« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
08/27/2007
'Mother Jones' examines 'overbearing mother made you jones for gayness' set
The folks at Mother Jones have put together an interesting piece on the ability (or lack thereof) for gay people to "change" their sexual orientation. Go check it out:
Gay By Choice? The Science of Sexual Identity [Mother Jones]
Did ya read it? Honestly? No, didn't think so! Go back and read, mister or missy, and then we'll chat.
::writer waits patiently::
::writer grows slightly impatient::
::writer's over it, no longer caring if you chose to read or not::
Okay, so what we find most interesting about the article is that while it is very unbiased and evenhanded, it's still nearly impossible to walk away from it giving the pro-"ex-gay" side's claims any sort of real credence. That's because as per usual, all of the presented "ex-gay" arguments rely on some form of duplicity, short-sightedness, or lack of transparency Examples:
-A subject has been led to believe that his gayness "was a thirst for the love that he had not received from his father, a cold and distant man prone to angry outbursts, coupled with a fear of women kindled by his intrusive and overbearing mother, all of which added up to a man who wanted to have sex with other men just so he could get some male attention." And while he admits that he leads an asexual life and that his attempts at other-sex intimacy have been painfully awkward, he still presents himself as if he has been "changed"
-A Focus on the Family staffer describes the "gay agenda" as "...doing whatever you want, whenever you want, with whoever you want, wherever you want." And he describes those who follow this agenda as "pawns of Satan." No, we're not kidding.
-The NARTH organization is of course used as the voice of "science" for the "ex-gay" side. They present a cursory, simplistic overview of various studies.
-The 2003 Spitzer study is made to seem FAR MORE "ex-gay"-supporting than Mr. Spitzer has himself represented it to be. It is mentioned that the study has caveats, yet none of the caveats are further explored.
-A large chunk of text is given to research of Lisa Diamond (not at all an "ex-gay" advocate, mind you) on the subject of female "fluidity." But if you look at the presented data critically, it seems far less conclusive than the piece's considerable attention makes it out to be. Her views on changing one's social life in order to change attractions also seem in need of MUCH more explanation and data.
-On the same token as Ms. Diamond's "social life" viewpoints, NARTH presents the idea "that people... who hate the gay lifestyle and don't want to be gay should leave the gay bars, do regular guy things with men, and put themselves in the company of women for romance." Of all of the 'ex-gay" arguments, these just might strike us as the most nutty. After all, gay desire for most every gay we've ever met far precedes any gay bar, gay periodical, pride parade, etc. And such desires remain even when one takes their self out of "gay culture." Connecting certain stereotypical social aspects of the "gay lifestyle" with true gay desire would seem to be sort of like marrying one's love for attending baseball games with their physical prowess for the sport.
-Science and biology are made to seem far more like gay political weapons than they truly are. Many of us gays don't consciously choose to "use" biology in order to further "agendas." We use biology and science because our internal processes and examinations of other gays and lesbians lead us to strongly believe that there is some sort of bio-genetic thing at work in regards to our sexual orientation. It's not always "strategy" on our side, ya know.
-The primary "ex-gay" subject of the piece says: "Not all homosexual men want to lead a gay lifestyle. Gay activists shouldn't be threatened by that. I mean, here I am, as a liberal, telling gay people to accept diversity." This is sort of a straw man argument, as few credible gay activists are threatened by someone's right to live and love as they wish. Even fewer are threatened by one's desire (or lack thereof) to live any sort of "gay lifestyle." In fact, we can't think of one credible gay activist who truly thinks there is one specific gay lifestyle. That's because there is not one!!!
-NARTH repeatedly presents the scientific community, the media, and society at large as if it has been hijacked by gay-influenced political correctness. This is of course just how they justify the fact that they are on the wrong side of this issue in terms of what is fair, just, accurate, and decent.
Then on the "pro-gay" side, there are scores of fantastic quotes and reasoned ideas that can still leave open room for flexibility without being short-sighted, condemnatory, judgmental, or aggressively ignorant. And we really don't think we're being all that unfair by highlighting what we have from the "ex-gay" side and saying what we have about the "pro-gay" team. It just 100% seems to us like a debate wherein both sides have tons of rhetoric in their arsenal, but where one group clearly has more ownership to both accuracy and decency. Even in the most fair and balanced of accounts, the legs on which the "ex-gay" movement stand would seem to be made of gelatin (and not even the firm kind).
Your thoughts
I was rather surprised to see this article in the Mother Jones Journal.
But NARTH is nothing if not the disgruntled psychiatrists and psychologists who didn't like removing homosexuality from the DSM.
They try to make it look balanced by including Spitzer who brokered the deal, but what side was Spitzer on? I bet it was the side that wanted to keep homosexuality in the DSM.
Posted by: Tony P | Aug 28, 2007 8:55:33 AM
Tony: By all accounts, Spitzer most definitely wanted the DSM changed. In fact, this is usually what the "ex-gays" say when presenting his study -- that he is a "pro-gay" researcher. That way they can make it seem like he had no reason for bias. But bias is not really the problem with the Spitzer study. The problem is that they present it without giving any credence to the numerous caveats and statements that Spitzer has made about his own research.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Aug 28, 2007 8:59:46 AM
What I took from the article was neither "pro-gay" nor "anti-gay", but instead an observation on how societal and behavioral influences affect people's identities and the choices they make. I have known this to be true for a long time, but few researchers (or writers for that matter) have had the intestinal fortitude to take on the subject honestly and objectively.
A society which promotes homosexuality through media and political influences, will inevitably produce more people who identify themselves as gay. This should be obvious to any agendaless observer. Particularly in adolescence, when idividuals face various pressures and are geniunely confused to start out with... showing the gay guy on a movie/TV show as the guy who makes the smart comment or always gets the last laugh will invariably push some people in that direction.
That is neither pro, nor anti-gay. It just IS.
Posted by: T Eliason | Oct 6, 2007 4:58:54 PM
T Eliason: You're challenging an argument that hasn't been made. In fact, we are in complete agreement that the article was neither "pro-gay" nor "anti-gay." That's the whole point -- even though it's NOT biased, the "ex-gay" team still comes out looking silly simply because of the flawed facts and deceptions that propagate their movement.
Society is not "promoting homosexuality," T. It is only in the past decade or so that the sorts of positive portrayals who mention have been seen in the media. The vast majority of us grew up with a plethora of negative gay imagery. And regardless of that -- we're still gay. Personally, I grew up in a non-accepting town, a non-accepting home, and with the knowledge that my truth would lead me to have to fight far harder than my hetero siblings. Trust me, it wasn't the "appeal" of being gay that led me to admit what I had felt for all of my existence.
Is the media starting to more accurately represent the LGBT community as part of the spectrum of humanity? You betcha! And what we will see because of this is not MORE gay people, but rather a better world for the ones that have and will always exist.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Oct 7, 2007 9:37:10 AM
Talk to us
*Why are my comments not appearing? See the G-A-Y Comments Policy
