Br. Thomas More Garrett, writing at Dominicana, points out an irony in the new California statute proscribing the use of “reparative therapy” by anyone under the age of eighteen:
The legislation is sweeping in effect. What if an individual under the age of eighteen wants to be rid of homosexual urges? Too bad. What if a minor’s parents and a doctor or licensed therapist propose to the minor a plan of treatment designed to reverse same-sex attraction? The State of California says, “Stop right there.” There are no exceptions, not even for minors who suffer sexual abuse at an early age and then become conflicted with same-sex attraction in adolescence or puberty.
So much for consent as the criterion of a morally acceptable action?
October 15th, 2012 | 4:59 pm
In all human matters, the flesh is solid and the mind is plastic. California is happy for people to “change sex” (an endeavour that can only ever end in failure) but not for them to change their minds (something that people do every day). We are being told to believe that the flesh is plastic and the mind solid.
October 15th, 2012 | 5:25 pm
Yeah, I know! People who talk about consent try to get around that by claiming that they mean informed, adult consent, but that would make their position consistent and we know that’s not possible.
(Actually, I think the law is too sweeping, but people attacking strawman versions of arguments really annoy me.)
October 15th, 2012 | 5:51 pm
Can anyone describe a course of psychotherapy specifically designed to change sexual orientation? Aside from behavioral approaches (e.g., giving a person a shock when he responds to the “wrong” stimuli), what are we talking about? What exactly do Brothers White and Garrett believe is forbidden by this law that should be permitted? What specifically is the course of therapy that they want this law to permit?
There are no exceptions, not even for minors who suffer sexual abuse at an early age and then become conflicted with same-sex attraction in adolescence or puberty.
I just don’t believe this. Assume for the sake of argument (the evidence seems to be against it) that it were the case that a child had been sexually abused and this redirected his or her sexual orientation. The objective of the therapist would be to treat the damage done by the abuse, not to change the orientation of the adolescent.
To put it bluntly and in layman’s terms, it is the consensus of the mental health professions that any therapist who sets out to change a patient’s sexual orientation is a crackpot. Any parent who takes a child to a therapist with the goal of having the child’s sexual orientation changed is putting his or her child in the hands of someone who may make the child’s problems (if indeed he or she has problems) worse. I don’t think anyone, gay or straight, would approve of parents who wanted a gay child taking their straight child to a therapist for conversion. It shouldn’t go the other way around, either.
October 15th, 2012 | 6:22 pm
The law generally takes a dim view of the ability of minors to consent to things. Do you want to participate in the effort to wear away that legal convention? You’ll probably find you will have odd company in your efforts if you do.
October 15th, 2012 | 6:32 pm
If an adolescent didn’t have, but wanted to have a homosexual orientation, I’m guessing California law does not explicitly prohibit “psychiatrists and psychologists … social workers and marriage and family therapists” from helping the child out with that.
If I am right about that then clearly there is a double standard which reveals that the new law is not about the welfare of children at all but only about advancing the homosexual agenda.
If I am wrong about that, and professionals are prohibited from helping a child who wants a homosexual orientation to achieve that, then homosexuality must be a disorder, in which case there is no legitimate reason to prohibit professionals from helping children overcome that disorder.
October 15th, 2012 | 7:47 pm
At one time it was the consensus of mental health professionals that homosexuality was a disorder. Human nature didn’t change. What was politically correct changed.
See Aliens Cause Global Warming: A Caltech Lecture by Michael Crichton for a great discussion of just how lame it is to defend a position based on the consensus of professionals.
October 15th, 2012 | 7:48 pm
Several major research studies of adult and adolescent males with Same Sex Attractions have demonstrated low self-esteem as being a major conflict in their lives.
The first study from the Netherlands of 7,076 adults demonstrated that lesser quality of life in men was predominantly explained by low self-esteem. The authors recommended the importance of finding out how lower sense of self-esteem comes about in homosexual men.(1.)
In a 2010 Israeli study of ninety homosexual and 109 heterosexual men with mean age of 26 and with no significant differences with respect to country of birth, ethnic origin, education level, military service, or participation in psychotherapy, homosexual young adults scored lower on the self-esteem measure and higher on narcissism compared to their heterosexual counterparts.(2.)
A 2011 UK study of 10,000 adolescents was notable for boys with some same-sex experience reporting less self-esteem and more experiences of forced sex.(3.)
This insecurity arises from a number of childhood conflicts, including same-sex peer rejection in early childhood as a result of a lack of eye–hand coordination. This challenge in boys interferes with male bonding in sports and with secure same-sex attachments. Other origins of male insecurity and sadness are an emotionally distant father relationship, a poor body image and, finally, sexual abuse victimization.
Psychotherapy that strengthens self-esteem is helpful in treating numerous psychological conflicts and compulsive behaviors.
Participants in Spitzer’s study were presented with a list of several ways that therapy might have been “very helpful” (apart from change in sexual orientation). Notable were feeling more masculine (males) or more feminine (females) (87%) and developing more intimate nonsexual relations with the same sex (93%).(4.)
1. Sandfort, T.G., et al. (2003) Same-sex sexuality and quality of life: findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study. Arch Sex Behav. 32: 15-22.
2. Rubinstein, G. (2010). Narcissism and Self-Esteem Among Homosexual and Heterosexual Male Students. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 36:24–34.
3. Parkes, A., et. al. (2011). Comparison of teenagers’ early same-sex and heterosexual behavior: UK data from the SHARE and RIPPLE studies. Journal of Adolescent Health, 48, 27-35
4. Spitzer, R.L. (2003) “Can some gay men and lesbians change their orientation? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32:403–17.
October 15th, 2012 | 8:08 pm
Also, Dr. Jay Wade at Fordham University published a 2010 research study that showed that men with unwanted SSA can experience healing by developing healthy non-sexual relationships, i.e., friendships, with other men. They also reported a decrease in homosexual feelings and behavior, an increase in heterosexual feelings and behavior, and a positive change in psychological functioning.
Karten, E. Y., & Wade, J. C. (2010). Sexual orientation change efforts in men: A client perspective. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 18, 84-102.
October 15th, 2012 | 8:39 pm
“People who talk about consent try to get around that by claiming that they mean informed, adult consent, but that would make their position consistent and we know that’s not possible”
Consistent? Consistent with what? Their views on minors receiving contraception and abortions? Except that the notion that a child could be too young for those is past their even comprehending.
October 15th, 2012 | 9:48 pm
I can’t support this, because the abuse is more likely than the denial of the situation you list. It’s more likely that parents would use the second option to try and change the kid more than it benefit the cases where the kid would be able to have informed consent.
Look at it this way: this is the mirror image of allowing children to have sex changes. These kinds of sweeping changes to their sexuality simply aren’t something young children can have informed consent about. More likely than not parental influence might be a key, and it’s best to wait till the age of consent to do so.
A child can still seek therapy on his own through books and other self-directed means, or act out his chosen gender, but things that can cause long-lasting change need to be restricted until they can make an adult decision about it.
October 16th, 2012 | 3:18 am
Shock therapy or any other form of aversion therapies are not used by ethical therapists. But who says they are being used to change an orientation, only gay activists.
If you ban SOCE, you will have to ban CBT and MBCT as well since they are used as tools to help ego-dystonic homosexuals.
October 16th, 2012 | 5:08 am
The law regulates the conduct of “mental health care providers” and any sanction is imposed by their licensing body.
It does not penalise either the child or its parents seeking or, indeed, receiving such treatment.
The law forbids “Sexual orientation change efforts” defined as “any practices by mental health providers that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation…”
October 16th, 2012 | 8:07 am
Mary –
Hi, Mary. I’m Ray Ingles, and I think adult, informed consent is necessary for sexual activity and related medical procedures. Only in extreme circumstances should children receive contraception or undergo an abortion without their parents’ consent – ‘extreme’ in the sense of ‘threat to the child’s life’.
(I think parents who don’t make contraception available to their kids are profoundly stupid, just like parents who are so dogmatic about underage drinking that their kids would rather drive drunk than call their parents and get a ride. But freedom is the right to be wrong.)
Sure, there are other people who talk about consent but want to interfere with how other people raise their children for their own good. But they are no more common than, say, people who want to ‘protect the sanctity of marriage from the gays’ but favor relaxed divorce laws. Actually, I think they’re less common.
So, anyway, are you willing to argue the positions on their merits, or should we just snipe back and forth?
October 16th, 2012 | 8:18 am
Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons –
Of course, correlation isn’t causation. I mean, if that were the case, high self esteem would tend to cause Blackness, and people with low self esteem would be at risk for Latinoism: http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2002-02633-001
Interestingly, if you were right and therapy to help self-esteem does help prevent/’repair’ homosexuality – ‘self-esteem therapy’ is not forbidden by SB 1172.
October 16th, 2012 | 8:38 am
Most people consider consent to be a necessary, but not sufficient, criterion of morally acceptable action. There are some things that are immoral even if an individual consents, and the set of actions to which minors can consent is smaller than the set of actions to which adults can consent.
You can disagree about whether reparative therapy lies within or outside the set of “moral actions to which an individual can consent,” but the state of California isn’t being inconsistent or hypocritical if it doesn’t consider consent to be the sole relevant criterion.
October 16th, 2012 | 9:40 am
If you ban SOCE, you will have to ban CBT and MBCT as well since they are used as tools to help ego-dystonic homosexuals.
Hank,
That doesn’t follow at all. There are many ways behavioral therapy techniques could be misused for evil ends. You could use systematic desensitization to help someone overcome a phobia or to train hit men to overcome whatever qualms they have about killing. Banning the latter would not require banning the former.
We have not heard yet, and I don’t think we are going to hear in this discussion, any specific descriptions of therapies aimed at changing sexual orientation. Dr. Fitzgibbons has cited a study and claims “men with unwanted SSA can experience healing by developing healthy non-sexual relationships, i.e., friendships, with other men . . . . . ” My question is—Did anyone in the study actually change from homosexual to heterosexual? It is one thing to help someone with an unwanted sexual orientation to cope with distress, to feel more comfortable with himself or herself, to try to redirect energies into other areas, and even to try to help that person function heterosexually. It is another thing simply to set out to change the person’s sexual orientation.
I think the law is flawed in that it is extremely unclear what it would ban and what it would permit. But that does not mean there could not be a good law that prohibits certain kinds of alleged therapies purporting to change sexual orientation.
October 16th, 2012 | 7:56 pm
Spitzer’s study of 200 men and women who had sought professional help to deal with SSA and who were out of the lifestyle for five years found that 64% of the men and 43% of the women subsequently identified themselves as being heterosexual. Contrary to the claims made by the opponents of therapy, they did not experience an increase in psychological conflicts as a result of therapy.(1)
Dr. Spitzer commented on his study, “Depression has been reported to be a common side effect of unsuccessful attempts to change orientation. This was not the case for our participants, who often reported that they were ‘markedly’ or ‘extremely’ depressed [prior to treatment] (males 43%, females 47%), but rarely that depressed [after treatment] (males 1%, females 4%.). To the contrary, [after treatment] the vast majority reported that they were ‘not at all’ or ‘only slightly’ depressed (males 91%, females 88%).”(2.)
These findings are consistent with the clinical experiences of many mental health professionals who respond to the request of individuals to help them with their unwanted SSA with a focus on strengthening male self-esteem through CBT.
1.Spitzer, R.L. (2003) “Can some gay men and lesbians change their orientation? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 32:403–17.
2. Ibid. p. 412
October 16th, 2012 | 8:23 pm
Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons,
Surely you are aware that Spitzer himself has repudiated the study and apologized for it.
Here is part of a letter Spitzer wrote to Dr. Ken Zucker:
October 17th, 2012 | 7:01 pm
David, you are questioning the quality of the science of Dr. Spitzer’s 2003 article just because he rejected his own work. As you probably know, scientific journals remove scholars from offering their own opinions because of possible bias. In other words, Dr. Spitzer is no longer the final judge of his own work.
Here are a few points to show that the findings are worthy of being taken seriously. First, consider just two statistics. 85% of the males and 70% of the females prior to trying to change did not find the gay or lesbian lifestyle emotionally satisfying. Following attempts at change, of the 158 participants who were no longer in therapy, only 2 (both males) reported any overt homosexual behavior at post-test. Think about that for a moment, only 2 males and no females engaged behaviorally in sexual acts with same-sex partners. There are many other statistics for you to ponder, including the sharp drop in depression. As a final point, every participant (200 in total) reported some change. I point out the sexual behavior statistic because it tells us much from a scientific viewpoint what the participants’ actual behavior is. Finally, I refer you to Dr. Spitzer’s excellent Discussion section in which he anticipated criticism as you have tried to give. He refutes the criticism masterfully. The participants do not at all appear to by lying.
Please note that you, David, have ignored the 800 pound guerrilla in the room, which is the evidence that Dr. Spitzer was hounded by those who wish to have us think as they do, and at all costs.
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/…/frail_and_aged_a_giant_apologizes
October 18th, 2012 | 10:16 am
Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons,
The study can be read here. In a nutshell, 200 self-selected individuals (many recruited through “ex-gay” ministries) were located for the study. One of the criterion for being a subject was that they had (or believed they had) made some change from homosexual to heterosexual. They were interviewed by telephone and asked to assess their own sexuality before and after their efforts to change. Many of them had actually not gone through psychotherapy with a psychologist, and almost none had seen a psychiatrist. Many were in religious programs or used self-help books. I think it is not surprising that people selected for the study out of the group that volunteered to be subjects reported some change in sexual orientation when that was the criterion for being in the study.
I think it might have been more forthright of you, as a psychiatrist citing, for people not in the mental health professions, a controversial study by another psychiatrist who had repudiated his own work to at least mention the fact.
I think anyone who wants to can read the study and judge for themselves whether it proves anything at all. I certainly don’t think it does.
October 18th, 2012 | 3:06 pm
David, you seem confused to me, as Dr. Spitzer seems confused. If the question is this, “Can people change their orientation,” then it is a perfectly acceptable approach to ask for participants who think that they have changed their orientation. This is not a bias at all for this kind of question. Further, there need not be a particular kind of treatment for the participants, given this question. They might have changed from any number of interventions. The question did not ask: What specific kind of intervention leads to change? We could obscure this reasonable question and the reasonable findings by arguing about the recruitment and arguing about the kind of intervention for each person, but none of that will take away from this: Dr. Spitzer’s question is a legitimate scientific question and he used legitimate research methods to answer it. He answered it in the affirmative: Some people do report change in their orientation. The scientific methods, which are sound, lead to this conclusion.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact