Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
I have a gay brother and sister and 50 years later, they're still precisely the same people they were as small children.
(At 4, my sister announced, "When I grow up I'm going to be a boy." And picked a fight with me when I tried to tell her she'd grow up to be a woman.)
In essence, she was right, and I was wrong (so much for my gaydar at 8.)
But let's imagine that NPR does that report. How long would it be before mobs of angry people were burning their tote bags outside NPR HQ? Thirty minutes? Fifteen? Before the report was over?
Why?
Probably because he is still fucking gay, and likely is so traumatized by the "therapy" that sex with anyone is unappealing.
And it could be worse, e.g. a sloppy beejay for christianity by Barbara Bradley Hagerty.
It sounded like a mental scarification of his sexuality, not a conversion to liking ladyparts.
I think I'll go rent A Clockwork Orange.
Someone oughta tell them, if they're going to be defunded, it will happen anyway, and better to go out like a lion than like a lamb, or something to that effect.
FUCK YOU, NPR.
do you know what conversion therapy Kerry Pacer used?
Remember Kerry?
The Advocate Homosexual of the Year a few years back?
Georgia high school student standing up for the rights of The Gay?
The Lesbian who inspired Gays EVERYWHERE with her courage?
Lesbian of the Year who was shacking up with her boyfriend and pumping out babies a year later?
What was her conversion therapy?
They think chastity is a "cure".
For example, "minimal efficacy" implies that the intended results of conversion therapy are, in some sense, desirable. To say that the argument for conversion therapy is "weak" implies that there is an argument to be made for it at all.
The Grave Injustice, aside from the atrocity of conversion therapy itself, is that stories like this reinforce the misguided idea that CT is merely "ineffective" and not unspeakably cruel and wrong headed.
Ugh. I'm so sick of this crap it's disgusting.
In a world where "suck one dick and you're gay" would cause some bisexual men to assume a gay identity, it's certainly possible for a bisexual, even someone who skews predominantly toward homosexual attraction, to change some habitual behaviors and form healthy and outwardly heterosexual relations with someone of the opposite sex. That doesn't make them straight, and it doesn't mean they were gay in the first place.
Of course, it would just shift the ex-gay movement toward convincing self-loathing gays that they are bisexual and can change, but it would certainly take the wind out of "this one person (I know he's around here, let me see if I can find him, trust me he's here somewhere) changed, therefore everyone can change, therefore gay people should have no rights whatsoever" idea.
And it would have the added benefit of being, you know, true.
But you know, the ex-gays do seem to think that everyone is bi, sort of. And the movement is sort of about convincing gays that they're bi and can change, if you think about it. And they do say that only some people can really get "cured" whereas others have to struggle more, because it's what god wants or some such nonsense.
You people should be ashamed of yourselves for being so cowardly you can't even listen to the mumbling justifications of con artists and lunatics. Know your enemies, because they are out there. Dan, as a journalist, I'm surprised that in your rush to righteous indignation this one went so clearly over your head.
What is funny is that NPR, like CBS, NBC and ABC before them thinks this 'even-handed' bullshit will pare them from the horrors of being labeled as 'liberal media'
All other articles I have seen on this subject have always exclusively featured people who were burned by the programs and are designed to be wholly negative about the entire subject. But that doesn't cover the viewpoints of all the people who are involved, and there are people who do come through these programs getting what they hope for, even if it isn't what most of us would regard as healthy.
If you report on people who believe or support harmful falsehoods like conversion therapy, you have a duty to your readers to make it very clear what the actual facts are and which side of the controversy is correct. NPR failed at this basic journalistic duty.
Just as the proverbial crazy guys who thought they were Napoleon don't mean that there wasn't a true Napoleon, it doesn't seem to me that a certain amount of cases of real conversion implies that all gays can be converted, but only that there may be some people living under the mistaken impression that they are gay, when in fact they are straight.
What do you guys think?
very good point.
Slog won't entertain it,
however,
as it doesn't conform to their prejudices and bigotries......
(I'm amazed I was able to type something so close to neutral on this vile subject without cramping.)
"Research has demonstrated that when news outlets present both sides of a political issue without commenting on which side is correct, readers tend to feel powerless to determine which position is actually the right one."
In response, i'd like to state that while I agree completely with the writer's position on how the debate over ex-gay therapy is misrepresented, I disagree with this weird claim about how news organizations are responsible for telling people which side of a debate is correct. Pointing out, for example, that proponents of ex-gay therapy have been using junk science to justify their claims is different from simply telling viewers and readers "which side is correct" on "a political issue". Call me really nitpicky if you want, but these sweeping claims just bother me. The article was really good until I read this part and... it just made me sad. Also, what research has shown this?