publishers. Spend some money and learn something if you are that curious. Secondly, I served on the ethics committee of the second largest hospital in the state, not to mention being the former Executive Secretary, and later Chair, of the state licensing board. I know just a tad more than you, sport, and I am here to tell you that if Marcus Bachmann were practicing in this state I would be all over his case like stink on shit.
Get one single thing clear: “Homosexual reparative therapy” is unethical. It is unethical practice. Unethical practice gets you in license trouble.
@Maggie Simi, is it the glasses or the buffont?
@Elaine, couldn”t find a video that made that point?
if i was gay id go after kderosa!
Otteray,
“OS, ok, then why don’t you google us some support for those contentions.”
(From kderosa–queen of the Google search.)
Yuh, Otteray, why doncha “Google” us some support?
😉
Too bad saying it, doesn’t make it true, my dear Buddha.
Isn’t tonight the night you give Mr. Fluffy his bath and have a tea party?
It’s nobody’s fault but your own that your arguments are trivial.
@Gene H
You dug deep for that one. Skipped right over the customary sources with the standard definition.
You need to look up semantic and grammar arguments as well, since those terms don’t mean what you think they mean. You merely focused on the most trivial part of my argument and simply ignored the rest. Like an ostrich.
kderosa,
That’s semantic argument once again and not even a correct one. In fact, it shows how pitiful your original argument was as well. You do that a lot – misuse a term and then have it come back to bite you. The term “human sexuality” as described by the University of California, Santa Barbara “involves more than just having sex or engaging in sexual activities. Your sexuality affects the shape of your body, the way you see yourself in the mirror, and the way your body feels when you touch it. Sexuality is about the person you feel you are as a man or a woman, about your sexual orientation and identity. It is about your body and the way you dress, move, speak, and act or feel about other people. These are all parts of who you are as a person, from birth until you die, throughout the duration of your life.” [emphasis added]
Since orientation is a part of the broader term as is identity, while orientation was the more precise term I had originally intended to use, identity was not technically incorrect either as a summation of the APA’s statements using the broader term “human sexuality”.
And that would be “consistently”. You must be so proud of not even being able to use correct grammar when trying to be a grammar Nazi instead of offering something substantive. All the more reason not to take anything you say seriously.
Notwithstanding G.W. Bush’s two terms as president–as inconceivable as that still seems to me–there is no manner in which M. Bachmann will ever become president.
@Gene H, odd that they didn’t use “orientation” in their description isn’t it. If a “nitwit” is able to consistent find fault with your writings, what does that say about you? You must be proud.
@LK, that excerpt is consistent with the one I made. Your characterization goes beyond both.
“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.”(kderosa)
I’m just a multi talented person … it’s a curse.
OS, ok, then why don’t you google us some support for those contentions. Some board decisions and case law would be nice that deal with these nuances.
K, the conclusions of that study are more telling than your excerpt,
“The limited number of rigorous early studies and
complete lack of rigorous recent prospective research on
SOCE limits claims for the efficacy and safety of SOCE.
Within the early group of studies, there are a small
number of rigorous studies of SOCE, and those focus on
the use of aversive treatments. These studies show that
Studies from both periods indicate that attempts to
change sexual orientation may cause or exacerbate
distress and poor mental health in some individuals,
including depression and suicidal thoughts. The lack
of rigorous research on the safety of SOCE represents
a serious concern, as do studies that report
perceptions of harm.
A Systematic Review of Research on the Efficacy of SOCE Outcomes 43
enduring change to an individual’s sexual orientation is
uncommon and that a very small minority of people in
these studies showed any credible evidence of reduced
same-sex sexual attraction, though some show lessened
physiological arousal to all sexual stimuli.
Compelling evidence of decreased same-sex sexual
behavior and increased attraction to and 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. We found that
nonaversive and recent approaches to SOCE have not
been rigorously evaluated. Given the limited amount
of methodologically sound research, we cannot draw a
conclusion regarding whether recent forms of SOCE are
or are not effective.
We found that there was some evidence to indicate
that individuals experienced harm from SOCE. Early
studies do document iatrogenic effects of aversive
forms of SOCE. High dropout rates characterize early
aversive treatment studies and may be an indicator
that research participants experience these treatments
as harmful. Recent research reports indicate that there
are individuals who perceive they have been harmed
and others who perceive they have benefited from
nonaversive SOCE. Across studies, it is unclear what
specific individual characteristics and diagnostic criteria
would prospectively distinguish those individuals
who will later perceive that they have succeeded and
benefited from nonaversive SOCE from those who will
later perceive that they have failed or been harmed.
In the next chapter, we explore the literature on
individuals who seek to change their sexual orientation
to better understand their concerns.”
———–
The research indicates that conversion is not successful. And why should it be? If one thinks homosexuality or other forms of gender identity are illness’ or ‘wrong’ and should be cured that says more about those that hold those beliefs than those about whom they have the opinion. It boils down to a religious belief (or simply an incorrect belief) and doesn’t require or deserve any secular sponsorship. If harm is done by that belief though the society is obligated to prevent that harm, just as a society does regarding harm to its constituents based on race or handicapping condition.
Actually, kderosa, the APA choses the term “sexual orientation” which is the term I intended to use, but it was late, I was tired and I made a mistake. Sue me. So take the sentence in its intended form: “homosexuality is not a choice or a mental illness, but rather a normal variant of sexual orientation” and it reads just fine. Your semantic arguments are largely useless, but in this instance, it did point to an unintentional grammatical error which I will correct to keep nitwits such as yourself from trying to make further semantic arguments. As to the rest of your drivel, I still don’t take anything you say seriously.
Addnote: There is more to the rules and regulations than appear in an occasional position paper. There are nuances in the law that are not usually understood by the general public. I cited several applicable sections of the ethical principles above. There is a good reason that almost every state requires all licensed psychologists to get between four and six hours of APA approved Continuing Education credits on ethics every year. This is not something you can Google and suddenly become an “expert.”