 |
| The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada |
APOLOGIA
By
Hendrik van der Breggen
The Carillon, May 11,
2017
Phobic anti-phobia?
May
17th is International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia. At
risk of being labeled “phobic,” I will set out five critical comments/ questions.
But
first let's hear from The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of
Canada, who last year officially celebrated the day with these words:
“Everyone deserves to live free of
stigma, persecution, and discrimination—no matter who they are or whom they
love. Today is about ensuring that all people—regardless of sexual orientation
or gender identity—feel safe and secure, and empowered to freely express
themselves.”
Trudeau
adds: “On this important day, I encourage all Canadians to raise awareness, and
mobilize to end the violence, prejudice, and judgment faced by LGBTQ2 persons.”
Yes,
there should be no violence and prejudice against anyone, and all people should
be safe, secure, and able to freely express themselves—including persons who
identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/ questioning,
two-spirited, etc.
Nevertheless,
reasonable concerns remain.
1.
The concept of phobia needs clarification.
A
phobia is an irrational anxiety or fear or hatred concerning X (see Mayo
Clinic's online entry on “phobia”). But one is not necessarily phobic if one
has evidence-based concerns or questions about X. Being concerned about large
spiders near little children doesn't mean one is arachnophobic.
Significantly,
many intelligent people of good will have expressed reasonable, evidence-based
concerns and questions about LGBTQ2. See, for starters, psychiatrists Paul McHugh and Miriam
Grossman, former transgender Walt Heyer, former homosexual
Sy Rogers, and the ex-gays
at Restored Hope Network. But
such people are often simply dismissed, in knee-jerk fashion, as “phobic” (or “bigoted,”
etc.).
Thinking
people should ask: Aren't these knee-jerk dismissals an unreasonable application
of, to use the PM's words, “stigma”/ “prejudice”/ “judgment”?
Is
this logic-phobia? Evidence-phobia? Phobic anti-phobia?
2.
Freedom of expression has limits. Freedom to express one's self by swinging
one's fists ends at the tip of another's nose. Safety and security of others is
important, too.
Thinking
people should ask: Does the freedom of expression of, say, a man who claims to
be a woman include expressing himself by using women's multiple-occupancy
bathrooms, change rooms, and showers?
Does
the allowance of such expression open doors too widely to sexual predators—rapists,
pedophiles—who pretend to be transgender? (For further thought, see my column "Men in women's bathrooms?")
Also,
should freedom of expression permit LGBTQ2 ideologues-cum-educators to teach school
children that gay life is fine when there's considerable evidence it isn't? See,
for starters, the 2017 book The
Health Hazards of Homosexuality: What the Medical and Psychological Research
Reveals.
Surely,
it's reasonable—NOT phobic—to raise these concerns.
3.
When our PM says “everyone”—EVERYONE—should live free of stigma, persecution, and
discrimination “no matter who they are or whom they love,”
does that include men who love children?
Yes, we shouldn't persecute pedophiles. But
isn't some stigma and discrimination appropriate?
Just as drug addicts shouldn't be left
alone in a pharmacy, pedophiles shouldn't be left alone with children. Surely,
pedophiles shouldn't be allowed to be babysitters or Sunday school teachers.
Surely, too, we should discriminate—intellectually
distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate, true and false, right and
wrong—in such matters. This also is not phobic.
4. If we accept that gender identity is wholly
subjective, which is au courant in public discourse, do feelings run amok over actual
reality?
Should
we accept as true the “identity” of the 52-year-old Canadian father of seven who
now “feels” he is a six-year-old girl? Surely not. I submit that subjectivity
doesn't trump objective reality.
5.
Yes, I'm making a “judgment” here. But notice that I am attempting to judge in
the sense of making careful discernments of truth based on evidence and reason.
Of
course, a reader might say I'm mistaken. But that is a judgment too.
To
arbitrate let's have respectful, open-minded, well-reasoned, truth-seeking
investigations of relevant evidence—without fallacious ad hominem charges of
phobia.
Prime
Minister Trudeau, maybe we should celebrate an International Day of Logical
Thinking and Truth Seeking?
(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is associate
professor of philosophy at Providence University College. The views expressed
in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)
------
Addendum—May 21, 2017
------
Homosexuality (and Bible)
Same-sex marriage
Politics
Replies to my critics
------
Addendum—May 21, 2017
Objections and replies
Several people have posted my above
article "Phobic anti-phobia?" on Facebook, etc. and many people have
said much about it (some positive, much negative). I don't have the time (or
energy) to address all the objections that have been set out, but I would like
to deal with a dozen of them.
I hope my replies to the following
objections from my critics are helpful.
1. Objection:
Mr. van der Breggen is not a credible and responsible source.
Reply: I am a philosophy professor who
has some expertise in argument assessment. I studied argument seriously as an
undergrad as well as in grad school and over the past decade-plus have taught 13
installments of a university-level Critical Thinking course. I am a member of
the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, plus I have received
positive acknowledgments in two critical thinking textbooks. I also have
studied arguments surrounding the justification of LGBTQ issues for about 15-20
years. I have twice taught a university course wholly dedicated to the ethics
of homosexuality (examining sources pro and con) and I have covered the topic
in my general ethics course at least a dozen times. I have three degrees in
philosophy from respectable Canadian universities: BA (Calgary), MA (Windsor),
PhD (Waterloo). I have received scholarships and writing awards.
All this to say that to dismiss me as
"not a credible and responsible source" is, well, not credible and
not responsible. Sure, I sometimes make mistakes. When I do, I do my best to
correct them and learn to do better. (I like to think that this adds to my being
a credible and responsible source.)
2. Objection:
The higher rates of various health problems associated with homosexual etc. sex
are due primarily to the oppressive attitudes towards homosexuals, etc. of the
population at large. These problems thus are society's fault, i.e., they're due
to homophobia, etc.
Reply: No doubt some of
this is society's fault, but very apparently not all of it is. We should keep in mind that in gay-friendly societies, such as
the Netherlands, the pain and suffering continues in spite of non-homophobic attitudes.
Much pain and suffering seems closely related to embracing sexual activity/
identity that departs from the clearly apparent physical design of sexual
complementarity. Further
thought/ inquiry is needed, for the sake of truth and, especially, for the sake
of helping those who engage in homosexual etc. sex. Such further thought/
inquiry needn't be deemed phobic.
Consider the following passage from
psychiatrist-physician Miriam Grossman:
"Individuals who identify as gay,
lesbian, or bisexual report more problems with mental health too: higher
rates of anxiety, depression, substance abuse, and suicidal thoughts. While I'm
sure that for some people, societal bias contributes to their distress, the
entire onus for these difficulties—emotional and physical—cannot be placed at the
feet of a 'heterosexist' society. It's just not intellectually honest.
"The Netherlands is probably the
world's most open-minded and sexually tolerant country in the world. At the
vanguard of homosexual rights for decades, gay marriage was legalized there in
2001, with over 75 percent of the population supporting the bill. A 1998 study
examining sexual attitudes in 24 countries asked the question, 'Is homosexual
sex wrong?' Only 26 percent of U.S. respondents indicated 'not wrong at all' or
'only sometimes wrong'; the corresponding number in the Netherlands was 77
percent.
"In light of that country's stance,
it is worth noting that, as in the United States, young gay, lesbian, and
bisexual individuals in the Netherlands report more high risk sexual behaviors,
higher rates of infection with HIV, syphilis, and gonorrhea, and more mental
health problems than their heterosexual counterparts. In these studies, younger
age was not protective; even as Dutch society became more accepting of sexual
minorities, the health disparities persisted. Clearly, societal bias is not to
blame for the disproportionately higher numbers in the homosexual populations
in the Netherlands."
(Miriam Grossman, You're Teaching My Child WHAT? A Physician Exposes the Lies of Sex
Education and How They Harm Your Child (Regnery 2009), pp. 142-143. This
book has been recommended by Nicholas Cummings, a former president of the
American Psychological Association, and Robert George, professor of
jurisprudence at Princeton University.)
3. Objection:
The book The Health Hazards of
Homosexuality: What the Medical and Psychological Research Reveals (referred
to in my article) is "premised on almost 70 year old research."
Reply: Huh? This book was published in
2017 and is based on peer-reviewed research from the last 5 to 20 years,
including studies published in 2016. Is such a dismissal, obviously made without
investigation, an irrational aversion to evidence (i.e., what I refer to in my
article as "evidence-phobia")?
4. Objection:
The book The Health Hazards of
Homosexuality: What the Medical and Psychological Research Reveals is
published by the socially conservative group Mass Resistance and thus the
evidence it presents should be dismissed.
Reply: This is a case of attacking the
messenger instead of examining the message/evidence presented. It's a version
of the ad hominem fallacy (the mistake of attacking the arguer instead of
his/her arguments) but directed to an organization. The book's evidence, which
consists of recent and respectable scientific sources, should be examined for truth plus relevance and
sufficiency as grounds for the conclusions drawn, not dismissed before
investigation. Sure, one might have grounds to suspect bias from a group that has an agenda, but mere suspicion is
not enough to dismiss the evidence that the group presents. One must show that
the group's agenda actually interferes with the evidence, i.e., that it skews
interpretation, results in confirmation bias, tunnel vision, etc. To dismiss the
book out of hand without investigation of its contents may be to succumb to an
ideological bias that is not open to careful investigation of contrary views. (Is
my term "evidence-phobia" appropriate here, too? Maybe I should tweak
this to "evidence-that's-contrary-to-preferred-view-phobia"?)
5.
Objection: The APA (American Psychological Association) says homosexuality is
fine.
Reply: Yes, but it turns out that not all
psychologists agree with the APA.
For example, one of the sources to which
I appeal (in another column) is the National Association for Research and
Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), a U.S.-based organization of psychologists
and counselors who help people overcome unwanted same-sex attractions. Often
critics set out their preferred source—the American Psychological Association
(APA)—which dismisses the legitimacy of NARTH's work. But this dismissal is too
hasty from the point of view of careful thinking.
We should concede to critics that the APA
is a large and influential organization whereas NARTH isn't. But, if we
investigate further (which, I've discovered, my critics often don't), it
becomes clear that the appeal to the APA as a scientific authority faces two
debilitating difficulties.
First, that there is a majority consensus
in the scientific community doesn't automatically mean that the minority is
mistaken. Often, as the history of science shows, a scientific minority's
arguments can have a better handle on truth. Lesson: Even in the face of a
major scientific "consensus", we should encourage further
investigation—in the name of good science.
Second, the alleged APA consensus in
psychology to which critics so confidently appeal is in fact fractured and
dubious. Consider Jeffrey Satinover's book Homosexuality and the
Politics of Truth (Baker 1996). Satinover—a psychiatrist educated at MIT,
Harvard, and U of Texas—reports on the well-known infringement of political
ideology into the scientific investigation of homosexuality during the 1970s
and up to the 1990s. It turns out that many members were cowed/ intimidated by
pro-gay activists.
Consider, too, psychologists Rogers
Wright and Nicholas Cummings' more recent book Destructive Trends in
Mental Health: The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm (Routledge 2005). In this
collection of essays, various highly respected psychologists argue that in the
scientific and professional world of psychology "special interest groups
have used faulty—even false—science to promote political agendas."
Significantly, Dr. Nicholas Cummings is a
past president of the APA, is a champion of lesbian and gay rights, and was a
keynote speaker at a 2011 NARTH conference—yes, a NARTH conference.
It turns out that Cummings is more supportive of NARTH than the APA!
Cummings says the following in an
interview with NARTH: "The APA has permitted political correctness to
triumph over science, clinical knowledge and professional integrity. The public
can no longer trust organized psychology to speak from evidence rather than
from what it regards to be politically correct."
Cummings adds: "At the present time
the governance of the APA is vested in an elitist group of 200 psychologists
who rotate themselves in a kind of 'musical chairs' throughout all the various
offices, boards, committees, and the Council of Representatives. The vast
majority of the 100,000 members are essentially disenfranchised."
(See http://narth.com/docs/cummings.html.)
Surely these are significant remarks from
a former president of the APA, enough to cast at least some reasonable doubt
onto the scientific authority of the APA which purports to present a
"consensus."
Surely, it's not phobic to say this.
For further reading and links, see my
July 25, 2013 column "Questioning a critic's credibility."
6.
Objection: Language meanings can change, i.e., language is "fluid," and
it is "widely understood" that the words homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia
don't mean clinical phobias. So Mr. van der Breggen is mistaken in his concern
about phobia.
Reply: Yes, language is
"fluid," i.e., language meanings can change. Ambiguity is a
well-known feature of language. But THAT is why the notion of
"phobia" needs clarification (see point 1 of my article). In fact, I'm not at all confident that it's "widely
understood" that homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia don't mean clinical
phobias. Surely, it is widely understood
that the term "phobia" DOES mean clinical phobia.
Consider this. According to the Mayo
clinic, a phobia is an “overwhelming and unreasonable fear of objects or
situations that pose little real danger but provoke anxiety and
avoidance." Phobia, per Healthline. com, is "an excessive and
irrational fear reaction." Yes, these are medical dictionaries. But also see
the popular Dictionary. com, which defines phobia as “a persistent, irrational
fear of a specific object, activity, or situation that leads to a compelling
desire to avoid it." See also the online entry for phobia from the popular
dictionary Miriam-Webster: "an exaggerated usually inexplicable and
illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation." See
also the entry for phobia in the popular Webster's New World Dictionary
(paperback): "an irrational, excessive, persistent fear of some thing or situation."
And so on. Popular dictionaries reflect popular language usage.
It very much seems, then, that phobia is widely understood in the sense of clinical
phobia. And thus it very much seems that reasonable, evidence-based concerns about
homosexuality, bisexuality, and transexuality are being subsumed under the
clinical sense when the words "homophobia," "biphobia," and
"transphobia" are being used in popular parlance. Hence the concern of point 1 in my article
remains: we need clarity on the notion of phobia before those of us who have
reasonable, evidence-based questions are dismissed without a hearing (as some
of my critics are in fact doing).
Note: I am not alone in this concern. The
well-known University of Toronto psychology professor Jordan B. Peterson is
also concerned, as are many who see Dr. Peterson as their spokesperson.
7. Objection:
In the article in point 2, Mr. van der Breggen "defines" transgender
women when he writes (asks) "does a man who claims to be a woman include
expressing himself by using women's multiple-occupancy bathrooms."
Reply: Nope. Here my article is being
misrepresented. I am not defining
transgender; I am merely presenting an attribute to ask a question related to
that attribute. I am not setting out a definition
or a set of necessary and sufficient conditions of transgender. Rather, I am
pointing to a man who claims to be a woman to illuminate the problems and
limits of freedom of expression (again, see my point 2). The context of my next
sentence should make this clear: "Does the allowance of such expression
open doors too widely to sexual predators—rapists, pedophiles—who pretend to be
transgender?" At least a charitable reading of my work should make this
clear.
8. Objection:
Why the fuss over men in washrooms? Won't predators/ pedophiles bent on
molesting do it anyway? How offensive! Van der Breggen is saying all transgenders
are pedophiles!
Reply: Please read and think carefully.
My view is that those who have a propensity towards pedophilia/ rape may, by
being allowed in women's washrooms, be encouraged (i.e., their propensity
exacerbated) by new-found ease-of-access to prey. According to Janine Simon, a
molestation victim (in an article to which my article "Men in women's
bathrooms?" links), "Pedophiles ... are 'just looking for a chance'
to hurt children due to a compulsion that seemingly defies treatment. It is an
addiction like no other. And yet, we’ve just created a law that makes it easier
for them to access their victims..." If, to accommodate transgenders, we
say Yes to men in women's bathrooms (change rooms, showers), then it encourages
those persons who are inclined to rape or engage in voyeurism. Sure, saying No
won't stop those who are "bent" on this, but saying no will
discourage them (like laws against texting and driving won't stop those bent on
it, but will discourage some/ many).
No, I am not saying that all transgender
people are sexual predators and perverts (though perhaps some are). Rather, I'm
saying that there are too many rapists and pedophiles (whether transgender or
heterosexual or whatever) from whom we, as responsible citizens, must protect the
vulnerable, in this case women and children. The concern here, then, is not
with transgenders, but with rapists and pedophiles who pretend to be
transgender. While we should do our best to care for persons who sincerely
self-identify as transgender, we must also protect women and children from the
voyeurism of men and boys pretending to be transgender. In other words, opening
physically intimate spaces such as public multiple-occupancy bathrooms,
showers, etc. to anyone who claims a transgender identity allows sexual
predators to stalk their prey much, much too easily. It's not phobic to raise
this as a concern.
The well being of persons who identity as
transgender is important—of course. But their bathroom and shower room needs
can be easily accommodated by adding some single-occupancy gender neutral
facilities. And this can be done without opening all women's bathrooms and
shower rooms to every man or boy who claims he feels female. Ditto for men's
facilities and women or girls who feel they're male. We can call such an
additional facility a "family washroom," or "bathroom," or
"washroom," or "rest room"—whatever is helpful.
Notice that the trans woman who appears
near the end of this video agrees with my position: "The unintended
victims of bathroom bills and locker room policies" (11 minute video).
For further reading on this topic, see my
May 10, 2016, column "Men in women's bathrooms?"
9. Objection:
Former homosexuals and former transpersons do not exist.
Reply: But, apparently, they do exist (check out the links I provided
in my article and see below). And, surely, if they do exist, to deny their
existence is a serious case of marginalization. At least we should hear their
personal stories.
Growing evidence involving religiously
based as well as non-religiously based behavioural therapies shows that many
homosexuals who desire to change can and do change. Although the rate and extent of the change
have sometimes been exaggerated, research indicates that significant change
does occur. Some people claim to have had their
sexual attractions changed to varying degrees, and some (many, especially those
who are/became Christians) claim that their core identity has changed so that
it isn't centered in their sexual attractions.
Here are some key findings from
psychologists Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse on their study of Exodus
International, a Christian ministry to homosexuals (for more on Exodus and its
closing see my reply to the next objection):
● By most measures, the average
participant experienced statistically significant change in his or her sexual
identity and sexual attractions.
● Such changes were generally modest,
though, with decreasing homosexual attraction more significant than increasing
heterosexual attraction.
● Exodus can describe 38 percent of its
programs’ participants as successes, changing to either a “meaningful but
complicated” heterosexuality (15 percent) or a stable chastity (23 percent).
● Surprisingly, a “truly gay”
subpopulation showed the clearest changes in sexual identity and attraction.
● No evidence of increased distress was
found.
[Source: Tim Stafford, “An Older, Wiser
Ex-Gay Movement: The 30-year-old ministry now offers realistic hope for
homosexuals,” Christianity Today,
September 14, 2007. The book from which
the above key findings come is Stanton Jones & Mark Yarhouse, Ex-Gays? A longitudinal study of religiously
mediated change in sexual orientation (Downer Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity
Press, 2007).]
Also, according to the 2009 landmark study What Research Shows (done by the
U.S.-based National Association for Research and Therapy for Homosexuality/
NARTH), “over a century of experiential evidence, clinical reports, and
research evidence demonstrate that it is possible for both men and women to
change from homosexuality to heterosexuality [and] that efforts to change are
not generally harmful.”
Also, see testimonies at the following websites:
● Restored Hope Network
● Ex-gayTruth.com
● PeopleCanChange.com; now Brothers on a Road
Less Traveled
● Living Out
See, too, the
testimonies of the following people:
Beckett ("Homosexuality was
my identity"; interview from Anchored North)
● Rosaria Champagne Butterfield (author
of Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely
Convert: An English Professor's Journey into Christian Faith)
●
Charlene Cothran (former gay activist and publisher of Venus magazine)
● Joe Dallas (author of The Gay
Gospel?)
● Michael Glatze (co-founder of Young
Gay America magazine and former advocate for gay rights)
● Walt Heyer (former transgender)
● Jackie Hill (spoken word poet
well-known for speaking out against the popular pro-gay I-can't-change song by
Macklemore)
● Charlene E. Hios (author of "Leaving
My Lesbian Past"; Bridging the Gap Ministries)
● Anne Paulk (executive director
of Restored Hope Network)
● Sy Rogers (testimony)
● Christopher Yuan (author of Out
of a Far Country)
Also, see the documentary Such Were Some of You.
(Significantly,
there is even an organization that defends the rights of former homosexuals:
Voice of the Voiceless. https://www.voiceofthevoiceless.info/)
To deny the very existence of people who
are former gays and former trans persons (or at least have a significant degree
of transformation) is deeply unfair to such people. I submit it's the ultimate
in marginalization.
10. Objection:
Exodus International (a ministry to former gays) closed down.
Reply: Yes, it did, but not for reasons having
to do with failure to help people actually turn from undesired same-sex desire.
For further reading, see my January 15,
2014, article "Three clarifications concerning 2013's news."
Here is part of what I wrote (see
original article for links):
Exodus International
In 2013 this large evangelical umbrella
organization of ministries, which for nearly four decades helped people with
unwanted same-sex attractions, shut down. The organization's last board of
directors voted unanimously to close Exodus. Also, Exodus's last president Alan
Chambers apologized to the LGBT community for the organization's failures.
Moreover, Chambers said that "99 percent of people who went through
gay-conversion therapy did not lose their same-sex desires, himself
included."
No doubt the attitude of many persons
toward Exodus International is simply this: good bye and good riddance.
For the sake of truth and clarity,
however, it should be noted that there is more to the story.
It turns out that in recent years in
Exodus International a considerable shuffling of board members occurred to
accommodate the theological/ ideological views which reflect those of the
president, resulting in an exodus of many ministries from Exodus.
In fact, in 2012 many former Exodus
ministries regrouped to form Restored Hope Network, a new umbrella organization
devoted to helping people with unwanted same-sex attractions.
According to Anne Paulk, a former lesbian
who is now executive director of Restored Hope Network, "we are at this
point half the size of Exodus in ministry number" (in comparison to
"the year leading up to their implosion") and "almost all [our
members] used be an Exodus ministry." Also, according to Paulk, Restored
Hope Network will soon be seeking out other former Exodus ministries to join
them. (Anne Paulk, personal correspondence, January 11, 2014.)
What were the theological/ ideological
concerns? It turns out that the theological/ ideological view of the former
Exodus president and now defunct Exodus board is what some have called
"cheap grace": i.e., there is no requirement to repent of behaviours
deemed by Scripture to be sin. That's
significant, surely, and should be taken into account in a charitable and
accurate description of Exodus's closing.
What about Chamber's claim that 99
percent of same-sex attracted people don't lose their same-sex desires? I'll
use this question to segue to the next section.
Spitzer's study
It's true that the highly respected
psychiatrist Robert Spitzer recently changed his mind about his 2003 study
wherein he concluded that homosexual orientation can change to heterosexual
orientation. Spitzer decided that his study had a "fatal flaw": i.e.,
there was "no way to determine if the subject's accounts were valid."
The only question his study could answer was the following: "how do
individuals undergoing reparative therapy describe changes in sexual
orientation?"—a question Spitzer dismissed as "not very
interesting." (Robert Spitzer, 2012 letter to Kenneth J. Zucker, editor of
Journal of Sexual Behavior; cited in
Ex-Gay Watch, April 26, 2012.)
But we should ask: What follows from
Spitzer's flawed study?
Significantly, from the fact that
Spitzer's study is flawed it does not follow logically that people cannot or do
not change, nor does it follow logically that all his subjects were lying or
deceived. Surely, whether or not people do in fact change remains an open
question, open to further investigation.
I submit that more study is needed,
especially in view of the fact that Spitzer's own study showed that many
individuals did in fact describe changes in sexual orientation—and especially
in view of the fact that there are many other people who also claim to have had
same-sex attractions and say they were able to change these to various
significant degrees.
Spitzer's study focused on 200
individuals. What about others? [See above and below.]
Consider, for starters, the testimonies
of the following people as evidence (these people also claim to have had their
sexual attractions/ identities changed to varying degrees): Rosaria Champagne
Butterfield (author of Secret Thoughts of
an Unlikely Convert: An English Professor's Journey into Christian Faith);
Joe Dallas (author of The Gay Gospel?);
Michael Glatze (co-founder of Young Gay
America magazine and former advocate for gay rights); Jackie Hill (spoken
word poet well-known for speaking out against the popular pro-gay
I-can't-change song by Macklemore); Charlene E. Hios (author of "Leaving
My Lesbian Past"); Anne Paulk (executive director of Restored Hope
Network); Sy Rogers (syrogers.com; testimony); Christopher Yuan (author of Out of a Far Country).
Consider, too, the testimonies available
at these organizations (which help people with unwanted same-sex attractions):
Ex-gayTruth.com; LivingOut.org; Restored Hope Network; X-Gays facebook group.
There is even an organization that defends the rights of former homosexuals:
Voice of the Voiceless.
Surely, not all people who claim to be
ex-gay are lying or self-deluded. Surely, further investigation—i.e.,
non-flawed studies—should be promoted.
Again, from a flawed study concerning
sexual orientation change, it doesn't follow that sexual orientation change
can't or doesn't occur to some significant degree.
For further reading on Spitzer, I suggest
Christopher H. Rosik, "Spitzer's 'retraction' of his sexual change study:
what does it really mean?" LifeSiteNews, May 31, 2012. Rosik, a clinical
psychologist, is president of National Association for Research and Therapy of
Homosexuality (NARTH).
See, too, the recent (2016) testimony of
Pastor Ray Yoder, one of the pastors at my church: http://mysouthland.com/messages#Marriage_2016/Homosexuality_and_Redemption
11.
Objection: Conversion therapies should be banned, especially for kids.
Reply: From a recent article (written by
a gay man):
We’ve forgotten that children are children. Children believe what they read online, what adults tell them, and do not understand the nuances and stereotypes around sex and gender. If we tell children that a boy liking pink means he might be in the “wrong body” we put them at risk. Just because a child says something doesn’t mean it’s true or we should accept it. Especially children who are different, like tomboy girls, boys with a feminine side, girls unhappy in puberty or who feel attracted to other girls, and autistic children are at risk of misinterpreting their feelings. Article after article on “trans children” show kids coerced into a lifetime of under-researched treatments and surgeries because they don’t conform to gender roles....
Trans rights are the social-justice cause of 2017. But many on the virtue-signaling Left are unwisely backing an activist agenda they do not understand, and can’t see is actually dangerous. Bills to take away freedom from medical professionals [who seek to help children be happy in their bodies] will funnel children towards sterilization and serious lifelong harm. So-called conversion therapy bans ironically prevent unhappy children caught in the trans contagion from accepting their natural bodies, and benefit an increasingly profitable gender clinic industry....
Opposing this dystopian bullsh-t of making children into transsexuals shouldn’t even be a political debate between Left and Right. It’s just about a basic moral assurance that we shouldn’t harm kids. So let’s stop it.
(Marcus Gregory, "Conversion Therapy
Bans Will Trap Transgender Children," The
Federalist, May 11, 2017. http://thefederalist.com/2017/05/11/conversion-therapy-bans-trojan-horse-ensnaring-transgender-children/
)
For further reading, see my January 18,
2017, column "Transgender ideology."
http://apologiabyhendrikvanderbreggen.blogspot.ca/2017/01/transgender-ideology.html
12.
Objection: Van der Breggen's article "Phobic anti-phobia?" is
offensive and should be deleted from Facebook, etc.
Reply: Offensive or not, please know that
I am sincerely trying to seek what is true and I am trying to do this
graciously. Of course, I sometimes (perhaps often) fail. So I sincerely apologize
if I have needlessly hurt anyone's feelings. But I do not retract the concerns
I set out, because the objections to my concerns are weak.
Also, please keep in mind that freedom of
speech is precious. Please don't succumb to the impulse to shut down
truth-seeking speech, especially when such speech is not politically
fashionable. That impulse, it seems to me, is at the root of fascism.
I hope my replies to my critics'
objections are helpful in our pursuit of what's true, good, and beautiful.
------
Other Apologia columns on related matters, for further
reading:
Phobia
Love
Transgender
Homosexuality
(general)
Homosexuality
(non-religious criticisms)
- Lady
Gaga and moral reasoning
- Is
being gay like race?
- Homophobia,
bigotry, intolerance?
- It's
all society's fault?
- Born
gay?
- Think
for baby's sake
- Careful
thinking
- Reductio
ad absurdum
- Is
promoting same-sex sex wise?
Homosexuality (and Bible)
- Jesus
and homosexuality
- Homosexuality
and history
- Evangelical
Christian Gay-Straight Alliance Club?
- Debunking
Internet Arguments: Bible and Homosexuality
- For
the Bible tells me so – Critical Review
- Evangelical
Christian Gay-Straight Alliance Club?
Same-sex marriage
Politics
- Cakes
and conscience
- Pride
Parade pros and cons
- Politically
Incorrect Thoughts: Orlando massacre, HSD and LGBTQ
- Thoughtcrimes
- Men
in women's bathrooms?
- Bill
18 needs revision
Replies to my critics
1 comment:
Sijai: Useful writing. thank you
Post a Comment