Focus appears worried openly-gay Jack Drescher is a candidate for the APA Presidency in December. Focus quotes Drescher:
“They can mask it in the language of love all they want but it’s about revulsion and hatred of homosexuality.”
I wish I could comment further but I simply don’t know anything about Drescher or the APA’s election process.
To quote my granddaddy, “Only a hit dog hollers.”
Drescher has written on the dangers of reparative therapy. He has done quite a lot of research. He also is the editior of a collection of studies on the subject. One fact he unearthed was that it is still common practice for religious schools to force students into reparative therapy, including hospitalization. This would be a very interesting scenario were he to become APA president.
1. Drescher is a respected professional. Google, people.2. Warren Throckmorton doesn’t like him.Need any more info than that?
BTW,I should have added… the “Peter Hill” mentioned in the article is a collegue of Warren Throckmorton’s. From CitizenLink you’d think they were strangers.Hill left Grove City for Biola, and edits the “Journal of Psychology and Christianity” — the “peer” reviewed journal that published Warren’s latest missive. Apparently 28 exgay people really really really loved exgay therapy –well, they did 3 or 4 years ago….
““Today he’s equating reparative therapy and a client’s right to self determination with a quack cure for homosexuality, which is absolutely not true.””
Maybe if they would come out and PROVE their therapy worked (or at least try to prove it), they could have more ground to be dismissive of the APA’s (and Drescher’s) claims…
Also:
““I’m very concerned that our culture is being fed misinformation and that people are reacting in a way that is detrimental to our religious liberties.”
Randy Thomas used almost this exact wording about “religious liberties” in the comments area of his blog the other day. I’m still confused about how an organization can take away their religious liberties. They aren’t saying they can’t try to be ex-gay, they are saying there is no proof that it is effective or worth-while. Provide proof, and then maybe they can talk.
APA member Dr. Peter Hill says the president of the association cannot single handedly ban reparative therapy “but he will have much influence on what actually gets out to the floor and how it’s being presented to the council of reps.”
Um, of course the APA President cannot ban therapy – it is a professional association, not an arbitrar of all things psychological. The APA does have control of the DSM, but homosexuality has been gone from there for a while. I think this kind of statement is simply made to reinforce the idea of the ex-gay Davids fighting the big, mean ole Goliath of the scientific community.
It’s the equivalent of Laetril advocates (it was supposed to cure cancer, and Steve McQueen was its best-known patient before he died of cancer) being concerned that a real medical doctor was running for AMA president – of course he is going to be hostile to your position, there is no science behind it.
“Focus on the Family” yet again maliciously deceives with this line “can change from gay to straight”. To encourage public hatred of GLBTs they continue to intentionally imply truth in that lie that gays can completely change same sex attractions into opposite sex attractions. It would be helpful to have an automatic press release to state that it’s a lie that conversion therapy completely converts same sex attractions into opposite sex attracts. And when pushed even exgay proponents acknowledge that “can change from gay to straight” message is “supposed” to mean a very small number of gays can suppress same sex attractions and completely restrict themselves to heterosexual sex or celibacy. Who would be best placed to issue such a release everytime “exgay” proponents speak? We can’t keep letting them get away with this.
Anyone notice that the opening words of this article: “An open homosexual…”.
But Focus claims be believe that homosexuality is a chosen identity; If you disavow your “homosexuality” then you aren’t homosexual. Thus, all homosexuals are open homosexuals.
Ah, the dificulties of trying to espouse something illogical. You end up with redundancies that betray that you really don’t believe what you claim.
This article shows a bit of confusion typical of coverage by “Family News in Focus.” Drescher is an interesting guy, but he is a psychiatrist, running for presidency of the American PSYCHIATRIC Association. Peter Hill, who is asked to comment as a “member of the APA,” is a psychologist and member of the American PSYCHOLOGICAL Association. These are two VERY different organizations with non-overlapping memberships. It appears that the author of the piece does not know this. From his comments, it appears that Peter Hill may not even know that Drescher is a psychiatrist, rather than a psychologist — a bit of a slip-up for an academic.
marcus,
yeah, or they are just printing what’s convenient without the slightest concern for truth.
Just noticed that the article confuses the two organizations in the very first two sentences. The American Psychological Association is a 150,000-member group of psychologists, and the American Psychiatric Association is a 35,000-member organization of physicians. Drescher CANNOT be a member of the American Psychological Association, and neither Throckmorton nor Hill can be a member of the American Psychiatric Association. That’s a big “oopsy” for Steve Jordahl from “Family News in Focus.” Don’t hold your breath for an erratum.
As DaleA and Grant/Dale have noted, Drescher seems to have a particular interest in “reparative” therapy.
“Ethical issues in treating gay and lesbian patients.” Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2002 Sep;25(3):605-21, vii-viii. Abstract link here:
“Since 1973…some clinicians, however, reject the mental health mainstream’s view and continue to conceptualize homosexuality as a mental disorder. Their clinical theories have been incorporated into wider societal debates regarding the status of gay and lesbian people. The sexual conversion or reparative therapies they practice, however, may include routine ethical violations in the realm of improper pressure, confidentiality, informed consent, and fiduciary responsibility to the patient’s best interest.”
“I’m your handyman: a history of reparative therapies.” J Homosexuality 1998;36(1):19-42. Abstract link here:
“The evolution of one branch of psychoanalytic theory into an antihomosexual political movement illustrates the permeability of boundaries between clinical issues and political ones. In their open support of antigay legislation, reparative therapists have moved from the traditional psychoanalytic center and have been embraced by conservative religious and political forces opposed to homosexuality. In doing so, they have apparently adopted religious organizational practices themselves, preaching dogma and stifling dissent.”
This should be interesting
“Jack Drescher, M.D., a Training and Supervising Analyst at the William Alanson White Institute, is a former Trustee of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis. He is Chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Committee on Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues and also Chairs the Group for Advancement of Psychiatry’s Committee on Human Sexuality. Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy, Dr. Drescher is in private practice in New York City.”
He’s written a book “Psychoanalytic Therapy and the Gay Man” which applies analysis while respecting the variety in sexual orientations.
Dr Drescher has been tireless in putting forward the fact that gay students are forced into reparative therapies. He has done wonderful work that surely deserves a wider audience. Great choice by the APA.
Looks like someone from FOTF lurks over here. They’ve fixed the first couple of sentences of the article. 🙂
Re: “Looks like someone from FOTF lurks over here.”
Oh, I’m sure they have at least one staff member whose job it is to keep an eye on what we’re saying. That’s called “oppositional research,” which all advocacy groups worth their salt neglect at their peril.
I lurk on right wing/EC sites all the time. It keeps me motivated. Sometimes, just for funsies, I let people who are in a position to counteract their positions, actions know what they’re doing.
Marcus noted:
Nothing wrong with correcting an error — but I presume they kept to proper journalistic standards and made a note at the end about the correction and why they made it?Oh, they didn’t?Interestingly, the META tag remains utterly wrong… as of this post. But who reads them?