Sandra Boodman has an article in the Washington Post discussing ex-gays and the psychology behind the issue. The article is well balanced, in the old sense of presenting the issue and the related facts (as opposed to the new ‘balanced,’ which means presenting lies when the facts don’t back up one side of a debate).
She has quotes from Warren and Joe over at NARTH, Robert Spitzer, Jack Drescher, two ex-ex-gays and one ex-gay. She discusses web sites like inqueery and freetobeme, which are designed to indoctrinate teens and other confused individuals into the ex-gay rhetoric. They bring up the Montgomery County battle, and have Drescher comparing ex-gays and creationists (as well as comparing reorientation therapy to laetrile, the quack cancer cure).
She describes some of the methods and memes of reparative therapy. She fails to challenge Throckmorton’s claim that he has “worked with a lot of clients who’ve done it.” She also fails to challenge or caveat Nicolosi’s claim of “curing” two thirds of the St. Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic’s patients. She mentions the problems associated with the Spitzer study, which Nicolosi relies upon earlier in the article. She also briefly mentions Focus on the Family’s involvement and the three-degrees-removed ties between the Bush Administration and reparative therapy.
All in all not a bad article covering the topic, and the issues associated with it.
Andrew, I agree that it is a good article – sort of lets the “ex-gay” arguments fly or fail on their own, and the very facts the writer cites are pretty damning to the entire “ex-gay” myth. Of the “ex-gays” they talk to, including our favorite Richard Cohen (who claims he is not a therapist, just a “coach” so he can avoid licensing requirements – is ANYONE from the MD Department of Health reading?) none claim perfect heterosexual change. Cohen comes the closest, but only claims he has been faithful since 1987 to his wife, whom he married in 1982 or so (he freely admits cheating on her with men in the early days of their marriage – after two children were born). The other “ex-gay” claims his wife is the only woman to whom he has ever been attracted, and that he still “struggles” with same-sex attractions. Pretty much standard for the “ex-gays” we have seen interviewed elsewhere.
What I really liked was the interview with Spitzer. Although they don’t delve into the myriad problems with his assessment of “change” for his now infamous survey of “ex-gays,” they do make the point that most of them came from the “ex-gay” and anti-gay groups, and Spitzer himself refutes the uses of his studies by the “ex-gay” movement, and disagrees with the idea of homosexuality as a pathology. Pretty damning again for the “ex-gays.”
All in all a delightful surprise in my morning Post.
Agree CPT_DoomActually, it was delightful to see (at long last) Spitzer both talk about his study AND not neglect (or be edited out) mentioning that change, however defined, is rare. For the Advocate interview he reasoned on 3%. Directly following, Drescher also says — if you wish to read it that way — that “change is possible” but for only a fraction of a percent. I would have liked the obvious about Nicolosi’s quote to have been pointed out; namely, where is the heterosexuality in all this “success”?
Anyone care to fly that airline?This means Nicolosi sees one-third of clients buy into his negative view of homosexuality and then struggle to live as gay, one-third are able to successfully repress their attractions and avoid sex altogether. The final third don’t do either.I think it would be reasonable to assume that the vast majority of his clients begin with a wish to be heterosexual — in thought and deed — and to be changed into living a comfortable “heterosexual lifestyle”. Are those that actually do that are too small in numbers for even Nicolosi to mention?And Throckmorton does read here from time to time so it’s worth asking: Warren, care to put some percentages and a base number behind that “lots”?
I completely disagree with you both unfortunately. I really did not find the article to be well-balanced. I actually just posted my letter to the post on my blog (https://wandertos.blogspot.com/2005/08/gay-reparative-therapy-promoted-in.html). I really feel that while they tried to maintain a point/counterpoint editorial style, they gave too much press and photo space (3 photos to 1 and the counterpoint photo was black and white)to the ex-gay side of things – effectively giving huge reach and free promotion to the movement, esp. in Virginia.
I used to work for the largest daily in the country and I am very familiar with how balanced editorial should be written and presented. I am dismayed at the lack of judgement on the part of the Post. I really feel many GLBT citizens struggling with their sexuality in the DC Metro area will now feel additional pressure either from their peers/family etc. or from themselves since the Post is such a reputable and credible publication (mostly). While it is not right, many newspaper readers will read and cite only portions of the article and then use it to legitimize their claims. The pressure of coming out or coming to terms with one’s own sexuality is immense and this article, especially because it appeared in the context of the HEALTH section and not in the Politics section, may be the straw that pushes someone into one of those torture camps, oh excuse me “Reparative therapy centers”
I hope that people will have the good sense, especially in view of the interview with the unlicensed “therapist” to pay no heed to this article and movement.
I appreciate the opportunity to express my opinion and disagreement on this particular article. I do also appreciate your dedication to this very serious issue affecting the gay community. If more people took the time like you do perhaps we could sway the tide of public opinion much faster.
Thanks,
WanderTOS
WanderTOS,
You are always welcome to dissent here (as long as you do so with respect to others).
I’ve no problem with that WanderTOS.Reading back, it’s completely NOT clear that I was agreeing with CPT’s comments about Spitzer (hence my rabid start on that). I also hadn’t noticed that this was in the health section — good pick up. And that is NOT appropriate.Frankly, if it were up to me I’d be asking for exgay quotes about 3% of the time the subject is raised — that’s Spitzer’s guesstimate of the ratio of exgay to gay. Now that would be balance.Oh, and welcome 🙂
Thanks! I’ve been meaning to look more at this site but this thing really got me going. I think it was definitely the health section placement that sent me over the edge.
Just being gay is NOT a mental health issue. It drives me crazy when people try to position a “type” of person as a mental health problem itself. You’re not born mentally deficient if you born gay (whether you are out or not) – but these ex-gays would make you think they were. So sad.
I agree the article should not have been put in the health section. Unfortunately, editors tend to be myopic about gay issues, so it ends up either being in the Health section or the Style section. Choose your poison.
I wholeheartedly agree. But letters to the editor do make a difference actually. I just wish it wouldn’t take negative press to get folks demanding proper treatment from the media. I used to give GLAAD a couple bucks a year but have felt the need to give more in the last year because of all the bad press and misinformation on a number of topics which included the ex-gay movement. It is hard though b/c it seems like there are so many groups that really need funding to make a difference – hard to pick which ones to give to if you have a limited pool of money.
The Washington Post is suspect in general. They allowed anti-gay groups to run inserts last November that pushed ugly lies and fake statistics, tried to make people think MLK wouldn’t support the gay rights movement, and so on. They ran an article during the Spongebob controversy where some pinheaded columnist tried to compare her children learning about gay people to learning about incest. So this article is not bad by their standards. I do agree they shouldn’t keep giving these bigots so much free publicity, but the media seems to find this story “sexy” and they want to assuage their own liberal guilt if they support gay rights. They think that “normal” people don’t like gays, and therefore, they need to bend over backwards to accomodate them. This is bad for gays in Virginia, but then, any gays living in Virginia already have a horrible time anyway, so this would be the least of their worries. I’m hoping that this is all going to die down now, although it’s likely that more and more Republicans may try to hide behind ex-gays. The main problem is and will continue to be that beside for those who are on a payroll, the best “success” stories seem to be people who are celibate and clearly hate themselves. Not too positive an image.
Southern Voice/Washington Blade/etc. said they are tired of this story going on and on. I tend to agree.
https://southernvoice.com/blog/index.cfm?type=blog&start=8/10/05&end=8/17/05#2056
WanderTOS
“Just being gay is NOT a mental health issue.”
That’s true. However, being gay and hating that aspect of yourself so much that you are willing to expend significant energy, effort, and expense over a period of years just so you can maybe end up celibate may very well be a mental health issue.
The article wasn’t perfect, but I thought it was pretty good. I’m guessing the rationale for putting it in the health section was that a lot of the article was devoted to presenting expert medical opinion on conversion therapy (and they made it pretty clear the experts think it’s quackery). Plus the accompanying article on Richard Cohen made him look like a total loon, especially the picture of him whapping his couch with a tennis racket.
I have to read this article, but is there any mention of the intense societal conditioning to hate gay people, and that gay people are resonding to that conditioning by wanting to change?
This is a powerfully significant matter of motive to change.
This isn’t a spontaneous thing.
The ex gay movement gives the impression that it is.
This is a wrongful approach to helping anyone living with prejudice.
Prejudice and the enforcement of it is out of the control or participation of gay people.
So how can the ex gay movement ignore this and not include it in not only THEIR motives to change gay people, but the motives of the gay people they deal with?