The APA's tast force statement on orientation change efforts

I read a few posts on Warren Throckmorton's blog recently, and I really enjoyed them. The commenters there seem very reasonable, and civil by conventional internet standards. I ended up reading bits of the Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation based on Dr. Throckmorton's suggestion (although he calls himself Warren, so I'm probably going to call him by his first name).

My take?

The overall position is conservative in the sense that it avoids any definitive statement of efficacy or harm, admitting the paucity of evidence. What disturbs is the pervasive bias in the way the data is discussed, regardless of the final, almost reluctant, conclusions. This bias bleeds out as imprecision and equivocation most frequently, but occasionally as blatant inconsistency in the standards to which the evidence is being measured (or even examined at all).

I don't have the time to trot out a lot of examples (or even read every word of the document), but here are a few passages with comments.

We see this multiculturally competent and affirmative approach as grounded in an acceptance of the following scientific facts:

• Same-sex sexual attractions, behavior, and orientations per se are normal and positive variants of human sexuality—in other words, they do not indicate either mental or developmental disorders.

What the task force here calls "scientific fact" is actually consensus opinion, and there's a big difference. Many studies have defeated the long-prevailing belief that homosexuality is or is associated with mental illness. That much I can swallow (but only on a provisional basis). But, as I've mentioned on this blog before, it's odd to me that a discussion of "human sexuality" can so thoroughly and emphatically ignore reproduction as a significant part of the equation. If one assumes, as the task force apparently does, that ejaculating and having viable sperm is all that is necessary to give the thumbs up on normal reproductive capability, then perhaps their consensus statement (which is not a fact) is defensible. However, I beg to differ.

Gay men, lesbians, and bisexual individuals form stable, committed relationships and families that are equivalent to heterosexual relationships and families in essential respects.

This is presented as another "scientific fact". What I think they meant to say was that these folks form said relationships at rates that are not statistically significantly different from heterosexual families in the essential respects that have been examined. This is not even close to the same thing. Maybe the studies satisfy non-inferiority criteria (that are subjectively assigned). Maybe there is statistical significance for the subjective answers to survey questions, but many "essential respects" are not so easily measured, and failing to show a difference is not the same as showing equivalence. They don't bother footnoting this statement, so there's probably some great quality data... but moving from great quality data to proclamations of unequivocal "fact" is a move I highly doubt I would support after reviewing the relevant literature.

...few studies on SOCE produced over the past 50 years of research rise to current scientific standards for demonstrating the efficacy of psychological interventions...

Few studies of anything produced more than a few years ago rise to current scientific standards. They still can inform, even if they can't prove. Because these studies weren't conducted as randomized controlled clinical trials, they can't show us what we'd like to know, but I don't think the task force is correct with: "there is little in the way of credible evidence that could clarify whether SOCE does or does not work in changing same-sex sexual attractions." The evidence that is presented is what it is. Just because it's not the kind of rigorous science that would demonstrate causality doesn't mean that it's not "credible"! If the researchers were found to have manipulated data there would be a credibility problem, but as the data is, it just gives us very limited evidence, albeit legitimate.

Interestingly, a footnote briefly mentions a Nicolosi study that was not included in the task force's consideration because it was published after the review period and "appeared" to be a reworking of an earlier study. I haven't read Nicolosi's 2008 study, but if it provided any new information that met "current standards" in a way that nothing else does, perhaps they could have gone ahead and extended the review period since the limited data is the whole point. And if it was a reworking of an earlier study, that's even more reason to suspect that it was specifically reworked to assuage criticisms of methodology or presentation. In other words, the task force laments having no "credible" data but can't be bothered to look at the most recent data, even when it was published a year in advance of this report.

White men continue to dominate recent study samples. Thus, the research findings from early and recent studies may have limited applicability to non-Whites, youth, or women.

This is certainly true. So is this: old people continue to dominate the cancer literature, so research findings may have limited applicability to young people. The trick is most people with cancer are old. Just like most people who seek out SOCE are white males. So it's okay to go ahead and accept that there's value in the data even if it's not completely generalizable. The population that has been studied happens to be the vast majority of those for whom this research will make any difference.

In general, the results from studies indicate that while some people who undergo SOCE do engage in other-sex sexual behavior afterward, the balance of the evidence suggests that SOCE is unlikely to increase other-sex sexual behavior.

Again, this is true. So is this: chemotherapy for breast cancer patients will not give any benefit to a majority of patients but will give toxicity to all of them. The trick is, I don't care what happens to the "majority," I want to know quantitatively whether there was a difference in the rate of other-sex behavior from the therapy (if not causally demonstrated, at least temporally). And it sounds like there was a quantitative difference, even a significant one. But I wouldn't know from this report as they just go ahead and stick with vague dismissals like the quote above.

Two participants reported experiencing severe depression, and 4 others experienced milder depression during treatment. No other experimental studies reported on iatrogenic effects.

Woah. Suddenly the fact that participants are experiencing things in association with treatment can be automatically causally linked. Well, hey, we moved on to harms, so the rules of scientific rigor have all changed. These cases of depression are "iatrogenic". Umm... how do you know? Although the task force does go on to admit that there is no causal attribution for harms or benefits, they go ahead and refer to "some evidence" of harm repeatedly through the report while adamantly holding that there is "no credible evidence" of benefit.

We recommend that APA take a leadership role in opposing the distortion and selective use of scientific data about homosexuality by individuals and organizations and in supporting the dissemination of accurate scientific and professional information about sexual orientation in order to counteract bias.

Ah. Here's something I totally agree with. I just wish they'd followed their own advice. I couldn't find it just now rescanning through, but there's a great gem in there where the task force refers to itself as an example of authoritative and reliable source of scientific information. Ha. Or... maybe individuals can actually go ahead and critically examine things for themselves since science isn't a religion and appeals to authority are both unnecessary and fallacious. A scientist ought to know that.

Underwear enacting evil

Jessie mentioned that the For the Strength of Youth pamphlet has changed its wording to de-emphasize ratings in favor of making informed entertainment decisions. But that leaves me with the whole burden of evaluating my entertainment for myself—exercising my free agency muscles, as santorio puts it. I love the idea, but in practice this has been very problematic. I’m afraid of indulging the oblivious inconsistency I’ve seen in others.

I’ve heard one way to evaluate questionable content is to determine whether it is portraying evil (i.e. accurately describing the consequences that come from violence, revenge, moral depravity, etc.) or actually enacting the evil itself. Media supposedly enacts evil when it makes it appear glamorous or in any way divorces it from the harsh realities that surround it. Not showing the consequences is evil in itself, the idea goes.

This sounds very wise until I actually calculate out how it might apply. So, now I can watch explicit extramarital sex as long as there’s eventually a horribly awkward confrontation with the spouse? I get aroused by underwear ads, so it seems to me that I should avoid the bothersome ones even though the men standing there in their near-nothins are being very candid and honest about the consequences of wearing underwear.

Plus, I’m horrible at putting down a book or leaving a movie if it suddenly seems out of line. I’m a sucker for finishing what I start (how does it end? I MUST KNOW!).

Rrrrratings

I’ve never been one for R-rated movies. In fact, by the time I finished college, I don’t think I had ever seen a full R-rated film knowing that it was R-rated. Truthfully, there were a couple where although I didn’t know the rating for certain, I didn’t walk out even when things went sour, so I can’t pretend to be such a perfect little boy. (I’m resisting the urge to be glib about my concurrent refusal to watch R films but willingness to watch porn privately). But still—I steered clearer than most.

Apart from the prophetic prohibition of R films, I found it easier to just leave the responsibility for choosing what is acceptable to the faceless motion picture ratings group. But now I’m persuaded that that’s sort of a cop out. Putting aside the controversy over the inconsistency and arbitrary nature of the rating system in this country, it seems that for a thinking adult, ratings are inadequate. I’ve seen a fair amount of nudity in non-R-rated films (and that’s where I personally run into the most trouble). My inclination is to believe that NC-17 movies are downright bad. However, no children under 17 are admitted to the temple movie, so what’s the rating on that?

I’ve now watched a few R films, generally chosen for having an uplifting message and having a rating that is meant to protect children from being unnecessarily troubled rather than for being indecent. But I’m ambivalent because of the prophetic advice not to watch R-rated films—especially given the arbitrary and evolving nature of the ratings system in the U.S. It’s a conflict about the spirit vs. the letter of the law we’ve all been through before, and I was always taught the spirit of the law extends the letter rather than contradicts it. And as one who feels an urgency to hold on to all the spiritual strength I can, it should be a no-brainer. Now, if only there were a rating system for books… Censorship!!!

Celebrity deathmatch: Mansfield vs. Byrd

When I was a given the opportunity to write about this issue, I saw it as chance to further educate people about some of the things I feel the Lord has taught me in regard to what I believe is the true nature of this challenge. I was initially very wary. First of all, writing has never been one of my talents, and I doubted my capacity to put something so sensitive and personal into words in a way that would help others understand why I believe and feel the way I do. Also, I had some idea of the nature of the various responses that were sure to come--I expected criticism from those whose beliefs vary from my own concerning the nature of this attraction and the appropriate response to it.

Ty Mansfield in In Quiet Desperation

I will now pretend I do not know Ty has read my posts on his book so that I can spout effusive praise in what would otherwise appear to be shameless pandering. In a word, Ty rocks.

This book is necessary. It's not perfect, and I could be more critical of a few specifics if I were so inclined, but it's just the thing for a wary LDS audience wanting to jettison congenital prejudice but unsure what attitudes should replace it. The format Ty used of quoting passages he found influential while dealing with same-gender attraction seems reflective of a genuine and intensely personal journey. It's precisely what I'm trying to do right now with my blog. So, I don't find it at all preachy or inappropriate, rather I have a lot of gratitude for the huge work that went into researching and producing such a resource.

And it doesn't hurt that I agree with him on nearly everything. I find his writing to be more insightful than, well, pretty much anything I've read on the subject. There are other great books that take a bit more time on scientific, political, and theoretical things, but this is a great LDS-centered discussion. I don't know what kind of criticisms Ty ended up receiving to those critical of the church's position on homosexuality, but I was surprised to find a supernally stupid review by a group claiming to defend the church's views. I really like some of the articles on that site and I'm more than appalled that their response to Ty's rebuttal fails to concede anything but their own evasiveness. Imagine my disgust at their disappointing hypocrisy. At one point Byrd says:

The view of homosexuality expressed in this book is neither reflective of good science nor gospel doctrine. In fact, the book renders an injustice to homosexual men and women by not letting them know that they can make changes in their lives and that there is hope and sufficient help available through well-established treatment protocols (compatible with revealed scripture) for those who want to conform their lives to the Lord's standards.

Did you even read the book? Or are you just saying that the problem with the book is that the authors convey their own views rather than yours... that it fails to be an advertisement for the scientific bias you've chosen and to which you've attempted to attribute church endorsement! Write your own damn book!

I'm not sure why Fred Matis is the first author when to my knowledge he wrote none of it. Editor? Marilyn's portion was nice and well-done as a narrative example of a typical Mormon mom. I could imagine some of my family member's writing in precisely the same style and interpreting the situations and events precisely the same way. And I love her for it.

So, sure, I could point out a few flaws, but why would I criticize what I believe is the best resource I've encountered (other than my blog, of course) for an LDS man with same-gender attraction?

Talk shows

Peter luce had appeared on Phil Donahue along with two hermaphrodites and a transsexual to discuss both the medical and psychological aspects of these conditions. On that program, Phil Donahue said, "Lynn Harris was born and raised a girl. You won the Miss Newport Beach Contest in 1964 in good old Orange Coutny, California? Boy, wait till they hear this. You lived as a woman to the age of twety-nine and then you switched to living as a man. He has the anatomical characteristics of both a man and a woman. If I'm lyin', I'm dyin'."

He also said, "Here's what's not so funny. These live, irreplaceable sons and daughters of God, human beings all, want you to know, among other things, that that's exactly what they are, human beings."

p. 410, The Oracular Vulva

I put in a video application for Survivor after the first season. This was back when Real World and Survivor were pretty much alone in the reality TV arena. Since then I have thanked my lucky stars I never got a response. People are made to look like demons on TV. It amazes me time and again that anybody is willing to be interviewed for The Daily Show. And if it's good entertainment, nobody seems to care how it affects the lives of the people who are on the show. Did anybody else watch that show My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance? That show was so painful. And I hear there were lawsuits afterward.

I imagine people look to being on TV to find legitimacy for themselves (and some prize money, no doubt). But I never had much respect for the Phil Donahue show. I never watched it much, but imagined it as being something like Jerry Springer, and I don't see a discussion on transsexualism there advancing their legitimacy much. I hope it did, it's horrible to think a 20/21st century person wouldn't treat them as a human being.

I think, though, and this may just be conditioning, that there's no such thing as bad publicity. If your idea gets air time, it gets advanced. If you're an elementary teacher who has sex with your 14 year old student, don't worry, the publicity will ensure you a book deal that will secure early retirement (as soon as you get out of prison... if you go at all).

So, for me, the contention is between being on Dr. Keith to talk about a point of view that is more often than not censored or forgotten, and avoiding TV altogether because the odds are vastly in favor of personal humiliation. Luckily for me, there are more courageous folks to do the dirty work. Maybe some day I'll be called on to do something hard but really worthwhile, but this isn't it. :-)

Gay Mormon public relations

While not the poster boy for gay Mormons, nor the longest running blog on the topic, I've found myself getting a lot of attention in the wake of the SLT article on married gay Mormons. Since then I've received an invitation to be in a documentary on gay Mormons and today I got an e-mail from a TV show that wants to talk to me to "educate" them on the issues my wife and I face (as well as others in a similar situation).

I attended a conference once on speaking to the media (for a completely different context) and the main take home message I got from it is that you should never ever assume anyone from the media is your friend. It's all niceties and politeness until you see the soundbite they chose which misrepresents your position and casts you as an arrogant stupid person that viewers can only assume is responsible for everything that is wrong with this country.

I was reluctant to even speak with the SLT faith section journalist, but during the course of our interview I became more comfortable with the idea. She had reported on various aspects of gay issues in the past and seemed to be looking for one more interesting aspect without a pre-conceived idea of whether or not my situation was something to be respected or scorned. That seemed to turn out all right. I've appreciated the civil dialogue that came from that (even the skeptical), and so if I could only know ahead of time that that's the type of media show we're talking about, I wouldn't be so reluctant.

What would you do? (Or in the case of those who have probably received similar invitations, what WILL you do?)

Nielsen and Kierkegaard

The Nielsen saga has been interesting to me, but I haven't known exactly what to think of it all. He was at BYU in the philosophy department (which already endears him to me... I've spent some time there myself) and was fired for taking a public stand against the church on the gay marriage issue. Considering my own very conflicted feelings on the subject, I have to sympathize. We teach children to stand up for what's right, even when it means you might be unpopular (at least my mom did). And here's a guy who thought that's exactly what he's doing, and it's the LDS church that takes him down. Not that that's surprising or even inappropriate--it's pretty much a clear expectation of employment at BYU that you don't call your employer's owner immoral and publicly criticize them (at least, I think it is).

The latest piece in the paper from him has a curious effect on me. I agree with everything he says from a secular perspective, but I can't swallow it as one who believes the church is led by God. Never does he acknowledge that the leaders of the church are considered prophets--those who speak for God--in his comments. He compares the LDS church to "any organization" and cautions against considering the leaders infallible. That's all nice, Nielsen, but you seem to be a pretty bright guy for having missed such a central premise of the church.

"Unexamined belief is not faith, but superstition, and we must clear away superstition to make way for genuine faith," says Nielsen. Was it superstition, then, that led Abraham to submit to God's completely unacceptable commandment to murder his own son--a son He gave Abraham fair and square? How exactly did he rationalize that away? He examined it and, yup, it's still ridiculous. What was it about his obedience that was so significant then?

Back in my days studying philosophy at the BYU (hee hee-the BYU... I'm so old), I read some of Kierkegaard's thoughts on Abraham. I didn't really get it. But whatever the hell Kierkegaard really thinks, it ultimately left me with the impression that there's a paradox to faith. My take home point was that you can examine certain things rationally till the cows come home and they'll come up unexplainable, and that there's a particular power in accepting God's curious position anyway.

The real question is whether we are justified in viewing leaders of any organization, even those of the LDS Church, as infallible when they make a doctrinal or policy pronouncement.... If they want to be considered infallible, then they have every reason to worry about members like me who will always refuse to surrender those most precious divine gifts, namely mind and moral agency, to another human being....

Is the church led by human beings then or ultimately by God? You can believe either way, but Nielsen sure seems to want the latitude to take his pick for whatever issue du jour comes along. I've always been taught that being obedient gives us more moral agency, and that there's merit to obeying every word of command with exactness. To the extent a leader misleads, he is responsible and not me. Yes, I see the many problems with this oversimplification of the issue, but it seems a good rule considering the complexity (and ultimate failure) of the other ways people see to reconcile mistakes from priesthood leaders. Rules can have exceptions, but if I wrote them out trying to anticipate them, they would be part of the rule.

I can imagine the Israelites, "Hey Moses, do you honestly think going in and wiping out all the Canaanites is a good idea? I mean, they've got children in there. Aren't the children innocent?"

Moses: "What the hell do I know? God just said to do it."

"Well, I'm sorry, but I just don't think I can sacrifice my most precious gifts to you--my mind and my moral agency. Killing children is wrong."

"Umm... okay. I guess you've got to do what you've got to do. The whole walking across the Red Sea as if it were dry land didn't persuade you that God is captain here and not just me?"

"Well, you've got a point there, certainly. I'll think about it. But I think I've got to ultimately be true to myself and I was taught not to kill. It's one of the commandments."

"Yeah, I'm familiar with those."

Nielsen later lectures the leaders of the church on the Golden Rule. Does he think the comparison to polygamy has escaped them? Does he honestly think their belief on this issue is "unexamined"? Do I? Am I willing to stand up and criticize an unjust church, the very same one that taught me how important it is to stand for the truth! I suppose I would, if I thought the church really was unjust... if I thought it wasn't God's church. But I think it is. I don't get everything that's going on with gay marriage, but I'm working from limited information and God's not.

Pressure

Last Friday I put a stat counter on my blog so that I would have a baseline of how many visitors I typically get before the Salt Lake Tribune article was published in Saturday's paper. This didn't work too well since the first time I looked at my stats I had already received traffic referred from the Tribune's site--the online article went up on Friday.

I've watched the flow of visitors on the blog skyrocket and now wane. I feel kind of relieved because there was a certain pressure when I knew hundreds of people would read what I had written. I thought I needed to convey anything I wanted to convey as effectively as possible for this one shot to... what? I think I wanted to let people know I'm not a crazy person and I'm not kidding myself. I wanted to let people know that there are plenty of great people who deal with homosexuality that need love and understanding. I wanted to let someone out there like me know that you shouldn't listen to nay-sayers who think they can tell you what's possible with your life.

But, really, let's be honest. This blog isn't exactly going to win a Pulitzer Prize for its insights and literary quality. It's really about my story, my journey, and my issues. And frankly, I'm kind of sick of the article and the associated speculation about why I got married or why my wife agreed to it or whether we have any real intimacy or whether we have any chance to stay married... I'm ready to move on.

The other side effect of the spotlight that I'm trying to mitigate by writing about it now is the pressure I've felt to change the way I present myself. I find that I don't want to write about how I haven't looked at porn since that post a good while ago, and I don't want to say that I've been feeling particularly tempted. I don't want to get back to the 12 step posts that I intended to write as a workbook of sorts. I don't want people looking at my issues and saying, "See? He's a nut-job. There's no way that marriage is going to work!" In short, some of the personal benefit of the blog has been threatened. I don't care if people write "I told you so!" every time I post on something that I'm struggling with. I'm going to post anyway. And then I'll swear at them.

And so, I'm a little happy that my visitors today are only one fifth what they were a week ago. The pressure (imaginary or real) is relieved, and I'm glad.

Hefting hate

Protean posted and Mark commented on a book about ex-gay ministries called Straight to Jesus. I read the review article in question and it really pissed me off. I think the book sounds quite interesting, but the Solon article was a biased piece of trash. Here are a few favorite parts:

Erzen wasn't interested in collecting fodder for political battles, though, and that's what makes "Straight to Jesus" so enlightening. As an ethnographer, she made every effort to listen to and understand everyone at New Hope Ministry, whether or not she agreed with their beliefs (and it's fairly clear that most of the time she didn't). That's practically unheard of in most popular discussions of charged issues like homosexuality -- and rare in scholarly discussions, too. Nowadays, everyone's convinced that they already know everything the other side has to say and that actually having to listen to it would constitute an insupportable demand on their own patience. Everyone thinks their side of the argument never gets any exposure, yet rabid, ranting opinion of all varieties howls at us everywhere we turn.

Hey crazy lady, have you looked at yourself? You are a loon who I doubt would know a politically neutral position if it bit you on the ass. As evidence:

In fact, scandals involving the sex lives of ex-gay movement leaders are so common (even one of the straight leaders, Kent Philpott, got busted for fooling around with his adopted daughter), that it's hard for anyone outside the evangelical right to take them seriously. Add that to several prominent cases of parents forcing their gay teenage children into scary camps like Love in Action's Refuge, an "intensive discipleship program" -- and the fact that no reputable professional psychological organization endorses the idea that homosexuality is a mental "disorder" that can be "cured" -- and the image of a pack of dangerous cultists is cemented.

I have heard this same ridiculous song and dance over and over in the discussion. Attack carefully selected ex-gays' credibility, then generalize that character attack to all and conclude none can possibly be honest, have anything relevant or cogent to say, or be motivated by something good, and you should fit right in with the howling you describe. Or, better yet, go with nuance: "a pack of dangerous cultists."

Because they could never reconcile these deeply rooted beliefs with their homosexual behavior and relationships, those behaviors and relationships could never be truly joyful or satisfying, and because they had never had joyful or satisfying homosexual experiences, they assume that gay life is inherently empty and destructive.
...
Still, whatever the benefits these men get from evangelical Christianity, their religion is no more a rational choice than their sexuality is. Even when opting not to believe seems the only and obvious healthy, life-affirming alternative, these men -- some of them educated and sophisticated -- can't manage it.

Yes, conclusions about gay life are all about irrational religious beliefs by those with no positive gay experiences. It has nothing to do with statistics about suicide, drug abuse, promiscuity, life expectancy, etc. Clearly because they are religious they are irrational, and because they disagree with you, they are wrong.

I commented on Protean's post a bit about this, but I wanted to go into a little more detail. I don't mind the idea of the book--it sounds like a good read. I don't even mind the author's personal position on ex-gays and reparative therapy in general. What I do mind is the incessant character attacks on the religious, reparative therapy practitioners, and ex-gay ministry leaders. It's hateful, venomous, hypocritical, and I'm sick and tired of the unfettered hate hefted out there on the public like so much flying manure to fertilize the grassroots efforts of activists.

Gay Islam

Here's an interesting story about a conflict between religion and homosexuality. I've heard coverage of gay Jews and gay Mormons but this was the first somewhat larger story I'd seen for Islam.

One thing that always stands out to me: why do they never cover the folks who are gay but choosing to follow the teachings of their sexually strict religion anyway (ahem, like me)? Apparently that's not perceived to be as interesting a conflict.

In my opinion, it's very dramatic. And continues to be.

Balancing Act

I would prefer to take a moderate stance on gay issues since I firmly believe in the freedom of every person to decide for themselves what they believe to be moral and follow their heart--whether they be religious or gay. But I equally value the importance of challenging anti-religious or anti-gay sentiments when they are unfriendly and uninformed. In short, for me it's about promoting tolerance and battling prejudice and intolerance.

Surprisingly, perhaps, this has translated into me defending religion time after time. Apparently my blog isn't a big hit with the religious crowd since there are never really anti-gay comments. There are frequent (and of varying legitimacy) anti-religious comments though. So, I reluctantly take the minority view and repeatedly defend religion against the bigotry that presents itself. I've pigeon-holed myself, I suspect.

Oh well. I guess that's how it goes.

But in the spirit of providing the alternative point of view, I must comment on the overwhelmingly biased and ridiculously pejorative comments I've seen on the blogosphere in regard to Richard Cohen's recent appearance on Paula Zahn.

For example, one blog writes, "In case you haven't heard any of this stuff before, you should know that this is a line used by anti-gay psychotherapists, but there is no research anywhere, ever, that supports the idea that these kinds of family dynamics have anything to do with a person turning out gay." Ummm, no. My understanding is that there is research showing a correlation, just not causality. Causing gay (as is claimed in reparative therapy and is, in my opinion, either false or oversimplified) and correlating with being gay (which is true) are two different things.

It's just a word-smithing world out there to push an agenda. Pisses me off.