In late June, web site and the Gay Spirituality blog, Michigan psychotherapist Joe Kort offered his own lengthy clinical and personal assessment of reparative therapies.
Kort disputes 10 “myths” generally promoted by reparative therapists. While ex-gay programs differ, I think each program is likely to promote at least some of these myths. Most glaringly, the programs avoid the obvious reality that vast numbers of heterosexual youth suffer from the alleged causes of homosexuality — parental absence and sexual abuse — without turning gay.
Addendum: In May, Joe Kort discussed his personal and professional journey with Psychotherapy Networker.
Kort’s story is a winding road from struggling same-sex-attracted college student; through ex-gay therapy, which negatively impacted him and his parents; onward through a futile effort to re-closet himself; his initial struggles working with gay client-patients; and his efforts to overcome professionals’ opposition to gay-affirmative therapy.
Some of them are downright incomprehensible. For example:
Myth #9: Everyone is born straight.
Truth: There is no scientific evidence that people are either born straight or born gay. Anti-gay fundamentalists, and other extreme makeover artists like reparative therapists, assert that no one is born homosexual. That is their viewpoint only, since no scientific data supports any genetic or biologic basis for opposite-sex attractions.
Lot’s of words, but where’s the beef?
Actually Marty that is the truth. There isn’t a lot known about sexual attraction in humans. What is it that draws people to one another? Why is it people usually find other people attractive and not say rocks, trees, grass? Why precisely do you think some person looks “hot”? What is it that draws men to woman or women to men? What is it that draws men to men or women to women? What do people find attractive/unattractive? What part does cultural play and what part does biology play?
Our society knows quite a bit about it in other species. People set out traps baited with female pheromones to trap male gypsy moths. Bird hunters use the mating calls of birds in order to attract birds. With people less is known.
To assume everyone is born straight is to make just as much an assumption as it is to assume some people may be born gay. At the moment there is more evidence for the later assumption than for the first one but no one has found the smoking gun.
Errr… actually have to disagree with that #9. We are born sexual, that’s encoded in us from the get go. We aren’t blank slates as some postulated — there are definite structures already in place that contribute to our personality and behavior. How much of homosexuality is a genetic, environmental, or cultural continues to be the subject of continuing research. See the earlier discussion for more details on this.
>Myth #9: Everyone is born straight.
Um, and who cares?
I’m not saying anything, just asking questions. I’ve come to the conclusion that we all need love, understanding, and sex — we’re born that way. Our choices define how we fulfill those needs.
While Mr. Kort seems to take issue with the statement “we’re all born straight” for lack of empirical evidence, he still seems to imply that “some are born gay”, while admitting that there is no empirical evidence. What can we make of his confused statement, other than to note its meaninglessness?
For simple men like me, it sure seems an odd coincidence that the mere fact that we are “born” is prima facie evidence of a heterosexual act. Indeed, no one can be born without such an act.
To some of you, this fact may seem irrelevant. To others, it is the ONLY thing relevant.
“Indeed, no one can be born without such an act.”
Even hear of test-tube babies, In Vitro Fertilization?
Evidence of identical twins and family studies shows at the very least a big genetic predisposition. What triggers the condition is not entirely known. It could be that certain switches are turned on and off in the womb. All fetuses are default female and males don’t begin their development to “maleness” until after a few weeks when the XY fetus is bombarded with a complex hormonal process. There is much room for a “biological error” to occur at that point.
Or something in the child’s environment may trigger it. But I’ve even seem such conservative folks as James Dobson note that whatever it is in the environment that triggers homosexual orientation occurs at such a young age, like by 3 or 4. Those are KEY stages in brain development. Before that time, brain wiring is malleable. That’s when we learn our languages, musical talent, etc. Arguably what becomes wired into the brain during that period then becomes “unwirable.” We weren’t born speaking English, but our brains are now certainly wired that way. Now try unwiring English from your brain.
Even hear of test-tube babies, In Vitro Fertilization?
What, do these procedures no longer need raw materials from BOTH a male and a female? Thats news to me…
On a lighter note, i’ve toyed with this philosophical question:
If you cloned yourself and then had sex with your clone, would that be gay? incest? Or just masturbation?
ahhh, such a brave new world…
I don’t know Marty, ask Dick Cheney.
He’s fond of telling people to “go f*** themselves”
I was in therapy with Nicolosi for about a year, and he said pretty much everything except #4. That one is somewhat of an overgeneralization and exodus may not be that smart, but Nicolosi and his clients are certainly smart enough not to say something that foolish sounding. If you read Wayne Besen’s book he basically points out that Nicolsi caters to more educated clients whereas Exodus caters to less educated and poorer clients. Ok sorry for the tangent.
Marty:
Xeno:
Good questions, Marty. The primary evidence we have for a genetic basis for sexuality is that the sexualities of men and women tend to differ, even when they’re raised in the same environment. If sexual orientation were primarily a matter of environmental conditioning, you’d expect roughly equal percentages of Bisexual or Gay men and women within a particular class and regional background where parenting styles are more or less uniform. Yet even in the most regimented circumstances, true bisexuality is rare among men, and fairly common among women. Since a person’s sex is chromosomal (in most cases, anyway), it would follow that there’s some connection between genetics and sexual orientation.
This isn’t much to go on, of course, especially if one is trying to be prescriptive. So whenever someone asks me if homosexuality is genetic or environmental, I just smile and say yes.
Thanks for the tip Xeno, i love a challenging read. I’ve placed it on hold at my library — be sure to ask me about it in 3 or 4 weeks. I’ve got two books open right now and 3 more on the shelf, so it will be a while before i can get to this one.
On myth #9, although it was not stated, there is clear evidence that not all humans are born “straight.” The intersexed, who have secondary and primary sexual characteristics of both genders, are nonetheless born with a specific gender and sexual orientation (e.g., the gender of the people to whom they are sexually attracted), which may or may not correspond to the predominant sexual characteristics of their physical body.
As the intersexed are nonetheless human, we cannot conclude they are born “straight” because their genders are indeterminate, and they may be considered straight or gay, depending on perspective.
Personally, I believe the existence of the intersexed is one of the primary arguments for the biological nature of sexuality – since we know there are humans who physically show an “averaging” of their male and female halves, then it should not be surprising that a whole lot more people have a psychological, or brain-centered “averaging” as well.
Some of the reviews of that title at Amazon are interesting. There’s a guy who fairly lays into the concept of exuberance and its limited acceptance by the scientific community (compared with the current evolutionary theories).
Xeno, were you implying that SoCons are all literalist young-earth creationists who don’t believe nature can have imperfections?
Tim,
Do you know a society or class where parenting styles are more or less uniform? I’m not sure if one even exists. I would say the home environment has much more to do with parenting styles – it is also highly dependent on how the child perceives this environment, based on his/her own sensitivities and other traits.
Besides the regular environment, I think there’s also the factor of significant life events affecting self-identity (and I’m not meaning just “abuse”). These are necessarily difficult to predict for, of course.
CPT_Doom,
The extrapolation you make (from an extremely rare biological phenomenon to a common psychological phenomenon) is not one I could take very easily. There are far too many uncertainties. I’m not sure if the majority of developmental psychologists would agree with this conclusion.
Apologies – in my third paragraph above, I meant “I would say the home environment is only partly to do with parenting styles…”
Trevize-
I thought CPT_Doom’s post regarding intersexed individual was quite insightful. At the very least to show some on the far right that not everything is as black and white as they would make it seem. If it is black and white that everyone is straight and any homosexuality is an unnatural sin, how does the greyness of people with both sex organs or ambiguous sex organs fall into that category? Sure it is only a tiny percentage of people affected, but it does call into question such a clear-cut explanation of heterosexuality being the only acceptable option imo.
TA:
You wouldn’t believe it. The RR takes whatever is on the birth certificate (for whatever reason it is there) and assign that sex immutably to the child: regardless of intersexual characteristics. Once determined at birth, there is no opportunity for the RR to recognize the person differently. It really results in some stupid situations, but that is how they currently are approaching the issue.
I have never seen the RR comment on the intersexed, probably because the idea of physical gender and chromosomal gender not matching is a bit too much for them to take.
On a side note. I was reading the august issuse of discovery magazine. It is quite interesting. Although they do not address the topic of sexual fluidity, it had three interesting articles. One of them was on identical twins, the other on sex (and other controversial issues) and science, the third was on repressed memories. You might want to check them out.
What is the clinical definition of Intersexed? Is it the same as hermaphrodism, or “ambiguous genetalia”? Are such configurations still considered “birth defects”? Are there persons born with complete set of both reproductive organs, and if so, are they both fully functional — ie: could such a person make themselves pregnant?
I’m not saying anything here, i’m asking for clarification of the term. I may (or may not) have further comment after hearing your answers.
Marty- I am using the term intersex to mean any person that has or had some type of sexual organ abnormality. This could include someone with ambiguous genitalia (or nearly unrecognizable genitalia) or genitalia of both sexes. Most often someone with the genitalia of both sexes has one set that is developed more than the other. Some do have full genitalia of both, but whether they are operational I dont know (and I doubt many people have lived into adulthood without having one or the other removed, but I could be wrong).
The thing is, though, even when someone that has predominantly male sex organs has the female ones removed, they many times have to take hormones anyway to keep their “male” features, and vice versa.
Jason- I will have to check that out.
Sharon- Interesting, I never knew that.
Marty,
Intersexed, hermaphodite and ambiguous genetalia all refer basically to the same phenomenon, when a human child, for whatever reason (and there are many), develops with an indeterminate physical gender. These people are, by and large, infertile, and it may be a genetic, developmental or other physical abnormality that causes the condition.
My point, as some of you noted, is simply that we know there are many humans (something like 1 in every 2,000 babies) who are a physical mix between the genders (although interestingly they typically always have a gender identity set eary on), it seems more likely that the mixing of genders at the brain level that would be required to biologically cause homosexuality would be considered more likely.
I am no expert Marty, but intersexed are born with ambiguous genitalia. It is causes by a large number of conditions both genetic and environmental. Basically the genitalia do not look “normal” and sometimes it is difficult to tell which gender the child is by looking at the genitalia alone. They don’t usually have a complete set often it is more like 50/50, or 70/30.
For instance you can get a child with something that looks like a penis (or enlarged clitoris) and has a vulva instead of a scrotum. You can have a scrotum and a clitoris rather than a penis. You can get combinations of all the organs. I,e. a person with one testis and one ovary, or small penis , scrotum, small vaginal opening and uterus). They are not able to fertilize themselves and are usually infertile. Although, the infertility part depends on what precisely is wrong and with medical treatment some forms of infertility can be treated.
It is due to the way humans develop. Basically a fertilized egg has the potential to develop into either gender. However the default setting for humans is female meaning unless testosterone interferes the egg will become a girl no matter what the genotype. Normally in males, testosterone is produced by the tissue tjhat becomes the testis and it “masculinizes” the sex organs so the tissue that would have become the clitoris instead becomes a penis gland. The tissue that would have become the labia minora forms the shaft and the tissue that would have become the labia major becomes the scrotum. The tissue that would have become the upper part of the vagina and uterus dies. As you can see that is rather a complicated scenario and there is a lot that can go wrong with it.
It is important to note that the brain is also sexed during this process. In animal models you can get “male” behaviors in females (or visa versa) by interfering with the process. A good example would be free martin cows mounting other cows or male rats presenting themselves to other males to be mounted. Since doing this sort of thing in humans would be unethical it is not done.
In essence Marty while science can not tell if you were born straight(yet), they can tell you that you could have been born male, female or something in-between based on a combination of hormonal environment of the womb and/or your own genes.
One of the most interesting forms is a male pseudo hermaphrodite. They are males with insensitivity to testosterone and so they are born female. At least to external appearances they look like girls because testosterone didn’t quite finish the job. They are often raised as such. Until puberty hits, testosterone surges and finishes the job. What is so interesting about them is the fact that having been raised a girl(i.e encorages to play with dolls ect..) they usually turn out to be heterosexual men. Which raises serious questions about many theories on the cause homosexuality.
Trevize:
Xeno:
Trevize:
Xeno:
Correction: I mean I agree with the author who disagrees on the book’s explaination of nature.
Do you know a society or class where parenting styles are more or less uniform? I’m not sure if one even exists.
If you select parents according to region, economic status, religious beliefs, educational level, and (to a lesser degree, perhaps) political affiliation and ethnicity, you’ll find they share a fairly uniform parenting style. Attitudes toward child-rearing aren’t inborn; they’re products of socialization.
Once you rule out (or at least seriously limit) variables within the environment, you find that the remaining variation among children may well be genetic. You can do work in the other direction as well, studying identical twins placed in radically different social environments, and observing similarities between them — but it’s tough to get a statistically significant sample that way.
Do you know a society or class where parenting styles are more or less uniform? I’m not sure if one even exists.
If you select parents according to region, economic status, religious beliefs, educational level, and (to a lesser degree, perhaps) political affiliation and ethnicity, you’ll find they share a fairly uniform parenting style. Attitudes toward child-rearing aren’t inborn; they’re products of socialization.
Once you rule out (or at least seriously limit) variables within the environment, you find that the remaining variation among children may well be genetic. You can do work in the other direction as well, studying identical twins placed in radically different social environments, and observing similarities between them — but it’s tough to get a statistically significant sample that way.
Thoughtful words Xeno. I was with you right up to this part:
Quite similar to the way Inquisitors tortured people to death and claimed it was from an act of love.
Oh come now…
For the rest that do identify themselves as SoCons and doesn’t fit into that mould, I consider them moderates. Pure semantics.
While it is a very uncomfortable shoe you describe, and not a perfect fit, i take your point. I’m certainly a SoCon, but disagree with your descriptives: fraudulent, hostile, and sadistic. I will admit that when seeking the Truth(fraud?), we can be Confrontational(hostile?), and of course — truth always Hurts(sadistic?) — but no-pain no-gain right? I suppose its a matter of perspective, as much as semantics.
If a same-sex couple can adapt and can manage to acquire offspring from an intermediary and be able to survive better than heterosexual couples (which is true in most circumstances)
Where’d ya get that? How are you defining survival? I’ve seen more than my share of statistics that claim a much shorter life-span for homosexuals, and of course heterosexuals out-reproduce them hands down. Maybe i’m missing context — that one line sticks out like a sore thumb.
Why is homosexuality in it’s affectionate, co-parenting form be bunched as a cruel value?
I’m pretty sure it’s the icky anal factor. We just aren’t built that way. “The old dirt road is a one way street” as it were…
“I’ve seen more than my share of statistics that claim a much shorter life-span for homosexuals”
Most, if not all, are Bullshit. The 39-43 median lifespan figures by Paul Cameron aren’t worth the paper they were written on. Been totally debunked…see my latest web-post. The 8-20 year shorter figure from the International Journal of Epidemeology came from one city in Canada and seemed to measure only sub-culture oriented “city” gays. And that too was taken during the worse period of AIDS, before the new treatments…and this fact led the authors of the study to say that the figure is no longer statistically relevant. Remember, AIDS hasn’t been with us for very long, historically speaking. And now with the newer medications, people are living a lot longer.
Although it’s not really knowable, the present collective impact of shortened lifespan on gays is not likely to be much. And without AIDS, there would be no difference (perhaps gays would even live longer than average, because gays seem to be overrepresented in wealth, income, and education, and this class of people tends to live longer).
Oh i don’t dispute that the stats i’ve seen are highly questionable, i just wanted xeno to clarify his statement that a same-sex couple is “better able to survive” than a hetero couple.
While Mr. Kort seems to take issue with the statement “we’re all born straight” for lack of empirical evidence, he still seems to imply that “some are born gay”, while admitting that there is no empirical evidence.
He specifically says that “There is no scientific evidence that people are either born straight or born gay.” Where does he imply the contrary?
Maybe some people are “born gay”, maybe they aren’t. Maybe some people are “born straight”, maybe they aren’t. What’s that got to do with the claim made by ex-gay groups that everyone is “born straight”?
Just skimmming through and saw this from Marty:
“I’m pretty sure it’s the icky anal factor. We just aren’t built that way. “The old dirt road is a one way street” as it were…”
Then I think women whose “roads” (to continue in using vague metaphorical terminology) are highways for menstral fluids and babies should avoid having urine elimination tubes put inside of them.
(And–not to delve into this too deeply because it doesn’t truly deserve a response, but here goes– Marty seems fixated on one specific form of homoaffectionate sexual activity).
You’re right, CK – that offensive remark from Marty is probably best ignored, but you make a good point. Hey – don’t hets sometimes take the ‘one way street’, too? I’ve never heard anal sex stated as a reason to condemn heterosexuality.
I think it was Andrew Sullivan who noted that our sexual organs and our excretory ones are located AWFULLY close to one another, almost as if our Creator were sending us a message…or perhaps engaging in a little bit of a biological joke.
Sorry this reply is a little behind the 8-ball, but I’ll just make a couple of brief responses.
Xeno,
About the perfection/imperfection thing. I’m approaching an absolutely HUGE topic here, but I think there are some people who hold to an idea that darwinian evolution can play no part in the creation of life and, ultimately humans, because it suggests, to them, that God used an “imperfect” process. I’m not sure about the relevant bible verses for this, but the word “perfect” by itself has little explanatory power anyway. It must be put into a very specific context before it can say much.
When it comes to humans, my belief is that our bodies, as well as our hearts and minds, do reflect God’s nature and character in some way, but the fact is that there are SOME people who are born deaf, or with disabilities. We must be careful how far we try to pull our conclusions.
Why is homosexuality in it’s affectionate, co-parenting form be bunched as a cruel value?
Hmm, I’m not sure about cruel. My thinking (and I know this will sound terribly cold and detached) is that it is simply an incorrect usage for our hearts, our bodies and our minds. Yes nature can’t tell us everything about what’s “right” unless we think the occasional infanticide (like in hippo herds) is a good thing. I certainly do not say that no same-sex relationships have good aspects (caring, shared joy, etc.), of course they do. Such immediate pragmatic concerns are important, but ultimately, I feel that there are better ways for these “goods” to be enacted. In other words, I could have gay sex, but I don’t think it would be God’s best for me.
Tim,
My point was that parenting “styles” are one thing, but I think the individual character of the parent has a far greater effect. Two parents from the same culture, who read the same “parenting” how-to books will nonetheless have radically different dynamics between themselves and their kids.
Trivise,
I am a bit confused by your comment. Evolution doesn’t explain the creation of life. It simply explains the creation of species. The clash in views is because the bible presents the world as whole, complete, and made in 6 days (or long enough time for Adam to name everything) vs. a world where life is around 3 billion years old and changes constantly with new species arising and others dying out. The bible presents a world made for man. Evolution sees a world that wasn’t made for man (or any other species) but one were the traits that man uses to survive were some how selected over time. The Bible views man as the pinnacle of creation. Evolution views man as just another species. Perhaps the only species on the planet with enough intelligence and communication capacity to ponder the soul but that is just about it. I don’t see how perfection/imperfection fits into it.
Jason,
We’re really off-topic here, but I’m afraid I have to take issue with your view in your last post. You speak of “evolution” like it is a philosophy as much as a theory within science. It is my opinion that much of this “clash of views” is a rather annoying illusion. I’m yet to be convinced that the bible presents the world as whole, complete, and made in 6 days, as though its some post-enlightenment scientific paper. I don’t believe it is. Genre is important.
Also, my understanding is that life goes back to at least 4 million years, not 3, and the earth to about 5. The universe itself to about 13.
Also, “the bible presents a world made for man” is a sweeping statement that needs qualifying. It has been suggested that Genesis 1 is, in part, a statement of the Anthropic Principle, which is the concept that the universe seems “fine-tuned” in such a way to allow for the emergence of life, and for our particular form of life, and for a particular short window of time where we can observe it in all its glory. The number of “coincidences” which have made this wondrous world possible becomes more and more astonishing the more we discover.
However we also read, “What is man that You are mindful of him?”, which to me is a statement of humbleness about our place in the universe.
Another reading of Genesis 1 sees it in the genre of an Ancient Near-East creation epic, but rather than a variety of gods and goddesses in various relationships and wars, Genesis 1 is remarkably straightforward – God brought it all about. The sun and moon are not deities to be worshipped – they’re just “the greater light” and “the lesser light”. Guys like Moses didn’t know and didn’t care whether the Sun was in fact a huge fusion reaction. They didn’t know about guys called Charles Darwin and Stephen Jay Gould. They had a more significant message to carry.
In this genre reading, it becomes apparent that the message is a kind of theistic anthropology – God building a wondrous “temple” and lastly placing inside His own image (or “idol”), not made of stone or wood, but a living community that was made to reflect Himself – humankind.
So, to me, the theory of darwinian evolution shouldn’t force us to any conclusion that man is “just another species”. Certainly we are a species, having similar properties to other animals, but no one ever said we weren’t, as far as I can see.
Please write in details about children born as hermaphodite menes having both sexes in same person
Oops, missed this
Jason | August 2, 2004 02:48 PM
>Evolution doesn’t explain the creation of life. It simply explains the creation of species.
Sadly, no. While it’s true that theories regarding evolution don’t purport to explain abiogenesis (“the creation of life”), it is also the fact that they doesn’t explain the creation of species, either. “Species” is a man-made taxonomy, or classification system. Succinctly stated, theories regarding evolution purport to explain the development of characteristics that facilitate survival in various, and possibly changing, environments. Genetic variation and natural selection. The question of whether various entities belong to the same or different species is a side issue.