Tuesday, October 10, 2006
The Schoenewolf controversy: Afterthoughts on the apology
It has now been nearly a month since the beginning of the controversy over the article by Gerald Schoenewolf (Gay rights and political correctness: A brief history). Apparently, NARTH is finished with the issue since they issued what they are calling an apology.
I have continued to research one of the central tenets of the article and that is that Marxism informed the abolitionist movement and the subsequent civil rights movement. This appears to be revisionist history. Christianity was at the heart of this movement and indeed most likely even of the early feminist movement. Wilberforce in England became invested in abolishing slavery after his conversion to Christianity. We are not talking about a difference of opinion here; this is simply bending facts to reduce complexity to a simplistic theme - the very thing Schoenewolf accuses human rights advocates of doing. There are several other significant problems that could be raised again but I will leave it at that.
There is much troubling about all of this but what continues to escape whoever authorized the apology statement is that the credibility of any movement or organization can be severely compromised by the inability to self-correct. By issuing a statement saying that some readers misconstrued the article, they ask those same readers to suspend rationality. The "apology" feels more like a slap at those who found significant errors and expect a scientific organization to be accountable for them.
A specialty organization devoted to sexual identity issues could provide a significant public service. An organization that I would join or help develop would:
-Develop research-based guidelines to inform clinical practice
-Focus on integrating all research relating to sexual orientation and sexual identity
-Avoid policy/political statements not in keeping with the organization's mission, and then only when supported by a significant program of research
-Have a much broader focus than homosexuality (e.g., sexual identity)
-Have elections by members for the officers of the organization
Other suggestions?
I have continued to research one of the central tenets of the article and that is that Marxism informed the abolitionist movement and the subsequent civil rights movement. This appears to be revisionist history. Christianity was at the heart of this movement and indeed most likely even of the early feminist movement. Wilberforce in England became invested in abolishing slavery after his conversion to Christianity. We are not talking about a difference of opinion here; this is simply bending facts to reduce complexity to a simplistic theme - the very thing Schoenewolf accuses human rights advocates of doing. There are several other significant problems that could be raised again but I will leave it at that.
There is much troubling about all of this but what continues to escape whoever authorized the apology statement is that the credibility of any movement or organization can be severely compromised by the inability to self-correct. By issuing a statement saying that some readers misconstrued the article, they ask those same readers to suspend rationality. The "apology" feels more like a slap at those who found significant errors and expect a scientific organization to be accountable for them.
A specialty organization devoted to sexual identity issues could provide a significant public service. An organization that I would join or help develop would:
-Develop research-based guidelines to inform clinical practice
-Focus on integrating all research relating to sexual orientation and sexual identity
-Avoid policy/political statements not in keeping with the organization's mission, and then only when supported by a significant program of research
-Have a much broader focus than homosexuality (e.g., sexual identity)
-Have elections by members for the officers of the organization
Other suggestions?
# posted by W. Throckmorton @ Tuesday, October 10, 2006 
Comments:
<< Home
Not write bad articles based upon political opinion which cannot be supported by the science which you later deny is political opinion or bad science and blame readers for misunderstanding ;)
Sexual Identity in general (regardless of orientation) is very interesting as an organizing principle...
David Blakeslee
Sexual Identity in general (regardless of orientation) is very interesting as an organizing principle...
David Blakeslee
# posted by 
: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 11:13:00 PM
: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 11:13:00 PM
I heard that NARTH only has 75 members that are actually therapists. Wayne Besen said this somewhere. Is this true Dr. Throckmorton? If it is, then why does anyone care what NARTH thinks?
# posted by : Wednesday, October 11, 2006 12:10:00 AM
: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 12:10:00 AM
Dr. Throckmorton,
Will you start this organization? Please?
Or at least contact Nicolosi personally? I feel like he's out of the loop on this.
Alice
Will you start this organization? Please?
Or at least contact Nicolosi personally? I feel like he's out of the loop on this.
Alice
# posted by : Wednesday, October 11, 2006 12:17:00 AM
: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 12:17:00 AM
If you are thinking of forming an organzation, how about adopting something similar to the "10th Tradition of AA:
"Alcoholics Anonymous has no opinion on outside issues; hence the A.A. name ought never be drawn into public controversy."
Or as Al-Anon's preamble to the twelve steps and traditions says:
"Al-Anon is not allied with any sect, denomination, political entity, organization or institution. It does not engage in any controversy, neither endorses nor opposes any cause."
Adopting guidelines similar to these would make for a more scientific AND therapuetic endeavor.
"Alcoholics Anonymous has no opinion on outside issues; hence the A.A. name ought never be drawn into public controversy."
Or as Al-Anon's preamble to the twelve steps and traditions says:
"Al-Anon is not allied with any sect, denomination, political entity, organization or institution. It does not engage in any controversy, neither endorses nor opposes any cause."
Adopting guidelines similar to these would make for a more scientific AND therapuetic endeavor.
# posted by : Wednesday, October 11, 2006 4:30:00 AM
: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 4:30:00 AM
I believe 75 signers of the petition is correct. NARTH routinely claims a membership of about 1000, a number that has been pretty constant over the last several years. I must say, it is curious why more people did not sign the petition. I am aware of at least two signers that were not NARTH members. NARTH has several types of membership and, given the low number of petition signers, I suspect that the professional membership number is much less than 1000. To my knowledge however, NARTH has never publicly broken the member numbers down by type of membership.
Why doesn't someone ask NARTH about the membership numbers?
# posted by : Wednesday, October 11, 2006 11:12:00 AM
: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 11:12:00 AM
The problem at the moment is that groups like NARTH (and, it needs to be said, Exodus) need to clarify whether they are or are not organisations that pressurise for legislative, political change. It's one thing for an organisation dealing with sexual wholeness to comment on political / social issues and another to actively lobby on those issues. I'm afraid that often NARTH seems to want to take a particular political stance on same-sex unions and that then colours it's therapeutic response to the sexual brokeness issue.
I too would like to see an organisation like the one you describe, especially one that is democratic and not autocratic in structure.
I too would like to see an organisation like the one you describe, especially one that is democratic and not autocratic in structure.
# posted by : Wednesday, October 11, 2006 12:42:00 PM
: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 12:42:00 PM
Please don't start on the basis that homosexuals are "broken".
# posted by : Wednesday, October 11, 2006 1:44:00 PM
: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 1:44:00 PM
Peter: I think you are on target. As some of the old-timers in ex-gay ministry will attest, the early years were marked by neutrality on these matters. Nothing prevents people from advocating whatever they want through organizations set up for that purpose. However, when scientific organizations do this (whether it be NARTH or the APA) then the mission of the organization is muddied and as Nick Cummings says about the APA, the organization loses its credibility.
I am not sure how much support there would be for an organizations such as I described but it seems necessary to me.
I am not sure how much support there would be for an organizations such as I described but it seems necessary to me.
Dr. Throckmorten: By putting on your list of things you would like to see in an association the thing about members voting for officers, are you implying that NARTH does not vote for their officers? I never thought about it but that doesn't seem quite right for a membership organization, does it? I am not pro-gay but I do think organizations should meet certain standards of accountability. So don't get me wrong, I think NARTH has done some good things, probably moreso than even you think but that would be disturbing if NARTH doesn't include members in voting for their leaders.
# posted by : Wednesday, October 11, 2006 2:11:00 PM
: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 2:11:00 PM
Anon - Yes, I am pretty sure that NARTH does not have elections for officers. I am not sure how Board members are selected or officers are selected but I asked a couple of members and they could not remember ever having a vote.
Let's review:
(1) No election of officers, (2) No editorial review committee, (3)anonymous persons issuing retractions, explantaions, or apologies, (4) no personal responsibility when an advisor steps way out of line, (5) no good scientific data to back up its claims for curing gays, (6) heavy censorship of those who disagree with them (7) a belief that those who disagree with them are Marxist "activists" bent on silencing them...
Why would anyone want to join such an organization?
Post a Comment
(1) No election of officers, (2) No editorial review committee, (3)anonymous persons issuing retractions, explantaions, or apologies, (4) no personal responsibility when an advisor steps way out of line, (5) no good scientific data to back up its claims for curing gays, (6) heavy censorship of those who disagree with them (7) a belief that those who disagree with them are Marxist "activists" bent on silencing them...
Why would anyone want to join such an organization?
# posted by : Wednesday, October 11, 2006 3:22:00 PM
: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 3:22:00 PM << Home
