APA Shutting Down Dialogue On Changing Sexual Orientation

[Annie]

Not usually one of my 'topics' but I found this interesting as another example of the shutting down of discussion, or suppressing of free speech. I agree with her that it's pretty hard to figure someone is going to change, but if they wish to seek help?:

http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2006/03/if-youre-gay-you-better-stay-that-way.html

Sunday, March 12, 2006
If You're Gay--You Better Stay that Way
Well, the APA (American Psychological Association) is at it again playing the activist role rather than the social science one when it comes to homosexuality (Hat Tip The National Psychologist). The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) is a national association of mental health professionals serving men and women who are dissatisfied with their homosexual attractions.

Personally, I'm skeptical about turning gay people straight. But shouldn't the client be the one to choose, not the APA? The APA has decided that the answer is no.

Not only did the APA deny CE (Continuing Education) credit to professionals attending the annual NARTH conference in November, stating that "The program content is not consistent with APA policy" but the APA is attempting to declare therapy to modify sexual orientation unethical (National Psychologist, March,April 2006). Nicholas Cummings and Rogers Wright, authors of Destructive Trends in Mental Health,talk about the APA's attempt to silence those who disagree with their positions:

When writing their newly released book Destructive Trends in Mental Health, Wright and Cummings invited the participation of a number of fellow psychologists who flatly turned them down--fearing loss of tenure, loss of promotion, and other forms of professional retaliation. "We were bombarded by horror stories," Dr. Cummings said. "Their greatest fear was of the gay lobby, which is very strong in the APA."

'Homophobia as intimidation' is one of the most pervasive techniques used to silence anyone who would disagree with the gay activist agenda," said Cummings. "Sadly, I have seen militant gay men and lesbians-- who I am certain do not represent all homosexuals, and who themselves have been the object of derision and oppression-- once gaining freedom and power, then becoming oppressors themselves.


Perhaps the APA should turn the mirror on itself when it comes to being intolerant and closed-minded. APA articles such as this one claim that Conservatives have an intolerance for ambiguity -- but isn't intolerance of ambiguity just what the APA is engaging in on the issue of homosexuality? Isn't it extreme to go from diagnosing homosexuality as a mental illness in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) prior to 1973 to claiming that NARTH has no right to help those who want to change their sexual orientation to do so? Should we really trust an institution that swings to such extremes when it comes to psychological issues, and yet insists that it is right in whatever position it takes?

If clients want to change their sexual orientation, shouldn't they be able to make that choice just like the clients who embrace being gay or heterosexual? (How would the APA act if someone else were trying to shut down therapists who assisted formerly "straight" clients with getting in touch with their "gay" feelings?) Is the appearance of political correctness so entrenched in the APA that they would violate their own ethical code of client autonomy, self-determination or diversity?

I guess the answer to the last question is "Yes."

Update: Please help me in my support of the book, Destructive Trends in Mental Health. I have purchased several copies and hope that others will too--give them to your favorite therapist or mental health professional or read them yourself. The book is chock full of great information on political correctness with chapters ranging from "The Psychology of Victimhood" to "The Dumbing Down of Psychology."

"Wright described the difficulties he has encountered with the American Psychological Association since the Association instituted a "strategic decision not to respond" to their book in an effort to avoid attracting attention to it. Initially, the APA prohibited its member-publications from reviewing Destructive Trends. "So much for diversity and open-mindedness," Wright added wryly."

posted by Helen at 6:49 AM

 

[musicman]

Aspiring tyrants - before they achieve total power - can be tricky. They deflect - they flatter - they try to manipulate thought and language (there's no need for any of these gymnastics once they've realized their goals; dissent is then mercilessly smashed). But, to the wide awake, these vermin are easy to spot; they have a glaring weakness: the light of day.

The American Left are tyrants, plain and simple. The APA surrendered to them decades ago; they are as lost a cause as the Democrat Party, academia, the mainstream media, and Hollywood. You want to see the essential character of the Left? Watch how they handle deviations from orthodoxy within their own ranks. Not a pretty sight.

 

[Kagom]

I sound like a broken record when I say this, but NARTH isn't a really good source of information. They're biased and with a major agenda.

However, I feel that if someone truly wants to try and change their sexuality, go on and feel free, but it more than likely won't work. People should have the right to choose. That's really all there is to say.

 

[007]

Pretty much common knowledge at this point... the APA is a joke. They've knuckled under to militant homosexual pressure, pure and simple. They no doubt have a considerable number of queers amongst their ranks, making it all the easier for the homo's to influence what they say and do. Pathetic.

 

[Kagom]

Pale, let's face it. Both groups probably have an agenda. You can really and truly go on personal convictions it seems, though we'll continue to use one source over the other.

 

[007]

Pale, let's face it. Both groups probably have an agenda. You can really and truly go on personal convictions it seems, though we'll continue to use one source over the other.

I'm sure they do. One group's agenda is "stick to nature". The other group's agenda is "stick in your ass".