The U.S federal government should ban licensed professionals from practicing ex gay “therapy” on minors

[Jake21]

People can claim that the American Psychological Association is ideologically infiltrated and pressured all they want. The individuals who claim that are unaware that the APA is a professional organization that conducts and sites methodologically valid studies on homosexuality. This forum and the hilarious junk science organizations like the Family Research Council on the other hand, do not conduct or site methodologically valid studies.
The consistently methodologically valid APA have validly concluded that there are several methodological problems with the studies that claim ex gay “therapy” changed people’s perceived sexual orientation.

76crimes.com/ex-gay-therapy-what-reputable-experts-have-to-say/

Licensed theorists who practice this on minors can be prosecuted in a handful of states because they ban this “therapy” for minors. I hope to see the federal government ban this practice for minors in order to protect the vulnerable minors that are pressured or forced by religiously conservative parents to go through this potentially dangerous “therapy” that is not supported by valid scientific evidence.

 

[Peter_Plato]

This forum and the hilarious junk science organizations like the Family Research Council on the other hand, do not conduct or site methodologically valid studies.

The word is cite, not “site.”

I’ll refrain from pointing out the irony that someone who lambastes others for not properly citing “methodologically valid studies” can’t seem to use the proper word for what he claims others are doing incorrectly.

 

[Jake21]

The word is cite, not “site.”

I’ll refrain from pointing out the irony that someone who lambastes others for not properly citing “methodologically valid studies” can’t seem to use the proper word for what he claims others are doing incorrectly.

Just a stupid mistake.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Just a stupid mistake.

Nah, it wasn’t “stupid,” it was an oversight, but dissing this forum and the Family Research Council isn’t quite as warranted as you suppose it is.

 

[St_Francis]

Seems to be an epidemic of “bad science” in the behavioral field–270 scientists tried to replicate 100 studies; 2/3 failed.

Now, I can totally see banning *any *form of psychological or psychiatric “therapy” that involves shaming or physically harming the patient; however, if homosexuals ask “who would chose the state of being homosexual?”, then they ought to be assisting in discovering a cure, no?

I do not think that the government should otherwise interfere with the parental role, nor do I think it is right to restrict adults from certain forms of therapy.

 

[z_0101]

People can claim that the American Psychological Association is ideologically infiltrated and pressured all they want. The individuals who claim that are unaware that the APA is a professional organization that conducts and sites methodologically valid studies on homosexuality. .

Let me very upfront here, as an oversight, IMHO, the APA generally does an admirable and valuable job as a watchdog governing the Behavioral Professionals.

However, Jake21, you should be aware of what the APA actually does (you may find the following document to be of some interest: occonline.occ.cccd.edu/online/egorsuch/Apa%20data03.doc (word document)
This is a very heavily cited document and I’ve been able to primary source a fair portion of the references contained therein.)

APA (American Psychological Association)
A. APA itself does not do research. They are the professional organization that oversees the Psychological industry. They do set standards and ethics that those in the industry ought to adhere to. Psychologists, grad students, MFCs, and others are members.

Thus, there are members of the APA that conduct studies, some of which have been called in to question regarding the validity of the methodology of the study; however, as an entity, the APA does not actually conduct any study. Instead, as with any watchdog, they often setup taskforces to review the available data and issue reports (one such is cited bellow as it directly pertains to your OP):

In this case, despite the lack of methodologically sound studies, the APA made recommendations when instead they should have called for further studies and provided a set of guidelines for conducting these studies ( in their own words, APA debunks your statements about “methodologically valid studies”):
(APA: PDF)Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation
None of the recent research (1999–2007) meets
methodological standards that permit conclusions
regarding effiacy or safety. The few high-quality
studies of SOCE conducted recently are qualitative (e.g.,
Beckstead & Morrow, 2004; Ponticelli, 1999; Wolkomir,
2001) and aid in an understanding of the population
that undergoes sexual orientation change but do not
provide the kind of information needed for defiitive
answers to questions of safety and effiacy. Given the
limited amount of methodologically sound research,
claims that recent SOCE is effective are not supported.
We concluded that the early high-quality evidence
is the best basis for predicting what would be the
outcome of valid interventions.
This is not to say that the review is without merit, it is only to say, that there is cause for better methodology and research before actually calling for any “general ban” on a “treatment.” IMHO, it would have been better to have called for a restriction on physically and mentally abusive methods and for further studies under more scientifically verifiable methods.

 

[Jake21]

Let me very upfront here, as an oversight, IMHO, the APA generally does an admirable and valuable job as a watchdog governing the Behavioral Professionals.

However, Jake21, you should be aware of what the APA actually does (you may find the following document to be of some interest: occonline.occ.cccd.edu/online/egorsuch/Apa%20data03.doc (word document)
This is a very heavily cited document and I’ve been able to primary source a fair portion of the references contained therein.)

APA (American Psychological Association)
A. APA itself does not do research. They are the professional organization that oversees the Psychological industry. They do set standards and ethics that those in the industry ought to adhere to. Psychologists, grad students, MFCs, and others are members.

Thus, there are members of the APA that conduct studies, some of which have been called in to question regarding the validity of the methodology of the study; however, as an entity, the APA does not actually conduct any study. Instead, as with any watchdog, they often setup taskforces to review the available data and issue reports (one such is cited bellow as it directly pertains to your OP):

In this case, despite the lack of methodologically sound studies, the APA made recommendations when instead they should have called for further studies and provided a set of guidelines for conducting these studies ( in their own words, APA debunks your statements about “methodologically valid studies”):
(APA: PDF)Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation
None of the recent research (1999–2007) meets
methodological standards that permit conclusions
regarding effiacy or safety. The few high-quality
studies of SOCE conducted recently are qualitative (e.g.,
Beckstead & Morrow, 2004; Ponticelli, 1999; Wolkomir,
2001) and aid in an understanding of the population
that undergoes sexual orientation change but do not
provide the kind of information needed for defiitive
answers to questions of safety and effiacy. Given the
limited amount of methodologically sound research,
claims that recent SOCE is effective are not supported.
We concluded that the early high-quality evidence
is the best basis for predicting what would be the
outcome of valid interventions.
This is not to say that the review is without merit, it is only to say, that there is cause for better methodology and research before actually calling for any “general ban” on a “treatment.” IMHO, it would have been better to have called for a restriction on physically and mentally abusive methods and for further studies under more scientifically verifiable methods.

Your right, the APA itself does not conduct studies. There a professional watchdog that cites methodologically sound studies and judges the validity of studies with taskforces.

It is important to note that the link you put out there mentions studies that have limitations and potential for bias, that doesn’t mean there studies are completely discredited. If you want to see some studies that are completely discredited, just look around this forum or go to the Family Research Council. They admit that their studies are small and not representative and that they have potential for dishonesty and bias, but are we really going to claim that EVERY SINGLE child of same sex parents was biased or dishonest when these studies were conducted? One small representative study by itself is considerably weak, but when all these studies start piling onto each other over the decades, it becomes something much greater.

If you support banning “therapy” that is involved with bizarre junk science practices like this

“Unger described another group therapy session where the boys were told that their close relationships with their mothers had played an integral role in turning them gay. Unger was then instructed to reimagine a pillow in the therapy room as his mother, and to then beat that pillow as hard as he possibly could with a tennis racket, according to court documents.”

forward.com/news/310914/jury-rules-against-jonah-in-landmark-gay-conversion-therapy-case/#ixzz3ovo83kOH

Or support banning “therapy” that shame its patients, then you might as well just say you support banning ex gay “therapy” all together. This is because I highly doubt that any professional that has the audacity to try and change someone’s sexual orientation would not have the slightest amount of shame or absurd practices like the one example out of several I provided involved in ex gay “therapy”.

 

[Jake21]

Seems to be an epidemic of “bad science” in the behavioral field–270 scientists tried to replicate 100 studies; 2/3 failed.

Now, I can totally see banning *any *form of psychological or psychiatric “therapy” that involves shaming or physically harming the patient; however, if homosexuals ask “who would chose the state of being homosexual?”, then they ought to be assisting in discovering a cure, no?

I do not think that the government should otherwise interfere with the parental role, nor do I think it is right to restrict adults from certain forms of therapy.

If you support banning “therapy” that is involved with bizarre junk science practices like this

“Unger described another group therapy session where the boys were told that their close relationships with their mothers had played an integral role in turning them gay. Unger was then instructed to reimagine a pillow in the therapy room as his mother, and to then beat that pillow as hard as he possibly could with a tennis racket, according to court documents.”

forward.com/news/310914/jury-…#ixzz3ovo83kOH

Or support banning “therapy” that shame its patients, then you might as well just say you support banning ex gay “therapy” all together. This is because I highly doubt that any professional that has the audacity to try and change someone’s sexual orientation would not have the slightest amount of shame or absurd practices like the one example out of several I provided involved in ex gay “therapy”.

 

[St_Francis]

If you support banning “therapy” that is involved with bizarre junk science practices like this

“Unger described another group therapy session where the boys were told that their close relationships with their mothers had played an integral role in turning them gay. Unger was then instructed to reimagine a pillow in the therapy room as his mother, and to then beat that pillow as hard as he possibly could with a tennis racket, according to court documents.”

forward.com/news/310914/jury-…#ixzz3ovo83kOH

Or support banning “therapy” that shame its patients, then you might as well just say you support banning ex gay “therapy” all together. This is because I highly doubt that any professional that has the audacity to try and change someone’s sexual orientation would not have the slightest amount of shame or absurd practices like the one example out of several I provided involved in ex gay “therapy”.

I support banning *all *bad therapy for everyone. Why should only one group of people be protected against bad therapy? Are heterosexuals unworthy of protection? Are homosexuals so fragile as to be in need of special protection?

The other problem with a ban on reparative therapy is that it would cover too many types of psychological help in dealing with the problem of SSA; psychologists will be forbidden to do anything except to help these poor people learn to accept and even “celebrate” their condition, emperiling their souls and physical health.

So what is to be done? The people in the article you cited were ruled to have committed fraud–don’t we already have laws against that? And to have caused emotional distress–which is totally self-determined: would a less emotionally fragile person have deserved less money?

And what will happen in a few years when some former patients sue a PC psychologist for having directed them to accept their problem as some sort of gift and to go out and live a homosexual lifestyle, causing them to get anal cancer or become incontinent due to injury, or any of a number of other health problems resulting from the misuse of one’s body? Even women who are mostly attracted to women have higher rates of (different) health problems.

 

[Peter_Plato]

And what will happen in a few years when some former patients sue a PC psychologist for having directed them to accept their problem as some sort of gift and to go out and live a homosexual lifestyle, causing them to get anal cancer or become incontinent due to injury, or any of a number of other health problems resulting from the misuse of one’s body? Even women who are mostly attracted to women have higher rates of (different) health problems.

Perhaps a few lawsuits for medical malfeasance will be required before the APA will see the error of its ways.

Perhaps that is why the supporters of the move to decertify all “gay” therapies have also moved to make them all illegal. That way, no possible lawsuits – no matter how harmful to individuals such a failure to provide appropriate therapeutic intervention becomes – CAN ever be brought to the courts.

It is called covering all the bases or otherwise known as covering your behind. As inappropriately and ironically paradoxical, as that sounds, coming from an organization that is allegedly supposed to be concerned about the psychological health of individuals.

There is something profoundly illogical about claiming that ALL such therapies are and MUST BE harmful based upon mere allegations that some have been found to be.

 

[Jake21]

I support banning *all *bad therapy for everyone. Why should only one group of people be protected against bad therapy? Are heterosexuals unworthy of protection? Are homosexuals so fragile as to be in need of special protection?

The other problem with a ban on reparative therapy is that it would cover too many types of psychological help in dealing with the problem of SSA; psychologists will be forbidden to do anything except to help these poor people learn to accept and even “celebrate” their condition, emperiling their souls and physical health.

So what is to be done? The people in the article you cited were ruled to have committed fraud–don’t we already have laws against that? And to have caused emotional distress–which is totally self-determined: would a less emotionally fragile person have deserved less money?

And what will happen in a few years when some former patients sue a PC psychologist for having directed them to accept their problem as some sort of gift and to go out and live a homosexual lifestyle, causing them to get anal cancer or become incontinent due to injury, or any of a number of other health problems resulting from the misuse of one’s body? Even women who are mostly attracted to women have higher rates of (different) health problems.

1) Psychologists would be forbidden from trying to change **any ones** sexual orientation if the bans in a handful of states were to be replicated on the federal level. 

2) Psychologists will have to make it very clear to parents that homosexuality is not considered a psychological disorder. They will also have to emphasize that the psychological community overwhelmingly agrees that  there is no  valid way to change someone’s sexual orientation through therapy and that the methods (like the one  example out of several that I provided) that are used to try and change peoples sexual orientation  puts their children’s wellbeing at risk.

76crimes.com/ex-gay-therapy-what-reputable-experts-have-to-say/
3) What psychologists will be allowed to do is help homosexual minors live a life of chastity so they can have comfort with their religious beliefs.

 

[edwest2]

Perhaps a few lawsuits for medical malfeasance will be required before the APA will see the error of its ways.

Perhaps that is why the supporters of the move to decertify all “gay” therapies have also moved to make them all illegal. That way, no possible lawsuits – no matter how harmful to individuals such a failure to provide appropriate therapeutic intervention becomes – CAN ever be brought to the courts.

It is called covering all the bases or otherwise known as covering your behind. As inappropriately and ironically paradoxical, as that sounds, coming from an organization that is allegedly supposed to be concerned about the psychological health of individuals.

There is something profoundly illogical about claiming that ALL such therapies are and MUST BE harmful based upon mere allegations that some have been found to be.

Well said. The APA has been and continues to be corrupted not by scientists but by pressure groups.

A licensed professional is, like a surgeon, expected to pass a set of stringent requirements to obtain such a license. The Federal government has no business to tell parents what to do if they feel their child’s mental health is a stake. None.

The Federal government has no business dealing with families, except, as it appears, under certain invented circumstances.

Take Transgendered persons and their diagnosis. 2013:

“Whereas previously a man who “self-identified” as a woman (or vice versa) could have been classified as mentally ill, now the DSM-5 uses the term “gender dysphoria,” which means it is only a mental illness if you’re troubled by this self-identification. Elated activists in the “LGBT” community had lobbied the APA for the change for years.”

Source: ncregister.com/daily-news/psychiatrys-new-normal-transgendered-persons

I don’t lobby my psychiatrist, or doctor, for a diagnosis change.

Ed

 

[Tomyris]

Well said. The APA has been and continues to be corrupted not by scientists but by pressure groups.

Well put.

I hope to see the federal government ban this practice for minors in order to protect the vulnerable minors that are pressured or forced by religiously conservative parents to go through this potentially dangerous “therapy” that is not supported by valid scientific evidence

This issue parallels climate change: those doing the research and promoting the results seem to have a prior commitment to those results,and it get peer-reviewed by people with the same agenda. This may be the death of science in our civilization. Those not in agreement are then vilified and classed as wing-nuts and extremists and in the pocket of some theoretically unsavory group.

We need to be very careful of accepting evidence and concluding that it is “valid scientific evidence” researched by “experts”. In this particular field, there really aren’t that many people to study to come to decent conclusions, and when someone extracts a conclusion from the data it often seems to be overstated.

And why should the federal government be involved? That can be a cure worse than the disease. Our federal system provides room for states to tailor the situation to their state.

I don’t think there is enough evidence either way, so restraint is the best course. The imposition of an unjustified ideology would be worse.

 

[St_Francis]

1. Psychologists would be forbidden from trying to change any ones sexual orientation if the bans in a handful of states were to be replicated on the federal level.

Why should it be *illegal *for an adult patient and a psychologist to try to change the patient’s sexual orientation? And why should be illegal for parents to decide that goal for their child with a psycholigist?

1. Psychologists will have to make it very clear to parents that homosexuality is not considered a psychological disorder. They will also have to emphasize that the psychological community overwhelmingly agrees that 1b]there is no valid way to change someone’s sexual orientation through therapy and that the methods (like the one example out of several that I provided) that are used to try and change peoples sexual orientation puts their children’s wellbeing at risk.

Wrt to part I bolded: this is conflating the goal of the patient (or patient’s parents) with the method(s) used by the psychologist. That is the problem I have with this whole idea of legally probibiting “reparative therapy”–that the patient (or parents) cannot determine their own goal and work towards that goal in a good way.

WRT the first part of this part of your comment–so what if it is not considered a disorder by the APA? Does that mean that if I go in to a psychologist, he will reject me on the grounds that my problem is not a psychological disorder as defined by the APA?

Before you answer that, you should understand that the reason the APA has a list of disorders is so they can get money from insurance companies–they have to provide a “diagnosis” and hope for a “cure” in order to be reimbursed. Problems that parents used to take their children in for which were not at the time labeled acquired scientific-sounding names for that reason.

The whole thing really grew into an industry in poor areas. For a while it was quite a scandal, as schools billed Medicaid for providing psychological services (like an attendant for the “patient”), and parents getting an increase in their welfare payments due to their child’s “disability.” When Medicaid caught on, all these children were suddenly “cured”.

76crimes.com/ex-gay-therapy-what-reputable-experts-have-to-say/

Having been dxed as variously as stress, over-active imagination, hypochondria, teeth problems, etc., until doctors finally discovered TMJ syndrome, I am not impressed by this. For decades homosexuality was considered a problem in and of itself. That changed. It could change again.

1. What psychologists will be allowed to do is help homosexual minors live a life of chastity so they can have comfort with their religious beliefs. If the homosexual minor or their parents is affiliated with a conservative protestant denomination that teaches being a homosexual is itself sinful, then I guess they will just have to visit their pastor who also shares that moronic and immoral belief in order to try and change their child’s sexual orientation.

It’s an immoral belief that a tendency to sin is immoral?!?!?!?!

 

[Tomyris]

3) What psychologists will be allowed to do is help homosexual minors live a life of chastity so they can have comfort with their religious beliefs. If the homosexual minor or their parents is affiliated with a conservative protestant denomination that teaches being a homosexual is itself sinful, then I guess they will just have to visit their pastor who also shares that **moronic and immoral  belief **in order to try and change their child’s sexual orientation.

An example of vilifying the opposition.

Not all psychologists agree with “the overwhelming consensus”. I also question whether it is such, and whether that consensus is to be trusted.

 

[edwest2]

The APA does provide evidence that is used by courts and is a lobbying group.

“APA has been a strong advocate for full equal rights for LGBT people for nearly 35 years, based on the social science research on sexual orientation. APA has supported legal benefits for same-sex couples since 1997 and civil marriage for same-sex couples since 2004. APA has adopted policy statements, lobbied Congress in opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act and the Federal Marriage Amendment, and filed amicus briefs supporting same-sex marriage in legal cases in Oregon, Washington, New Jersey, New York (three times), Maryland, Connecticut, Iowa, and California. In California, the APA brief was cited by the state Supreme Court when it ruled that same-sex marriage was legal in May 2008.”

Source: apa.org/news/press/releases/2010/08/support-same-sex-marriage.aspx

Ed

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

What about a gay minor child who does not want to be gay? Where does he/she turn?
What are the parents to do?

 

[Ridgerunner]

If you support banning “therapy” that is involved with bizarre junk science practices like this

“Unger described another group therapy session where the boys were told that their close relationships with their mothers had played an integral role in turning them gay. Unger was then instructed to reimagine a pillow in the therapy room as his mother, and to then beat that pillow as hard as he possibly could with a tennis racket, according to court documents.”

forward.com/news/310914/jury-…#ixzz3ovo83kOH

Or support banning “therapy” that shame its patients, then you might as well just say you support banning ex gay “therapy” all together. This is because I highly doubt that any professional that has the audacity to try and change someone’s sexual orientation would not have the slightest amount of shame or absurd practices like the one example out of several I provided involved in ex gay “therapy”.

They used to bleed people for various ailments too, but that doesn’t mean all medicine is quackery.

It has been enlightening to me to discover how many in the psych field are critical of the APA, including some with very high credentials and a great deal of experience. But they will also tell you how going against the “received wisdom” of the APA can be vocational suicide.

 

[Trident_H]

1. Psychologists would be forbidden from trying to change any ones sexual orientation if the bans in a handful of states were to be replicated on the federal level.
   1. Psychologists will have to make it very clear to parents that homosexuality is not considered a psychological disorder. They will also have to emphasize that the psychological community overwhelmingly agrees that there is no valid way to change someone’s sexual orientation through therapy and that the methods (like the one example out of several that I provided) that are used to try and change peoples sexual orientation puts their children’s wellbeing at risk.

76crimes.com/ex-gay-therapy-what-reputable-experts-have-to-say/

3) What psychologists will be allowed to do is help homosexual minors live a life of chastity so they can have comfort with their religious beliefs. If the homosexual minor or their parents is affiliated with a conservative protestant denomination that teaches being a homosexual is itself sinful, then I guess they will just have to visit their pastor who also shares that moronic and immoral  belief in order to try and change their child’s sexual orientation.

Well I don’t know. I mean if someone told me they had a cure for this. And I wanted that cure. I’d want that cure to be available. But first we have to be willing to admit it’s not a normal way of thinking. We’d have to admit that it’s disordered. A problem with the wiring. Or with the way things get interpreted. Or maybe with some later patterning. I don’t know. But we’d have to admit something. In order to justify studying it further. In order to think about whether there’s such a thing as a cure.

I mean we’re cool with admitting that adults who lust after children have a disorder. And people who fall in love with barnyard animals have a real problem. And someone who wants to marry a pillow has issues. But SSA is not part of that spectrum? Just magically not in any way related? I mean I’ve got the strongest desire to reach out for someone in a way that defies all reason. Why is that normal?

I mean what I don’t like is the idea that we somehow have to pretend that something like this is somehow off the table. That we can’t dig into it. Like we would for any other brain-altering condition. I hate the political nice-ness that comes at the expense of scientific honesty. I mean you’re an atheist. What do you think about that? Are you thinking this kind of stuff should be up for rational discussion? Or is it fair to expect it should be blocked by emotions?

I don’t know. I think we need to watch how this stuff’s played for sure. There’s no point in screaming names at people. But we don’t do that anyway. I just don’t think we should make everything so touchy. Just say that it’s a different patterning of thought if we want. Say there’s evidence that these patterns can be changed. Show the evidence for that. Study that. But honestly. Don’t outlaw science. That’s always the wrong approach. Keep thinking. Keep searching. Keep finding truths. Let’s go guys. Let’s do that the right way.

I mean I’d like to know the answers to this too. I’m maybe on a different ride here. But that doesn’t mean that I suddenly find it better to pretend than to face the truth. I’ve got a heart and soul in this. I care about where this leaves me. And I resent blunt thinking. When we need to stay sharp.

Peace.

-Trident

 

[Jake21]

Why should it be *illegal *for an adult patient and a psychologist to try to change the patient’s sexual orientation? And why should be illegal for parents to decide that goal for their child with a psycholigist?

Wrt to part I bolded: this is conflating the goal of the patient (or patient’s parents) with the method(s) used by the psychologist. That is the problem I have with this whole idea of legally probibiting “reparative therapy”–that the patient (or parents) cannot determine their own goal and work towards that goal in a good way.

WRT the first part of this part of your comment–so what if it is not considered a disorder by the APA? Does that mean that if I go in to a psychologist, he will reject me on the grounds that my problem is not a psychological disorder as defined by the APA?

Before you answer that, you should understand that the reason the APA has a list of disorders is so they can get money from insurance companies–they have to provide a “diagnosis” and hope for a “cure” in order to be reimbursed. Problems that parents used to take their children in for which were not at the time labeled acquired scientific-sounding names for that reason.

The whole thing really grew into an industry in poor areas. For a while it was quite a scandal, as schools billed Medicaid for providing psychological services (like an attendant for the “patient”), and parents getting an increase in their welfare payments due to their child’s “disability.” When Medicaid caught on, all these children were suddenly “cured”.

Having been dxed as variously as stress, over-active imagination, hypochondria, teeth problems, etc., until doctors finally discovered TMJ syndrome, I am not impressed by this. For decades homosexuality was considered a problem in and of itself. That changed. It could change again.

It’s an immoral belief that a tendency to sin is immoral?!?!?!?!

Would you mind telling me some examples of reparative therapy that don’t involve the slightest amount of shaming or something absurd like the example I provided? I’m willing to bet that if the federal government were to ban therapy that used methods similar to the example I provided or shamed its patients, then therapy that tried to change people’s sexual orientation would be almost nonexistent.