The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) is not pleased that they are being perceived as an organization that endorses slavery and tormenting of children. But rather than rethink the wisdom of having advisors that hold views that are abhorrent to decent society, NARTH has gone on the defensive.
First NARTH posts a disclaimer that the views expressed in the articles on their site were the views of the authors and not necessarily of NARTH. That might actually mean something if the authors were not part of NARTH’s advisory committee. If these authors are not NARTH, who is?
Now they are trying to claim that we are intimidating them. Yes, you read that right. A new blog discussion on the NARTH website administered by the anonymous “Sojourneer” reads:
A Public Record of Homosexual Activists Intimidation Tactics
I want this topic to document acts of intimidation by the gay activists, governments or institutions for expressing opposition to homosexual activism. As mentioned in another post, these acts seem to be getting more aggressive and malicious. Tell your stories here please stand up and make these attacks public. By making it public you are demonstrating the intimidation is not going to work. If we are silent it will only get worse and may become violent later. I want this to be a public national record and a reference source for others interested in keeping a record of such attacks.
Sojourneer then lists his first example of an aggressive and malicious (and potentially future violent) attack:
Below is the first installment of lies and distortion, in an attempt to discredit Narth and Dr. Shoenewolf. (sic)
And here Sojourneer posts Wayne Besen’s press release about NARTH advisor Gerald Schoenewolf and his comments in defense of slavery.
As NARTH wishes a permanant record of gay intimidation tactics and as exgaywatch (and Wayne) appear as Exhibit 1, I posted my reponse to their accusation. Perhaps they’ll even post it.
I am the one who posted Schoenewolf’s comments at Exgaywatch. To those of you who think it some kind of personal attack on Schoenewolf to discredit his anti-gay activism, consider the following:
Schoenewolf chose to write an article about “political correctness” and in it he chose to rail against civil rights. Schoenewolf was the one who decided to comment on slavery. He made the decision to claim that Africa was “a jungle”. He penned the words that many Africans taken as slaves from Africa were “better off”.
If this language and position seems outlandish, it’s not because I falsely portrayed it that way. It’s because justification of slavery is despicable and writing that slaves were “better off” leaves the average decent person nauseous.
If Schoenewolf’s writing seems to reflect badly on NARTH, it’s not because I’m persecuting the organization. It’s because NARTH published the article on its website for years before I pointed out that championing slavery is an unusual political position these days. Surely someone at NARTH had read the article in the meanwhile yet no one seemed to find it offensive.
And if it suggests that Dr. Nicolosi has poor judgment in whom he has as an advisor, it is not because he was unaware of Schoenewolf’s beliefs. In an article called Why I Support Narth posted on the NARTH site in April of this year, Schoenewolf himself tells us that he was selected to participate at NARTH specifically because of his views:
“I had been trying to stand up to the forces of political correctness for some time and had felt as though I were the only person in the world who saw what was happening…
“If I persisted in these views their eyes would begin to gleam and they would throw the usual labels at me — sexist, homophobe, bigot, racist…
“Upon coming across Joe Nicolosi’s book, I wrote him a letter congratulating him on his courage and telling him something about myself. He asked me to send him a paper I had just written, “Gender Narcissism.” Upon reading the paper, he invited me to present the paper at the next NARTH conference in Los Angeles. The NARTH Conference was a memorable weekend. I had many things in common with Joe and others at NARTH including a passionate need to stand up against the irrationality and activism of those groups who were forcing their misguided values down the throats of America.
“I am very glad that NARTH exists and that there is still a place where one can express views such as those I’m expressing here.”
Yes, it was Nicolosi himself that looked at Schoenewolf’s writing – the writing that others called sexist, homophobic, bigoted, and racist – and decided that he shared the same values as were expressed in Schoenewolf’s writing. So it should not seem at all odd when others who find Schoenewolf’s opinions to be shocking also question whether Nicolosi is also sexist, homophobic, bigoted, and racist.
And none of this required that I intimidate NARTH or anyone associated with it. All I did was to shine a light on it.
UPDATE: The semi-anonymous Narth blog moderator has clarified that he does not speak for the website on which he writes:
I do not speak for Narth and any comments I have made on the blog are my personal opinions. Please read the Narth disclaimer regarding the blog.
He has also removed his original defense of racism and now has decided:
Regarding his comments about slavery, I regret his choice of words and think his point could have been made with a better choice of words. The comments were incendiary and have inflamed the debate.
However this is followed by a sentence that I am unable to decypher. Perhaps he means that Wayne’s press release is no longer considered intimidation, or perhaps he thinks my response (shown above) to his defense of Schoenewolf is intimidation.
Therefore, for the sake of continued dialogue with all sides I am going to retract the first letter from Timothy Kincaid as an example of gay intimidation.
In any case, now that Sojouneer has clarified that the Narth blogs are not affiliated with Narth and are nothing more than his own personal musings, and now that it has become clear that he will publish the unfounded accusations of certain inflamatory individuals while not allowing reasoned postings from those who disagree with his opinions, I have little interest in discussing or debating anything there.
I presume you signed your name to your post and didn’t hide behind an anonymous screen name like “sojourner”.
NARTH is really descending into some really paranoid behavior. And for an organization of mental health professionals to exhibit paranoia on the pages of their web site is particularly disturbing.
This is a new tactic by the way — to hyperventilate over percieved acts of “oppression”. Focus sent out a mass-mailing a few months ago on a similar idea. It looks like they’re trying a new meme on for size.
Here is an additional comment that I posted after Timothy’s:
I was more blunt, as I am oft to be. I said in the NARTH comments, “Gee, you sorta shot yourself in the foot with that one.” It’ll never get posted.
This is a clear example of how the radical right is twisting the discussion to portray themselves as aggrieved victims of aggressive homosexual activism.
NARTH, Exodus, et als cannot win the battle of ideas, so they resort to any tactic to get attention and to attempt to promote their views. They don’t want to be labelled as racist, sexist, bigots, homophobes, etc. but they don’t want to do anything to change their racist, sexist, bigoted and homophobic ways. It is almost like they are saying that they are being “discriminated against” whenever advances are made for gays and lesbians. They (and other theocratic groups) are floating the canard that an expansion of civil rights for gays and lesbians will lead to a de facto restriction of civil rights for those who oppose gays and lesbians. Sheesh!
I will be very curious to see what “offenses” are documented on NARTH’s site. Compared to what the gay and lesbain community has faced, I doubt they’ll be able to come up with much.
“Sojouneer” has responded to Timothy by claiming there was nothing wrong with the article. I wrote to ask why then they had taken it down in the first place. I don’t expect they’ll put up my post. It’s pretty cool how they seem to be increasingly bent on hanging themselves.
Can we really say that NARTH has “defended” the Schoenewolf piece, when we don’t even know if ‘sojourneer’ and/or ‘jjhonson’ have any authority to pull articles, defend them, apologize for them — or even COMMENT on NARTH’s behalf?
Wow! If they think that animated debate is “intimidation”, it’s time for them to get away from the heat in the proverbial kitchen.
NARTH is painting itself into a corner more than ever these days. I hope that they do document and make public the so called “attacks”. They can play the victim game all they want but in all reality the public will see through their lies and bigotry. This will show the public just what snake oil quacks these people really are. The public isn’t stupid about the reality of NARTH’s bigotry.
I don’t believe that NARTH is all bad because I believe that this debate needs to happen in order to come to the truth about genetics, gay and lesbian social issues, sexual addiction, gay parenting and a host of other important issues. NARTH needs to stop the stereotypes and rhetoric and start treating gay and lesbian people with more dignity than they do. They are acting far too much like Evangelical extremists who often take on the victim role in demonizing their opposition in the “us vs. them” game.
One very outrageous stereotype that NARTH and other ex-gay organizations continue to spew is their pigionholing self accepting gay people as being involved in “the gay lifestyle” or “the lifestyle” which is a very offensive and degrading stereotype. That stereotype does not help anyone but it does create a lot of division between people.
I believe that the kinds of statements that NARTH has made, especially recently, will be a powerful blow to their own organization. One day NARTH will no longer be in existence because it won’t be needed but the only day that will come about will be when society will fully embrace its gay and lesbian members and the vast majority of gay and lesbian people themselves will stop giving in to the bigotry, the lies and the self inflicted hate. It is conflicted “strugglers” (gay people who are conflicted) who give NARTH the power it has. If all gay people turn away from NARTH they won’t be able to exist anymore. As long as there are conflicted gay and lesbian people “strugglers” there will be a need for organizations like NARTH.
I’m amazed. Christian Right leadership attacks, and then claims victimhood. As a transperson, allow me to elaborate on recent attacks on transpeople found on Christian Right websites:Religious organizational/community leadership do make such comments about transgender people. Recent examples:- Dr. Bill Maier, psychologist in residence for Focus on the Family, referred to transsexuals as “pathological.“- Dr. Joseph Berger, a Science Advisory Committee member of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuals (NARTH), early this month called for the peer “teasing” and “ridicule” of gender variant children to keep them within “boundaries.” – Robert Knight of the Concerned Women For America’s Culture and Family Institute stated “If you can’t figure out that you’re really a man — you’ve got the DNA, the genetic sequence for being a man — you can’t be a teacher.” *They* have recently attacked the mental health of all transgender people, indicated children who are gender variant should be treated inhumanely, and indicated transgender people shouldn’t be able to hold down public sector teaching jobs because such schools are “deliberately placing children at risk” (while at the same time are arguing against anti-bullying protections against LGBT children). Who the H – E – double-toothpicks is intimidating who?
Autumn, you forget that the usual refrain we here from such people is that they are merely ‘telling the truth’.
Of course it’s just THEIR version of the truth, and whether it has any bearing in reality or is totally nonsensical does not matter. It is what they believe, and all who disagree must be wrong.
Unfortunately, that’s part and parcel of the fundamentalist movement here in this country, and the justification for their attempt to steal power in government away from all those who do not agree with them.
Can we really say that NARTH has “defended” the Schoenewolf piece, when we don’t even know if ‘sojourneer’ and/or ‘jjhonson’ have any authority to pull articles, defend them, apologize for them — or even COMMENT on NARTH’s behalf?
Between the two of them. jjohnson and sojourneer appear to account for all of the posts on NARTH’s blog. It would be fair to say that they run the NARTH blog on the NARTH website. Since theirs is the only viewpoint expressed on NARTH blog posts, I think it would be fair to say they comment on NARTH’s behalf.
Sorry, last one was me.
The point is, as long as they remain anonymous, we have no way of knowing if they have the authority to speak for NARTH. Can you think of any other “professional” organization that would handle this matter in this way? By letting anonymous persons issue official statements?
Michael, I happened to stumble upon the probable identity of sojourneer. I’m not going to publicly reveal that information, but I can say it’s a pretty sure thing he doesn’t have the authority to speak for NARTH. I’m guessing that NARTH doesn’t have a lot to do with their own blog at all.
I think the headline would be more accurate if it said “NARTH *Blog Moderator* Defends Schoenewolf Article” — agreed?
“The point is, as long as they remain anonymous, we have no way of knowing if they have the authority to speak for NARTH.”
He has the password. He has the authority to blog. Whether he speaks “for Narth’s blog” or speaks “for Narth” seems to be a distinction that has meaning only to Narth.
Just as it is ridiculous that an Advisor of Narth who posts an article on Narth’s website doesn’t speak for Narth, it is also ridiculous that the person responsible for running their blog also doesn’t speak for them. Who then would?
Ultimately, someone speaks for Narth and they have yet to disagree with anything that they have posted or hosted about slavery.
heading revised
I just sent this to NARTH:
I just called Mr. David Pruden of NARTH at an “800” number the local NARTH office gave me. Mr. Pruden said he was not “real aware” of the Schoenewold controversy but could “see how a reasonable person could assume that it expressed NARTH’s views.” He also said that “if it is THAT offensive perhaps it SHOULD be pulled.”
He didn’t seem to recognize either “Sojourneer” or “Jjohnson” and that he believed that neither you nor jjohnson had the authority to speak on NARTH’s behalf or to “pull” official NARTH ariticles, but were just stating your opinions. He joked that (like a certain part of the human anatomy) “everybody had one”.
He could see how this could damage both NARTH and Focus on the Family. He said he was not offended by my call. He didn’t seem to feel “intimidated”. I assured him I was not trying to “silence” NARTH.
On the contrary, he was actually friendly, good-humored and sincere. He actually thanked me for bringing this to his attention.
He also said he knew Dr. Throckmorton “real well” and would call him to discuss the matter. You may want to call Mr. Pruden to explain your actions — refending, pulling, then re-defending such an outrageous article.
Perhaps, NARTH will excercise more editorial responsibility in the future. Let’s hope so.
So far, the only comments anyone affiliated with NARTH has made about this are those on the NARTH blog from sojourneer and jjohnson. Until anyone at NARTH says differently, I think it’s perfectly fair to see those comments as having come from NARTH. If there is any confusion here, it is NARTH’s responsibility to clarify it. If they refuse to do so, then they should be stuck with the words that NARTH blog administrators have written on the NARTH blog which is part of the NARTH website.
Similarly, if Timothy Kincaid were to write on here “I think all exgays should be machine-gunned” I think it would be reasonable of NARTH or anyone else to state that exgaywatch had called for the deaths of exgays unless and until someone else at exgaywatch addressed the issue.
I’m with Boo, it is a perfectly reasonable assumption that the person given the job of moderating the blog speaks for NARTH; especially since the leadership seems to have lost their voice.
I just called Focus on the Family and suggested they speak with NARTH about issuing a formal retraction and public apology. Until then, the piece stands and NARTH stands by it.
“Tell your stories here please stand up and make these attacks public. By making it public you are demonstrating the intimidation is not going to work. If we are silent, it will only get worse and may become violent later.”
This is a statement from Sojourneer on the NARTh site. He/she obviously did not read any of the coverage of the completely PEACEFUL protest in Indian Wells. Real violent — us smiling, waving at the conference attendees and wishing them all “good morning”.
If this gets them worried that we are violent, they might want to see a therapist.
I’ve been told that intimidation and bullying can be helpful if someone needs to reestablish socially necessary boundaries. I’m sure I read that somewhere…
Boo at September 27, 2006 05:40 PM
Thanks Boo, you made me laugh.
I posted the following in response to Soujourneer on the Narth blog:
Soujourneer, in your response to Timothy Kincaid’s saying no one was being intimidated you said “Let me just say calling people names like, racist, sexist, homophobic and bigoted is intimidation.”
That kind of “I’m intimidated by your opposition” is completely different from the serious physical intimidation you referred to when you opened this thread with and said “I want this topic to document acts of intimidation by the gay activists”…”By making it public you are demonstrating the intimidation is not going to work. If we are silent it will only get worse and may become violent later.”
You may be intellectually intimidated by the mere act of someone disagreeing with you but you started off by implying gay activists were physically intimidating you with threats of violence. No such threats of physical violence are evident in the remarks by Wayne Besen or Timothy Kincaid. Its dishonest of you to portray gay activists as physically intimidating you with real or implied threats of violence when in fact the worst reference is to being called homophobic, bigoted, racist and sexist.
Schoenewolf compared the tactics of the civil rights movement to the hysterical lynchings that took place in the old south. Its a fair characterization to call that racist and bigoted.
To suggest something good came out of the bad of slavery is to downplay the unforgivable offense of taking away a non-offender’s right to control their own life as they see fit – for better or worse. Again, racist and bigoted are accurate characterizations. If there were any truth to the idea that innocent people were better off as slaves in the “great” country of the United States than they were free in there own there would have been no need to force them into a life of slavery, they could have easilly been convinced to volunteer to be slaves in order to lead a better life.
Not only are they sounding paranoid over at the NARTH blog, they come across as a bit dyslexic too. “Jennifer” at NARTH wrote:
“Why white gays activits are not apologizing for the repeated acts of racism they engage in? Do they get a pass?”
I responded, but doubt they will post:
“You have GOT to be kidding!!! Do Mr. Pruden and Dr. Nicolosi of NARTH know what you guys are doing here? Implying that anyone who disagrees with you (or who finds the Schoenewolf article offensive)is a white, hate-mongering racist bent on violence?
Even Dr. Throckmorton thought the Schoenewolf piece should be pulled for “poor scholatship and poor judgement”. Do you consider HIM to be a “white gay activist”?
cross posted to Throckmorton’s blog:
The NARTH blog seems to be engaging in the very type of behavior Schoenewolf claimed characterized the Civil Rights, Feminist, and Gay Rights movements: hysterically dividing the world into all-bad “gay activist” victimizers and all-good victims such as themselves and claiming their assumed victim status trumps everything. Add to that their heavy censoring of opposing viewpoints.
Isn’t it ironic? Dontcha think?
One poster there called exgaywatch racist for the actions of Adam Kautz. I commented that Adam was not affiliated with exgaywatch and had been banned for making threatening comments on other blogs. I thought they’d post that one, but no, they only want one distorted side of the story presented – what lying hypocrites! Of course they never posted my other comment (earlier in this thread) either.
I submitted this to the NARTH Blog thread mentioned in Timothy’s original post on this thread. I honestly hope NARTH will respond.The Traditional Values Coalition has just issued a report entitled Will Cross-Dressing Activists Come To Your School?, and Part II of the report heavily references Dr. Daniel E. Byrne’s NARTH posted article Pediatric Academic Societies’ 2006 Annual Meeting Encourages Normalization Of Gender-Variant Children.I don’t know what TVC’s quoting archived NARTH article means. This is because the new NARTH disclaimer disavows all articles as viewpoints of the author only. So, since Part II of the the new TVC report heavily depends on information from a referenced NARTH article — fully making use of NARTH’s reputation as an association of psychologists/psychiatrists — I’m left with this feeling that NARTH wants it all ways. That is, have the benefit of the organizational name being cited without taking responsibility for what is being cited.Or, take responsibility for who or where the reference is being cited.So, let me ask the questions: 1.) Is the cited Dr. Byrne article a reflection of NARTH’s organizational beliefs, and 2.) If it isn’t, is NARTH going to ask the Traditional Values Coalition to update its report to include NARTH’s disclaimer that the view is only Dr. Byrne’s — leave NARTH’s name and reputation out of the TVC report?Sojourneer, does it bother the NARTH Board of Directors that organizations like the TVC quote NARTH posted articles, and imply that NARTH supports the TVC’s conclusions? — Because the TVC certainly doesn’t agree with the NARTH position statement:
And, even though NARTH has articles commenting on genderqueer, gender variant, and transgender people, NARTH doesn’t say I have a right to claim a transgender identity, and conversely say I have a right to seek treatment to seek treatment to align my gender identity to my natal sex. Is that going to be added to the position statements soon?
I just called David Pruden of NARTH again, as the secretary at the NARTH office just directed me to do. I spoke with Mr. Pruden yesterday about this and I just challenged him (again) to read the blogmaster’s comments and defense of Schoenewolf. In particular, I directed his attention to these lines:
“Why white gays activits(sic)are not apologizing for the repeated acts of racism they engage in?”
“If one could sum up the leadership of the Ex Gay crsuaders (sic) at the hate blog Ex Gay Watch it would be this “People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw rocks”.
It is WAY out of line to suggest that all of NARTH’s critics (and the folks at Exgay Watch) are “racist”. Is Dr. Throckmorton racist? He also thinks NARTH should PULL the article and APOLOGIZE.
It is WAY past time for Dr. Nicolosi, Mr. Pruden and whoever may actually be in “charge” of NARTH to respond.
I just submitted this to the NARTH blog. They won’t print it, I’m sure.
“Jennifer Andrews (who seems to have some trouble with spelling and grammar) asked:
“Why white gays activits are not apologizing for the repeated acts of racism they engage in?”
Jeremiah Johnson suggests reinstating the article (that he ANONYMOUSLY AND COWARDLY announced had been “pulled”) and now suggests reinstating it to give the “PC crowd something to gnash their teeth” over. Does he have that authority? Who does? Why did you guys CAVE IN and pull it in the first place if you NOW believe in it? Why not show that you are not easily “intimidated” by us racist gay bullies and “stand by your man”? Were you scared the sissies might hurt you? Poor babies. I’ll call the WAH-mbulance…
You said: “If we are silent it will only get worse and may become violent later.”
You guys are TOO much! Come ON!!! I can promise you, it will NOT become violent. I am the VICTIM of violence by “gay-haters”, not a proponent of violence in ANY way — and I don’t think the folks at Exgay Watch are either.
Just look at how “violent” the guys from “Exgay Watch” and other “activists” got last weekend, smiling, waving and saying “good morning” to the church folk as they arrived for the LWO conference. We picked up litter we found and didn’t even block the driveway! I didn’t even carry a sign, just an olive branch as a symbol of NON-violent protest. Many church folk smiled and waved back. They seemed neither frightened nor “intimidated” by our “tactics”. I honestly think that some of them thought we were the official “welcome wagon” from FOTF. I doubt if any of them saw us as guilty of “repeated acts of racism”.
I can assure you, I wouldn’t want to frighten or physically injure Nicolosi or any of his cowardly crew. You are right, however, about being “silent”. The longer you guys are silent on this issue, the longer you defend Schoenewolf and call your critics “white”, “gay activist”, “racist”, “hate”-mongers, the WORSE the publicity is going to get for NARTH and Focus On The Family.
How about I call the NAACP?”
Jeremiah Johnson suggests reinstating the article (that he ANONYMOUSLY AND COWARDLY announced had been “pulled”) and now suggests reinstating it to give the “PC crowd something to gnash their teeth” over. Does he have that authority? Who does? Why did you guys CAVE IN and pull it in the first place if you NOW believe in it? Why not show that you are not easily “intimidated” by us racist gay bullies and “stand by your man”? Were you scared the sissies might hurt you? Poor babies. I’ll call the WAH-mbulance…
Take a few deep breaths, Michael. You don’t want to inadvertently give them ammunition.
Boo,
Take a few deep breaths, Michael. You don’t want to inadvertently give them ammunition.
Extremely good advice. I second this Michael.
Good advice: BREATHING IN. BREATHING OUT. FEELING BETTER.
I can get too passionate at times. I will leave this alone for awhile and see what happens. It’s not good for by blood pressure. 🙂
Also, don’t want to undo the good work you guys do. Have a great weekend.
Posted today on the NARTH BLOG:
With all due respect, Jennifer, there is a difference between a blogger from ex-gay watch posting an abusive, threatening rascist comment to DL and a NARTH article which looks at the “sunny side” of slavery.
The former is a peripheral person in this debate and was “kicked off” ex-gay watch after his comments were exposed. The latter is a professional and expert.
I understand feelings are running high. I think this is a mistake to politicize this process. We have an identity as a scientific organization which is weakened by the poor comparison made above.
Lets blog about science, let’s post articles on science.
David Blakeslee
David- your comment makes it sound like Adam Kautz was one of those running exgaywatch. Far as I know, he was just a commenter, and was no more an official representative of exgaywatch than I am.
I may be showing my ignorance about proper terms for this process, but “blogger” to me means someone who blogs (anyone who posts comments). My intent was to demonstrate he was a commenter on your site, not a leader on your site.
The whole context of my post is to demonstrate the difference between his marginal role and the author at NARTH who is a published member of the group.
I see the latter as more troublesome than the former.
David,
I’m sure this is more frustrating to you than it is to us
David,
Thanks for your comments to NARTH. I cannot imagine that the meltdown taking place on the NARTH blog reflects well on the professionals who are members of the organization. I’m sure it’s very embarrasing to many.
(And I’ve seen others use the same definition for “blogger” as yours.)
I may be showing my ignorance about proper terms for this process, but “blogger” to me means someone who blogs (anyone who posts comments). My intent was to demonstrate he was a commenter on your site, not a leader on your site.
It may be picking nits, but you said he was “from exgaywatch.” I’ve commented on Warren Throckmorton’s blog, but that doesn’t make me “from” Warren Throckmorton’s blog.
BOO,
Understood, my intent was not to conflate the two.
I know that wasn’t your intent, I’m talking about your effect. Look, you’ve got to accept that even though you and Throckmorton come across as fairly reasonable, some people involved with NARTH and the exgay movement aren’t (for evidence- see recent NARTH article and blog controversies). There are some on “your side” who are eager to demonize gays in any way possible (just as there are some on “our side” who are eager to demonize all exgays and conversion therapists). It’s important for everyone to be as precise in their language as possible because there are people involved in this who appear to have no conscience whatsoever and will twist anything they can to try and score a point. Thanks to the likes of “sojourneer” and Adam Kautz, I’d say the rest of us need to try and be very careful in what we say. I’m the first to use humor or sarcasm in making a point, but I try to be very precise with my aim first.
David,
While terminology can trip all of us up from time to time, I’d like to go back to the bigger picture and thank you for trying to clarify the situation.
I am sure God is crying.
And I’d like to cease nitpicking and second Jim Burroway.
I posted this on the “intimidation blog” at NARTH
I think if we are going to post such comments about this topic. We should also create a post about attempts to intimidate those who have Same Sex Attractions (whether gay and lesbian identified or not).
If we really care about bullying, intimidation, devaluing and demeaning of people, we should express that concern regardless of who is being bullied.
David,
If you aren’t careful you’re going to end up persona non grata at Narth.
Do you happen to know whether there is any sizeable percentage of Narth members that support reorientation options or efforts but do not buy into the “exgaywatch is a hate group” rhetoric or are not invested in an anti-gay-rights political effort?
A comment I left on NARTH’s blog, which I’m sure will be censored:
In reply to DL Foster:
Schoenewolf actually has several articles up on the NARTH website. The reason he was criticized for the article in question was for what the article said. Schoenewolf is also a member of NARTH’s advisory board. Mr. Kautz held no such relationship with exgaywatch. Kautz was an individual commenter on the site, just as you have been.
Out of the 12 posts Kautz made on exgaywatch, one was deleted as a personal attack. If you have evidence that all 12 of Kautz’s posts were racist or hateful, please provide it. And please explain exactly how exgaywatch is supposed to “punish” an individual commenter beyond banning them?
and re: the record of intimidation against homosexuals- it seems like a good idea on paper, but do you really expect people like Sojourneer and jjohnson to be honest and thorough in documenting that sort of thing? It would be relaitvely easy for someone here to cobble together a list of at least 20-30 documented acts and send it to them. I wonder how many they’d actually put up?
Wow, they actually put it up
And I still can’t make italics work right. I am a moron after all.
Please see the NARTH blog. It includes invitations to post acts of intimidation against gays and lesbians.
Maybe we can get somewhere from here.
I sent them a good sized list as a starter. Maybe they’ll put it up.
I really do appreciate the gestures, folks… but NARTH is supposed to be a scientific organization.
So I am puzzled — why is the NARTH blog collecting unscientifically sampled and subjective reports of harassment? Is verbal harassment or violence an area of expertise for the NARTH blog moderators?
Why aren’t the moderators advocating for clinical analysis, scientific advancement, patient rights?
I’ve been sensing for many days, now, that the organization is divided three ways:
— a membership of moderate to conservative professionals,
— some administrators who are not very aware, and
— some leaders and moderators who are motivated by angry and ill-informed politics.
The NARTH blog should be a place for informed discussion, and that isn’t likely to happen if NARTH moderators inject politics, resentment, and he-said-she-said conjecture about harassment into the conversation.
Again, I greatly appreciate the level-headedness and honest conservatism of David Blakeslee and others. I am just very puzzled about what the organization thinks it’s doing, where it thinks it’s going. This is all so very strange.
So I am puzzled — why is the NARTH blog collecting unscientifically sampled and subjective reports of harassment? Is verbal harassment or violence an area of expertise for the NARTH blog moderators?
The list I sent was mostly murders and assaults. I’m not sure they really thought this through. In an honest side by side comparison, a list of violence and intimidation against gay people is going to be waaaaaaayyyy longer than a list of violence and intimidation by gay people.
After only a few days, they’ve already duplicated some posts and put up at least one completely unsubstantiated allegation. I’m still waiting for them to put up the 14 documented acts of violence and/or intimidation I sent.
Not gonna happen Boo. The last thing soujourneer is going to do is present a balanced view of things by printing your list.
They’ve put up two individual posts sent by others, but still not the ones I sent in. I’m guessing they want to keep the “tally'” slanted against gays.
Boo, that’s because the continued existence of Narth is predicated on lies and distortions. The posts by soujourneer all would look pretty trivial compared to your list which I understand includes gays murdered by the anti-gay side – acts of violence against gays common whereas Narth is going to be hardpressed to find any against anti-gays. How about posting your list of intimidation against gays on this thread so at least a few people can compare the two?
I put it in, but something came up saying it needed to be approved first and that was like 2 days ago, so I dunno, maybe they just want to move on, or whatever. I guess NARTH can make asses out of themselves enough without any more help from me.