Warren Throckmorton

Thursday, March 30, PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-gays and Gays) was evicted from the Virginia Schools Counselors Association annual convention. They had applied for, paid for, and received permission to exhibit at the conference. While setting up their booth, several members of the VASC leadership, including current president Tammy Davis, and past-president Carol Kaffenberger, requested to meet Regina Griggs, PFOX director. The school counselors objected to some materials on their table and said PFOX would have to leave. After some discussion, the school counselors said the bullying brochure (most of which, I wrote) and the PFOX teen brochure were ok. However, the PFOX representatives were still asked to leave since offering only two brochures would not be worth their time. At that point, the hotel staff intervened and demanded that the PFOX people leave. One of the staff began to dismantle the table and the police were called. The two grandmothers (Regina and Retta Brown) were not hauled out by the authorities since they decided to leave.

I have emailed the VSCA officers to confirm this event and will post their replies. This amazes me. PFOX was invited to come to exhibit and then when they arrived, they were promptly evicted. PFOX was willing to take away anything that seemed offensive (they had a copy of one of Nicolosi's books that they put away and a story of a trangendered person who warns about surgery) but they were still ushered out.

UPDATE: Dr. Tammy Davis emailed to say that she would be providing a comment about the incident sometime later today or this evening. Stay tuned...

This will be good news to some and not so good news to others. Oh well, I guess dress hem lines do predict the stock market...

Today in social psychology class I showed the Christmas Day, 1977, episode of All in the Family where transvestite Beverly LaSalle is killed by thugs and Edith has a crisis of faith as a result of the loss.

In looking for more information about the man who played BLS, Lori Shannon, I found an interview with female impersonator, David de Alba. The interviewer was Chris Lee and I found this exchange interesting.

Chris: What's your explanation of the connection between Female Impersonation and Gay men? What's all that about? I'm speaking both from the standpoint of most FIs being Gay and most FI fans being Gay.

David: I hope I am answering your question correctly, but although most of the FIs I knew were gay, there are some who claim that they were bisexual and were married to straight women. In fact we had several FIs like that at Finocchio's. There are many gay men and lesbians who I have known in my showbiz past who loved FIs and my work as an FI, but there are some gay men trying to be so 'butch' that they claim they don't like female impersonators. Somewhere in their personalities there are femme characteristics they want to deny. Putting us FIs down makes them feel like a straight male talking rough and putting down a gay male. Strange how some people feel they have to play roles. If people were true to themselves this world would be an easier place to live in.

In light of discussion on this blog about masulinity and homosexuality, I thought it was interesting that this icon in the San Francisco gay community described masculine gay males as being in denial about their feminine side. Being a masculine gay male seems to be doubted from a variety of perspectives. I am not making an opinion statement here, just blogging.

I interrupt the normally scheduled blog to bring you this important public service announcement. Everybody reading this, please go to www.invisiblechildren.com. I saw the documentary this morning in church and I was blown away. The documentary is a call to action for the West to help the children of Sudan and Uganda. I think we will be doing the Global Night Commute later in April. Pass the word (maybe it is all over blogosphere already, I don't know, but here is my little part).

I do not see this as a final word but I am reflecting on reparative therapy these days and wanted to get some of my thoughts down.

I am not a reparative therapist.

UPDATE: For more information regarding a framework for interventions regarding sexual identity, see the Sexual Identity Therapy guidelines...

A school district cancelled a diversity day because an ex-gay asked for some time. Perhaps, the school should consult the First Amendment Center's Guidelines regarding sexual orientation and public schools.

My middle school aged daughter was assigned to read this book. I read through it and thought it was a step up from a comic book, not much literary value that I could discern. Actually, I think I would rather her read Fantastic Four comics over the Guide. Maybe I am missing something?

Lengthy op-ed by Charles Haynes in USA Today about the First Amendment Center's Guidelines regarding discussions of sexual orientation schools. My perception is that these are not being well received on the hard right or hard left.

From a Gay365.com article regarding Equality Ride's visit to the media, I mean campus of Union University:

Dawn Davridge said that she and her partner, Kathryn Davridge, were expelled from Union two years ago after administrators found out they are lesbians; and in a relationship.
"I fell in love with my best friend," Davridge told about a dozen students who gathered to hear from the riders. "I am not sick, and I am not a sinner. Two years ago, our story was suppressed."

The terms sick and sinner have been in numerous quotes from Equality Riders. I assume that this is one message designed to be a take away point from the entire effort. Seems strange to hear someone who is claiming to come from a Christian perspective saying, "I am not a sinner." To anyone who reads this blog and is up to date on gay integrative theology: When did homosexually attractions come into the human condition, before Adam and Eve fell or after?

In an email Mark Yarhouse, detailed his account of the E Ride visit:

We had Equality Ride come to the campus on Monday and Tuesday. The university had made arrangements to hold three forums with ER: one meeting in one of my classes, one panel discussion, and one training through the institute I direct. However, due to the way the university was being portrayed on their web page the week prior to the visit, the administration withdrew the offer, in part because they were dealing with a number of questions from the media based upon how the university was being portrayed.

Several students from the School of Psychology and Counseling went out to engage and dialogue with the ER participants. That led to an invitation by the students to have some of the ER folks attend a worship service that evening. I understand that five ER participants attended that time of worship.

On Tuesday six of the ER folks crossed over the property line and were arrested by VA Beach police. Several university students continued to interact with the ER participants and they shared a meal that evening at a local restaurant before they left for Lee University. I interacted with several of the ER folks. They were quite young (18-27, I believe), and were consistent in their use of non-violent protest. I think they admitted that much of their concern was to raise awareness of what they viewed as discriminatory policy, but it became clear that the university does not have any admissions restrictions based upon whether a person has a homosexual orientation or identifies as gay or lesbian.

I think the media coverage has been fairly accurate. The focus was more on the arrests than on the informal interactions and dialogues, but some of the media coverage did capture that as well.

Mark Yarhouse

I didn't see media coverage of anything except the arrests. Perhaps Mark meant the local media.

It's the second most wonderful time of the year. March Madness. My bracket is already corrupted but I love it.

During the segment, Leslie Stahl asked Michael Bailey's views of how gay and straight men compare.

"... Straight men are more interested than straight women in having casual, uncommitted sex. Gay men are like that, too," says Bailey.

"One has the impression that gay men are much more inclined toward casual sex than straight men," Stahl said.

"They're just more successful at it, because the people they're trying to have sex with are also interested in it," Bailey explained.

"But don't you find this interesting that the one big area where gay men are more like straight men is in sex? I mean, that is…both amusing and odd," Stahl said.

"It suggests that whatever causes a man to be gay doesn't make him feminine in every respect. There must be different parts of the brain that can be feminized independently from each other," Bailey replied.

Could be. Or this lack of consistency could mean that the theory is wrong. Saying "there must be different parts" doesn't make it so.

The producer Shari Finkelstein was defended by Brian Montopoli on the CBS Blog by saying:

"The key for Finkelstein – as it was for Scott Pelley in a piece on global warming – was to stick to science."

If the writers had stuck to the science, then the show would not have come to the conclusions it did. In fact, given the state of the science, there would not have been conclusions. On point, here is a quote from the piece: "There are many more questions at this point than answers, but the scientists 60 Minutes spoke to are increasingly convinced that genes, hormones, or both — that something is happening to determine sexual orientation before birth." If there are many more questions than answers then how can the scientists be "increasingly convinced?"

How is this stance sticking to the science?

Update: The producer made some comments about the segment on the CBS website.

Just some of my reactions to the 60 Minutes segment on sexual orientation. This is addressed to an assistant to the segment's producer who invited me to respond.

Robin:

In the piece, this narration was near the end:

"Then there's the question of how something in the womb could affect one twin but not the other. There are many more questions at this point than answers, but the scientists 60 Minutes spoke to are increasingly convinced that genes, hormones, or both — that something is happening to determine sexual orientation before birth."

There are many problems with the segment but this narration reveals the crux of the matter. You acknowledge there are many more questions than answers, but you still reference your experts as having the conclusion that sexual orientation is determined before birth. You documented numerous exceptions to the theories you presented and then you make a conclusion that is unwarranted by that information. Given those exceptions, you could just as easily have concluded that the certainty that many people used to feel about sexual orientation being inborn might be misguided. In fact, we do not know why people experience the sexual attractions they do.

In fact, in this body of research, there is a relationship between gender non-conformity and later homosexuality but there are numerous exceptions (some effeminate men are straight and some masculine men are gay). However, while gender non-conformity is associated with genetic similarity, sexual orientation is not strongly correlated with being genetically alike. Bailey's own work shows this. There is a role for the environment to play in the pathway from gender nonconformity to sexual feelings. Your broadcast did not address how gender nonconformity might lead to homosexuality. It was just assumed that gender nonconformity was a precursor to homosexuality. In the process, you reinforced all of the stereotypes about gay men being effeminate and helped to reinforce the social environment that assumes effeminate boys will become gay. You could just as easily presented effeminate straight males and asked why they are straight if being gender nonconforming causes homosexuality.

The problem here is you assumed correlation means cause. A correlation between gender nonconformity and homosexuality does not warrant a conclusion that gender nonconformity directly causes homosexuality. A plausible explanation, at least for some gay men, is that the environment mediates in some way which effeminate men will become gay and which ones will not. In fact, a theory exists that suggests just this kind of mediation but it was not mentioned. Daryl Bem at Cornell has developed such a theory and it was irresponsible for you to discuss gender nonconformity without presenting Bem's work. In my opinion, you incorrectly led your viewers to believe that no credible science supports social environmental factors which might mediate the development of sexual attractions.

Even the hormonal theory does not specify how gayness might arise from gender nonconformity. This theory only relates to how people might express gender nonconformity. A feminized brain might lead to gender nonconforming behavior but this does not specify how such people might develop attractions to the same sex.

In this context, you presented the older brother theory and allowed Dr. Breedlove to suggest an intrauterine theory for this phenomenon. However, you did not state that even the developers of that theory predict that between 15 and 29% of gay men might owe their homosexuality to the older brother effect. While interesting and important, this theory (which is not at all proven) fails to account for a large majority of people. Instead you provided no context and left the impression that hormones may account for most homosexuality. You also ignored 2002 research by Yale sociologists Bearman and Bruckner that demonstrated another familial effect: opposite sex fraternal twins. They found that boys having an opposite sex fraternal twin are twice as likely as other boys to experience same sex attraction. In contrast to your report, they found that the presence of an older brother diminished reports of same sex attractions.

I think the only fair thing for you to do is to revisit the issue and provide some kind of balance. While there are numerous ramifications of presenting incomplete and therefore, misleading information, the primary matter I am thinking about this morning is the impact of stereotyping on young sensitive, effeminate kids. With your program, you have added to this stereotyping that labels such boys as gay from an early age and results in teasing, pigeon-holing and self-doubt.

I said at the top this is a beginning and I could go on (especially about the lack of discernment of putting on air the young fraternal twin pair) but I think I will stop now. Sexual orientation research is indeed a difficult topic to present in a 15 minute segment. However, I believe future investigations could be much more accurate and balanced if you bring in a wider range of researchers, theorists and thinkers in the field. Toward that end, I would be glad to provide documentation and further nuance if desired.

Appreciate the opportunity to present these reactions,

Warren Throckmorton, PhD
Associate Professor, Psychology
Fellow, Psychology and Public Policy
Grove City College

Here is a press release from SoulForce about Regent University. In contrast to this release, I had a conversation with Mark Yarhouse at Regent today about several matters and in the process he let me know that he was disappointed about how Equality Ride has misreprented Regent. He was looking forward to having some of the riders in on of his classes and a number of other activities were planned on campus. According to Mark, Regent backed out because the leadership could not trust the Riders to be truthful. If the Eriders said Regent was refusing dialogue (which they did on their website) at the very same time Regent was planning it, then the leadership of Regent did not feel they could trust the Riders to be honest about what went on while on campus. My impression (not Mark's) is that Soulforce was especially anxious to give Falwell and Robertson a black eye. Every one knows there is a history between Mel White and Falwell and Robertson.

Regent University Uninvites Equality Riders, Banning the Gay Activists from Campus
Download this press release as an Adobe PDF document.
Pat Robertson's Regent University has rescinded their previous welcome to the Equality Riders, stating they now refuse dialogue and that the riders presence will constitute trespassing.

Virginia Beach, VA (PRWEB) March 11, 2006 -- Despite previously having agreed to a day of dialogue with the Soulforce Equality Riders, Pat Robertson’s Regent University has now rescinded their invitation, refusing discussion and stating that their presence on campus will constitute trespassing. Regent University is the second stop for this group of young adults on a two-month journey to Christian colleges and military academies that ban GLBT enrollment.

This comes after 24 people, some Equality Riders and other supporters from nearby colleges were arrested at Liberty University. “We had remained optimistic, despite nearly six weeks of unreturned phone calls and emails, that forums for genuine dialogue would emerge,” says Equality Rider Chad Grandy, the point person for Regent University.

=Not so, according to Mark. Forums were in planned and in place.

On February 21, the webpage on the Equality Ride site was updated to reflect the nature of that continuing dialogue, stating: Regent University has refused dialogue thus far with the Equality Ride, but the riders are undeterred in their hope for dialogue with the school. On February 22, the riders received a positive response from the University with a proposed schedule for the two days on campus.

On February 25, a subsequent press release from the Equality Ride quoted Vice President of Academic Affairs Randall Pannell when he said “We at Regent University are looking forward to the Equality Ride’s visit, and are trying to prepare so that this will be a positive experience for both Equality Ride, as well as Regent University.” In that same press release, Equality Ride Co-Director Jacob Reitan commended the school’s choice to embrace academic freedom and discussion. As of March 7 Regent is now closed to dialogue and access, citing two issues, one the continued presence on the Equality website of the phrase, “…Regent University has refused dialogue…but the riders are undeterred.” The second issue is the riders’ statement that Regent indeed has a policy banning GLBT students. “This was true before the February 22 communication from Pannell, and it remains true. The school did tacitly refuse any dialogue.”

This is hair splitting on the part of Equality Ride. Regent wanted to be treated as well as the effort had treated Biola and ACU by reflecting the nature of Regent's involvement. Mark had worked hard to make access and dialogue possible. And anyone who knows Mark would believe this to be true.

Regent did not request that this statement change prior to fully recanting on the schedule. Pannell writes in the withdrawal letter, “In spite of the fact that the Soulforce Equality Ride is aware that we have no such policies, the facts continue to be misstated.” The activists recently discovered that the University does have a stated policy that appears to ban homosexual enrollment. The handbook reads “…homosexual conduct or any other conduct, which violates Biblical standards, is prohibited.” While the school maintains the policy refers to behavior, the Equality Riders are concerned it may be a form of discrimination. The Equality Ride is an action of Soulforce, an activist organization committed to ending the stigmatization of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people--stigmatization caused by religion based bias. ###

Now I don't know everything and am always open to new information but what I am hearing from Mark leads me to think Regent was wise not to cooperate. You can't act in bad faith (Equality Ride) and then expect to get cooperation.

60 Minutes is airing a segment about the science of sexual orientation Sunday night - looks like "must see tv."

Off to jail for the Eriders in the first stop...

I posted below about the join effort of GLSEN and CEAI to endorse the First Amendment Center's Guidelines about sexual orientation in public schools. The link was broken and now the guidlines are on the FAC's website:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=16612

This is a good effort and perhaps should be consulted by Soulforce.

Imagine you're a liberal democrat and your conservative republican neighbor calls and says, "Hey, we are coming over to your house next Tuesday in order to dialogue with your kids about the benefits of conservativism." Your neighbors say they will drop in sometime that day and leave a copy of God and George Bush by Paul Kengor; copies of the National Review and some literature from Focus on the Family for your kids to read. While they are there, they plan to strike up conversations with them about the Iraq War, the need to cut entitlement programs and about how abortion is discriminatory to the poor.

How would you respond?


Now read this from the Dallas Voice about Soulforce's plans to visit Liberty University in Lynchburg, VA:

Members of Soulforce, which is based in Lynchburg, were greeted with cookies when they met with Liberty students on campus last spring to discuss the treatment of gays...

Soulforce has been issued a permit to demonstrate on city property, which Zuidema said would be the sidewalk or street bordering the campus. Soulforce’s goal is to meet with students to discuss freedom of expression, not to have a confrontation, Herrin said. Still, the group will not be turned away, she said. “I’m actually very excited that this is our first stop,” Herrin, a 24-year-old (Equality Rider) from Dallas, said in a telephone interview. “We have to go to these places and start this dialogue.”

So when you reply to your conservative republican neighbors, "no, we had you over here once before and we just don't see eye-to-eye on these things," they say "we won't be turned away, we are going to come into your house whether you like it or not. See you next Tuesday!"

How would you respond?

Ok, so not many wanted to guess. Can't say I blame anyone; there wasn't much to go on. However, these cases present some of the assumptions that conservatives often make when conceptualizing male homosexuality. I used a similar exercise about girls and eating disorders in one of my classes recently. Very few got that right either. I used that one to illustrate how clinicians can make poor judgments based on attachment to a pet theory of causation.

So here is the rest of the story...

James - Straight as can be. If one can believe self-report, no attractions to the same sex ever.

Dallas - Same-sex attracted but does not seek same-sex partners. Tried it, didn't like it but has unmistakable attractions toward men. Weak opposite-sex attractions, may pursue heterosexual relationship if the "right" girl comes along.

John - Bisexually attracted; would rather have no same-sex attractions.

Gareth - A brief snippet of the boyhood of psychologist Gordon Allport who had a life-long heterosexual marriage. Although nothing I can find suggests he had same-sex attractions, one cannot be dogmatic about it.

ADDENDUM: A commenter said she might be able to do better with the eating disorders exercise. Here it is: who has the eating disorder?

Jill’s mother was constantly dieting and urging Jill, who had more of her father’s stocky build, to diet with her. At 14, Jill’s boyfriend dumped her for another girl, someone thinner.

Sarah’s mother was obese but did not seem troubled by it. Her parents were laissez-faire about most things and didn’t bother Sarah about her looks or weight. Sarah however was not proud of her mother’s appearance.

Jen’s parents were trim and athletic but did not force the children to be into sports. They were allowed to find their own interests and did not put much pressure on their children to achieve in school, just asking them to make good effort. Jen was involved in most school activities and is an A- student.

Busy blogging day for me...

I had input early in this process and again near the end...

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=62009

ADDENDUM: Here is a more comprehensive article about the guidelines with a link to the document: http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/2006/03/09/1443706.htm

The Soulforce Equality Ride cometh.

Asuza Pacific Univ. scheduled a prequel to their upcoming visit by the Soulforce crew on March 1, 2006 to coincide with their annual common day of learning. I was originally scheduled to go but had a conflict here and had to back out. Randy Thomas gives a report...

A commenter requested that I have a look at this article by British gay activist, Peter Tatchell. I had seen it before but it is worth reviewing.

I agree with most of it and certainly agree that whether someone is born gay is a separate question from public policy or even whether to suppress or repress feelings. This is a matter of free will.

I do not think the examples he gives for environment fatally discounts the possibility that there might be a very small number of people who find no flexibility in their homosexual desires. However, there is no proof that requires a belief in genetic determinism of sexuality either.

In general, I agree when he says: The truth is that nurture appears to be more important than nature when it comes to the formation of sexual orientation. Most studies indicate that genetic factors, while not unimportant, are of secondary significance compared to social influences, such as the relationship between a child and its parents, formative childhood experiences, cultural mores and peer pressure.

This could have come right out of I Do Exist.

Tatchell places the solidification of sexual orientation at 5 or 6, which might be an influence of psychoanalytic thinking. I would place it later and at varying ages for different people. Further, I think for some, I would say varying degrees of change could occur spontaneously much later in life. In fact, Tatchell describes situations like that.

This article is consistent with my impression that European gays have not banked their political aspirations on the born gay argument as in America.

Among the following brief vignettes, choose the person you think identifies as heterosexual. If you are of the reparative school, you can guess who you think is a "heterosexual with a homosexual problem." Or you can say who you think might experience same-sex attraction, whatever the person's label. Guess by leaving a comment. Assume no child abuse, mental illness, or substance abuse unless specified.

James cannot remember ever hearing his father saying “I love you.” His mother had three children by three different fathers, James being the oldest brother of two younger sisters. James’s father traveled frequently on business and did not attend any of James school activities. James’ mother was an unhappy woman who frequently criticized James and the men who were fathers of her children. James became his mother’s main source of emotional support through high school. He did not excel in school but rather worked many jobs to help for his sisters and mother. James had a hard time breaking away from home and lives now just a few miles from his mother.

Dallas was the oldest of two boys growing up in an urban area. His father was a mechanic who came home every day from the shop in time to have supper with his family. The family attended church regularly and was active in the local sports programs. Dallas enjoyed sports but was a better student than an athlete, earning entrance into a selective private college. His parents never divorced but they did not seem emotionally or physically close. Dallas still has notes from his father telling him how much Dallas is loved. Dallas has expressed a desire to enter the pastorate.

John is a pastor’s son, the youngest of two boys and an older sister. John moved a lot with his family due to frequent pastoral changes. John was a good student and athlete. He played linebacker for the high school football team and was popular in school. He calls his dad “my hero” because he is so bold in defense of his faith. Furthermore his dad was his chosen accountability partner as he entered college. John’s mother is a real estate agent part-time and busy pastor’s wife. John remembered fighting a lot with his older sister because she was rebellious in high school. John’s brother is more bookish but John describes him as a good friend.

Gareth was the youngest of four boys. As a child he felt different from others, both in his childhood play and his interests. A shy, studious and unathletic boy, he was teased quite a bit by his male peers and lived a fairly isolated childhood. Gareth’s brothers were much older, not kind and so did not play or interact with him. His father traveled frequently as a physician and businessman. Gareth’s mother was very strict religiously and did not allow card playing, dancing or the wearing of bright colors.

I recently posted this at Exgay Watch:

Regarding the reasonableness of cross-sex-typed behavior being related to homosexual orientation, I submit:

In a recent meta-analysis of the retrospective literature, Bailey and Zucker (1995) [6] showed a very strong relationship between extent of childhood cross-gender behavior and a later homosexual sexual orientation for both men and women. However, despite this strong relationship, a proportion of youngsters in Green's (1987) [35] follow-up and in the early follow-up results from our clinic (and some other smaller samples) identify as heterosexual. Similarly, in the retrospective literature, not all individuals who later self-identify as homosexual recall a history of cross-gender behavior.

This quote comes from a review article by Bradley and Zucker in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 1997. The Bailey & Zucker meta-analysis from Dev. Psych, 1995, provides support for the relationship between gender atypical behavior and homosexuality (they predict that 51% of gender atypical boys will become homosexual).

Here is a quote from biological determinist Qazi Rahman allowing that perhaps he could be wrong:

An alternative hypothesis follows the line of Bem's (1996) developmental model of sexual orientation, and posits an interaction between neuroendocrine prenatal events and postnatal psychosocial influences. Genetic contributors may produce sex-atypical neural differentiation that manifests behaviorally as childhood gender-nonconforming behaviors (which are significantly predictive of adult homosexuality [Bailey and Zucker, 1995]). Differential reinforcements from inputs in the psychosocial milieu to these sex-atypical behaviors makes the "pre-homosexual child" view the same sex as "exotic" (i.e., different from one's self), which later in puberty becomes the object of eroticization (the "exotic becomes erotic" being Bem's key theoretical notion). The activational actions of gonadal hormones at puberty may further reinforce this eroticization by fixing key neural substrates in sex-atypical directions, ultimately manifesting in adult homosexual orientation.

To conclude, it is important to illustrate that neurobiological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals are by no means decisive. Nonetheless, the several independent findings of neuroanatomical differences in sex-atypical directions are not easily refutable. The most plausible explanation for such differences lies in hypotheses implicating sex-atypical neurohormonal differentiation. Unfortunately, evidence currently available is limited and largely correlational in nature. Owing to this, it is not possible for alternative developmental processes associated with sexual orientation to be excluded.

My own belief is that there are people who owe SSA to a Bemian model; some who are youngest sons who as Rahman says, owe the SSA to sex atypical neurohormonal differentiation thus leading to gender atypical phenotype, some people with SSA may experience more social/environmental deficits and so on. None of the evidence explains it all but it all explains something. I am not troubled by alternative pathways to SSA (nor do I think it must be a final destination, ala OSA) because I believe the brain is pretty plastic (retains capacity for differentiation through the lifespan).