Warren Throckmorton, an antigay psychology professor at a small Pennsylvania conservative-Christian college, is a prolific writer on behalf of the ex-gay movement. (Google search.)
Unfortunately, Dr. Throckmorton sometimes bases his commentaries upon his own stereotypes about gay activists. He even gets their names wrong.
For example, on Sept. 1 he wrote an op-ed, quoted by an ex-gay Yahoo group, that begins with false assumptions about a D.C. gay activist group, the Gay and Lesbian Activists Alliance, and proceeds to issue further assumptions built from his original mistakes.
Gay activist groups must really want to avoid ex-gays. Now that’s a bold statement but witness the new love of the First Amendment by some gay rights organizations and their supporters. For instance, the oldest gay activist group in the nation, the Gay Activists Alliance of Washington (GLAA) came out in support of the National Education Association’s refusal to allow the Parents and Friends of Ex-Gay and Gays (PFOX) to exhibit at the NEA’s national conventions.
Dr. Throckmorton ignores GLAA’s solid record as a gay libertarian organization devoted to ensuring the First Amendment rights of private organizations — and to ensuring that taxpayers are not compelled to subsidize private organizations, particularly when they discriminate.
This support is no surprise but the rationale is remarkable given the antipathy of most gay groups and the NEA towards those who wish to exercise their First Amendment rights to exclude gays from various private or religious functions.
No, the rationale is not remarkable. Dr. Throckmorton seems to be ignorant of several gay rights organizations that seek not to legislate tolerance at the Boy Scouts, but rather to cut off the flow of taxpayer money to private groups, such as the Boy Scouts, that violate community standards of tolerance. In other words, the Boy Scouts can be as discriminatory as they wanna be, but they may not cheat the taxpayers. And if the Boy Scouts do collect taxpayer handouts, then they must either refrain from discrimination or pay considerable fines for misusing taxpayer funds.
… What I don’t understand is what the NEA gains by exercising its right to discriminate.
Dr. Throckmorton’s claim not to understand is difficult to believe. He would surely object to PFOX being required to allow pro-tolerance and anti-bullying groups to distribute literature and videos at PFOX meetings. (In fact, PFOX already does this. It even bans advocates of tolerance and nonviolence from its e-mail discussion group.)
What the NEA believes it gains is simple: A clear message to teachers that — contrary to the policies of PFOX — bullying and religious proselytization have no legitimate place in the public schools.
If PFOX does not wish to be discriminated against by other private organizations, then it must refrain from promoting discrimination. In Christianese, PFOX must love thy neighbor, and treat thy neighbor as PFOX wishes to be treated. But neither PFOX nor Dr. Throckmorton subscribe to that particular Christian ethic.
Thus, what kids hear about sexuality in public schools may be influenced by NEA materials. With the NEA blatantly excluding any information about the flexibility of sexual orientation and options other than gay affirming, how will impressionable and confused school kids get a fair chance to evaluate all their options?
Dr. Throckmorton’s argument is, again, disingenuous. PFOX propaganda, which is available from its Yahoo group, favors antigay discrimination, tolerates bullying in the schools, and strives to deny “confused school kids” opportunities to evaluate options other than discredited reparative therapies, even when their parents are gay-tolerant.
The PFOX message is that science has not proven the origins of sexual orientation to be genetic or inborn…
Not quite true. PFOX’s officers and Yahoo group members maintain that sexual orientation is entirely environmental — the result of bad fathers, homosexual “recruitment,” and demonic possession.
… that people change their sexuality frequently …
This is an untruth, and a trivialization of sexuality, that NEA rightly does not want preached at school children. Sexuality is somewhat fluid, but far from easy to change. Even ex-gay activists reject Dr. Throckmorton’s misstatement.
… and that identifying as gay or lesbian too early can lead to risky sexual experimentation.
“Too early”? Again, this line of argument is factually erroneous and disingenuous. Dr. Throckmorton does not want people to EVER identify as gay or lesbian. Furthermore, risky experimentation results from sexual confusion and from the ignorant hostility of adult role models, such as parents. People who come to terms with their sexual attractions, with guidance from apolitical and respectful parents or other adults, have far less need to experiment.
Do the leaders of the NEA think there are no ex-gay teachers, ex-gay school counselors, ex-gay parents of school students or adolescents with same-sex attraction who refuse a gay identity? This is another good question for us to pose to the NEA.
No, it’s a question to pose to PFOX and Dr. Throckmorton. Both refuse to come forward with public examples of the ex-gay teachers, counselors and parents that they claim exist.
It is the responsibility of PFOX and Dr. Throckmorton, not the NEA, to improve the tattered credibility of PFOX.
The First Amendment is a wonderful tool when applied consistently. Libertarian gays come close to achieving such consistency — defending PFOX’s freedom of speech while opposing its attempt to seize another organization’s soapbox. Dr. Throckmorton, unfortunately, remains selective in his application of the First Amendment: He seeks carte blanche for PFOX to speak anywhere, while he seeks to limit the NEA’s freedom to control its own message.
Dr. Thockmorton, to be consistent, must come out and criticise the Supreme Court decision which allows the sponsors of St. Patrick’s Day Parades to bar gays.
That is if he really thinks this is a First Amendment issue.
Remind me, has PFOX taken the NEA to court on this issue, again as a First Amendment issue.
I have long believed it amusing that so-called “academics” are publishing their bloviating–with their so-called credentials, of course–in the public media. Thereby bypassing the peer-review process that would be required of academic writing.
Gee, I could set up a college, with myself as the sole “professor,” and do the same.
Thanks for that terrific post, Mike. You’re the first person I’ve seen counter Throckmorton – professor, ex-gay expert and christian recording artist (??? – add him to the list with Stephen Bennett and DL Foster – anti-gay activists with CDs or books to sell.). You deftly shot holes through his message. What is his personal stake in the issue, anyway? The people who most loudly support reparative therapy are either ex-gay themselves or parents of queer kids they wish were ex-gay. Why has Throckmorton made this his issue of choice?
At any rate – one does not have to look very far to uncover Throckmorton’s religious motivations. He’s very savvy and steers clear of any reference to Jesus in his “academic” writings – but like with his buddies over at NARTH who claim to be purely scientific – and not unlike the so called science behind the “intelligent design” crap certain people are trying to peddle to our public schools – fundamentalist religion is not far away.
Instead of despising the person, calling him a “prick,” or seeking to “take him down” or make him “shut up his b.s.” I suggest looking over his web site carefully, and researching his claims.
You may find some of Dr. Throckmorton’s claims hold up under scrutiny. And sometimes, I believe, you will find that he:
stereotypes diverse gay-tolerant political and religious viewpoints on politics, science, religion, morality, and culture;
divorces scientific factoids from their context; and
advocates highly inconsistent political positions.
In other words, as I noted in my original message, Dr. Throckmorton shares ex-gay activists’ tendency to favor a variety of political rights and privileges for antigay people, but not for gay-tolerant people.
Unless you can quickly familiarize yourself with the ex-gay study by Dr. Robert Spitzer and the far more thorough studies covered by Ariel Shidlo, you might be better off locating local psychologists or psychiatrists who might we willing to work with you — or to confront Dr. Throckmorton at the professional level.
XGW hopes eventually to analyze his various papers in depth, and to link to others’ analyses. But that will be several months away at the earliest.
i know dr. t and have even been in counseling with him while i was in college.
i’ve been with my girlfriend for a year and finally am getting over some of the lies i let myself believe. (he was VERY helpful with some of the issues with my family, however, and he is a sincere, kind man on a personal level)
his editorials are superfical and not very probing. i’ve criticized him some in emails. it comes down to his religious beliefs, which i grant he has the right to have. unfortunately, he has a phd at the end of his name, which means that people take his word as gospel.