They’re coming to take me away, ho-ho, hee-hee, ha-ha!
Anyone remember that whimsical little song? They’re coming to take me away, ha-ha; they’re coming to take me away, ho-ho, hee-hee, ha-ha! To the funny farm, where life is beautiful all the time and I’ll be happy to see those nice young men in their clean white coats! With any luck, members of the GBLTQ community will no longer have to worry about those nice young men just for discussing their sexuality with their mental health professionals. The American Psychological Association has a decade-old policy that has allowed for mental health professionals to view homosexuality as something that can and, at the discretion of the psychiatrist, should be ‘cured’ even if it isn’t classified as a mental illness. This is known as reparative or conversion therapy. The policy, however, is thankfully coming under review:
Psychologists To Review Stance On Gays - 365gay.com
(New York City) The American Psychological Association is embarking on the first review of its 10-year-old policy on counseling gays and lesbians, a step that gay-rights activists hope will end with a denunciation of any attempt by therapists to change sexual orientation.
[...]The current APA policy, adopted in 1997, opposes any counseling that treats homosexuality as a mental illness, but does not explicitly denounce reparative therapy. The APA has decided to review the policy at a time when gay-rights groups are increasingly critical of such treatment and groups that support it.
Conservatives contend that the review’s outcome is preordained because the task force is dominated by gay-rights supporters.
I, for one, could not be more relieved. For the American Psychological Association to emphasize that homosexuality is not something that can or that needs to be ‘fixed’ should go a long way towards fostering acceptance in the United States. We are born this way, and we shouldn’t have to feel as if there’s something wrong with us for being the way that nature (or God, depending on your beliefs) made us. It would also be a slap in the face of ex-gay ministries…which is probably why many conservative and religious organizations are up in arms about this.
I don’t understand why they insist that reparative/conversion therapy remain a viable option; their argument is that therapists and other psychological professionals should retain practices that respect patients whose religious views conflict with homosexuality. I think it’s quite possible to retain a respect of those views in mental health/counseling practices without actually enacting conversion. It’s quite possible for a therapist to counsel a religious homosexual on their sexuality without engaging in possibly harmful therapy to turn them straight. A balance can be struck here; it just requires a willingness to consider both sides and a basic understanding of human rights.
I only hope that the review yields favorable results.
Moving on - if you’re not doing anything on the evening of August 9th, I hope you’ll be parked in front of your TV or your computer tuned into either the LOGO network or LOGO website. Both the channel and website will be broadcasting the very first ever presidential candidate debate dedicated solely to GBLTQ issues. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards will be participating; other Democratic candidates may also be involved. The broadcast is at 9 p.m. ET (6:00 p.m. ET) and I know I’ll be glued to LOGOonline, watching the streaming broadcast.
Anyone else wondering why the Republican candidates won’t be involved in that debate? [snrk]
apa, american psychological association, reparative therapy, conversion therapy, homosexuality, therapy, presidential debate, democratic candidates, GBLTQ issues, 2008 presidential election, LOGO, hillary clinton, barack obama, john edwards


July 11th, 2007 at 7:57 am
[...] Clark Link to Article barack obama They’re coming to take me away, ho-ho, hee-hee, ha-ha! » Posted [...]
July 11th, 2007 at 8:09 am
Interesting. I thought homosexuality was taken out of the DSM-IV decades ago, and this was a non-issue. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that I’ve been wrong about that. I got lucky when I was in therapy - while my own sexual orientation was definitely an issue (anxiety and depression about having to hide it from my parents) it was not brought up in a way by my psychiatrist that made me feel as though I ought to be “fixed”.
July 12th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
I’m a bit on the fence about this. On one hand, conversion therapy is dangerous and largely ineffective. On the other, such therapies *do* sometimes have a place if there are no other options available, and the alternatives are worse.
Especially for those who are untreated and unable to cope with the conflict. Changing religion and ignoring part of religious texts are possible, but those who cannot do that are simply stuck in limbo. If sexuality is easier to suppress than their own religion–occasionally this works for bisexuals–then it might be the only option.
Blanket statements aren’t enough, and while patients shouldn’t be able to convince _any_ psychologist to try and “convert” them, I wonder if banning the practice altogether will just put it all into the hands of untrained priests who might cause even greater damage to confused young people.
However, I do agree that the practice should definately be avoided for minors. Informed consent is the key here.
August 9th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
[...] talked about ex-gay/conversion therapy here before, as something that people do as a personal choice. I don’t agree with it, I [...]