Radical gay-lib has issued many statements in its endeavour to ban reparative therapy, but how biased are they? In a series of articles, we will look into various aspects of bias. We shall demonstrate the way it harms our perception of organizations, documents, surveys and professional recommendations. Extremist factions in gay-lib use bias deliberately, as we shall see. The first bias to look into is organization bias. When this bias is used, you are deliberately being manipulated.
The bias is that when any organization is separately named in a document, we may comfortably assume that it has done separate research on the subject at hand. It will have done its homework, and it can no doubt substantiate its research and its statements. Radical gay-lib uses this bias in most of its documents on psychotherapy which is not strictly gay-affirmative as the ultimate goal.
1. Name dropping
When campaigning for a ban against reparative therapy, gay-lib not only names the American Psychiatric Association as a source of research, but also tries to name as many other organizations as possible who appear to have reached a similar outcome. In this way, the reader automatically assumes that all these separate organizations have done independent research and have reached their conclusions in line with the specific qualities of their profession. In reality, this is absolutely not true.
To add to the dramatic effect, one often sees that the number of members of the organizations are added up and then quoted, making the reader automatically assume that they all were involved in the decision making process, or at least have had some say in it and knew and debated all aspects of the issue at hand. But this is never true. It just looks that way. Scientific facts do not become more scientific if you have enrolled more members. Membership has nothing to do with it. It is never the whole assembly which writes the document, but always the national board which then appoints a division, which then appoints a task force, which then appoints a small committee of no more than six or seven members. And in regard to so-called LGBT-issues, these members are almost always from gay-lib.
2. Moral stance instead of professional research
The small California-based law firm National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) is an extremist organization, which aims to impose its world-view in a militant fashion. “Forward, fight for victories” is the army-like slogan in the fund-raising emails, “Let’s make progress in our battles and never give in”.
The ultimate aim is to intimidate all other views and silence them. In 2014, the director, Kate Kendall, decided to launch a propaganda campaign in order to ban reparative therapy in the USA by the year 2019. Heterosexual feelings are not allowed to be affirmed, even if clients, including bisexuals, express that desire. The campaign was labeled BornPerfect, which, simply put, means:
If I feel any same-sex attractions at any time, then I was born this way, 100% homosexual. It is a genetic trait, there is nothing wrong with me, nor has it ever been. No environmental factors are involved, hence no need for psychotherapy, there is nothing to look into.
Since then, the phrase is catching on: Born That Way! Meanwhile, the law firm collects millions of dollars from unsuspecting people to procure documents, Youtube videos, and ‘ready-to-serve’ drafts for legislation, or to fly in so-called victims for a media training in California, and then to escort them to state capitals to perform their act.
They are labeled “survivors” as though they narrowly escaped death. This is a subliminal message, making it sound as if they have just come back from Auschwitz. This is also meant to evoke bias.
Gay-lib will say “all the major professional organizations in the USA no longer consider homosexuality a mental disorder, including the American Psychiatric Association, ….” and then a whole array of organizations is named, including social workers, psychologists, family therapists etc. But when one digs for the research these other organizations have done, one will find that they have not done any independent scientific research on the subject at all. They just take a moral stance in-line with the moral stance of the Psychiatric Association.
If they state anything, then it is a politically-correct abstract story about “freedom”, “equal rights”, “justice”, all of which are not at stake when a client freely seeks out a therapist for a consensual professional relationship. But the reader is not aware of that.
3. Organizations not qualified
To make matters worse, these other organizations and professionals do not even have appropriate credentials to make professional comments on the subject of “mental disorder”. After all, it is the field of psychiatry which determines what constitutes a mental disorder. Psychiatry (a branch of medicine) has the right and the credentials to pass such a verdict, while other professions do not.
The opinion of other professional fields, including psychology, are actually no more than just that — opinions, and have no more scientific validity to these psychiatric issues than those of say, dermatologists, gynaecologists and surgeons. But due to organization bias, the reader automatically assumes that these other organizations from other fields have the authority to pass such a verdict, and that they must surely have done independent research on the matter. It all goes without saying.
Gay-lib relies heavily on this bias in its efforts to marginalize and criminalize licensed psychotherapists, nurses, social workers, in fact any employee who does not express the belief that a person experiencing same-sex attractions is “born that way”, immutably from birth.
4. Increasing the number of organization allies
To increase its PR-influence, gay-lib actively approaches other organizations, trying to get them to publish gay-lib statements on the subject, so that these other organizations can also be added to the list.
One such organization is the Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO). They were approached by a gay activist, Dr. Mirta Roses, who handed them a single paper, asking them to adopt the stance of “all the major professional organizations in the USA etc. etc.”, see above. This organization then fell for the organization bias, assuming that all these USA organizations have looked deeply into this aspect of psychiatry and had looked deeply into all sorts of aspects of conversion or reparative therapy. Nothing could be less true.
No harm has ever been substantiated. After all, in 2009 the American Psychological Association wrote:
“We conclude that there is a scarcity of scientifically sound research on the safety of Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE). Early and recent research studies provide no clear indication of the prevalence of harmful outcomes among people who have undergone efforts to change their sexual orientation or the frequency of occurrence of harm because no study to date of adequate scientific rigor has been explicitly designed to do so. Thus, we cannot conclude how likely it is that harm will occur from Sexual Orientation Change Efforts.” (underscoring added)
The PAHO did not receive this information. These facts were (and still are) swept under the carpet. The activist merely added a short horror story about ‘conversion therapy’ ‘in the USA, a tale too unbelievable for words:
“In some cases, the victims were interned and deprived of their liberty, sometimes to the extent of being kept in isolation during several months. The testimonies provide accounts of degrading treatment, extreme humiliation, physical violence, aversive conditioning through electric shock or emetic substances, and even sexual harassment and attempts of “reparative rape,” especially in the case of lesbian women.”
Licensed therapists raping lesbians? Would you believe it! When we fact-check the footnote, we see that this does not stem from the USA at all, but from some obscure South-American website about “mujeres” (women) in 2008. The site however is off-line (404 error), making it impossible to verify this absurd story. But for the activists at the Pan-American organization, this is presumably no problem. None of these allegations have ever been substantiated in the USA or anywhere else.
The PAHO failed to do any independent research on the matter, nor did it do any fact-checking on the horror story which was presented to them. Most probably, they assumed that this story is just the tip of an iceberg in the USA. Once again, nothing could be less true. They proceeded to sign on the dotted line as requested. This organization has not published anything verifiable on the matter, other than their agreement with the paper handed in by the activist. One is just forced to take their ‘learned’ word for it.
After this accomplishment, gay-lib adds the PAHO to its list of professionals, leading people to believe that this organization too had done its homework.
5. World Psychiatric Association
Next stop for gay-lib in March 2016 was the World Psychiatric Association, where the whole endeavour was successfully repeated, with no further questions asked. No independent research, just signing on the dotted line. In the Wisconsin Gazette we read:
“We are thrilled that the World Psychiatric Association has joined the chorus of national and international voices calling for an end to conversion therapy,” said National Center for Lesbian Rights #BornPerfect campaign coordinator and staff attorney Sam Ames. “Their announcement sends a clear message that these practices have no place in modern medicine and that policies that condone them engender hatred and endanger lives all across the globe.”
Hatred? What hatred would that be? Licensed therapists? Endangering lives across the globe? According to which substantiatable document? Miss Ames is very much aware of the APA paper on the subject quoted above (she is in direct contact with one of the writers, gay activist Lee Beckstead, to coordinate her campaign with him), but deliberately lies her way to publicity, trying to see how far she can get. If no-one contradicts her, and seeing how many millions her boss, Kate Kendall, is raising for this PR-campaign, she can get far. I repeat, the APA wrote:
“Recent studies provide no clear indication of the prevalence of harmful outcomes, we cannot conclude how likely it is that harm will occur from Sexual Orientation Change Efforts.”
Surely all efforts of the NCLR constitute scaremongering. Why did the Wisconsin journalist not do some tough questioning? Never heard of fake news?
6. The United Nations
Next stop for gay-lib was the United Nations in Geneva, now heavily armed with not only American organizations, but a Pan-American and even a World organization. Who could argue with that?
Within 24 hours of a hearing in which the two NCLR activists Samantha Ames and Samuel Brinton made their statements, conversion therapy was added to the UN Charter on Torture. No independent research was done on the torture claim, neither were actual therapists invited or interviewed. The UN had literally been conquered overnight. With this trophy, gay-lib now has a staggering list of organizations who appear to independently condemn therapy, and who appear to know all about the subject. In all truth, the only information on this therapy was handed to everyone by activist Samantha Ames: it is her fabrication and her claims have nothing to do with the living reality of therapy.
(The tales Samuel Brinton makes up get more absurd by the day. Most recently, we are led to believe he was in a therapy group, and eight of the ten participants committed suicide, after which he decided to continue his studies. Previously he supposedly had had needles under his fingernails, electric shocks to his testicles, been forced to vomit, but on cross examination, he can’t quite remember the names of the therapists nor the exact dates and addresses!)
By the way, gay-lib is correct when it says “major” organizations. But it omits to objectively inform its readers that we also have quite a number of MINOR organizations in the professional world, many of which were formed after splits in the past because of opposing views. They may not be just as big, but they nevertheless have a lot to say. An example is the influential American College of Pediatricians (see our article on transgender issues). Nowhere does gay-lib mention that the professional debate is organized and that it has various sides, opposing views and value systems.
7. Legislative councils in the USA
Next stop for gay-lib is to approach all sorts of legislative councils in the USA, to persuade them to comply with the UN Charter Against Torture. And which American city or state wants to handle affairs in defiance of UN Charters? Surely the UN knows what it is talking about!
But they don’t. It is organization bias to immediately assume such a thing. The names of all the ‘conquered’ American states are then added to the list of supporters. Gay-lib mentions that five states have adopted a ban on conversion therapy after political debate,
“… and more than 20 states have introduced similar legislation.”
But the same gay-lib does not inform its readers that these twenty states have denounced the initiative after it was “introduced”. The states voted NO!
The twenty states have considered bans to be very harmful to the interests of all the people in the state. In no way do the activists give the readers of emails and gay-lib magazines like The Advocate the full story. By omission, the audience is deceived and misled. Readers do not get enough information to enable them to reach a justified and balanced conclusion. The stream of information and the PR campaign are deliberately one-sided.
8. If necessary, create organizations as “allies”
The next stop for them was to add more organizations to the list. If they don’t exist, then invent them, create them, fund them and get them on their way. Have them make a lot of noise.
This year, we see a new organization called “50 states, 50 bills”, joining the three gay-lib organizations who are campaigning for a ban on conversion therapy (National Centre of Lesbian Rights, Human Rights Campaign, Southern Poverty Law Centre). The problem must be huge when even new organizations also emerge, allowing people to at last raise their voice. But when we take a close look at this organization, we surprisingly see that it is chaired by our old friend Brinton, with Samantha Ames as advisor.
This ‘new’ organization markets the same rhetoric as the NCLR. It is their aim to form a host of organizations in all 50 states in the USA. This will no doubt be done with the totally unsubstantiated misinformation and misinterpretations, the kind of which Samantha Ames has used in the past, leading innocent on-lookers to assume that the problem in the USA must be huge. Why otherwise would so many different organizations be expressing their concern and calling for a ban? Where there is smoke, there must be fire.
On his website, Samuel Brinton says:
“What Are We Doing? First we raised funds. Once we find a state legislator it’s off to the races with discussion, research, and legislative writing until we submit a bill”
The legislative writing will no doubt be done by Samantha Ames and her NCLR staff, and in this way, her law firm will be assured of a great amount of work and income in the next year. The NCLR is a unique institute in that it generates the demand for its output, instead of responding to demands in society. In the Netherlands, this is forbidden: lawyers are not allowed to actively create the demand for their service. Miss Ames is creating the need felt by people for her law firm.
The silencing of dissidence will ultimately stifle all debate on emancipation issues. Us-them thinking will become mainstream and a gay parallel society will ultimately emerge. By means of new legislation, including criminal law, the police will sooner or later act as the border patrol. And like in the former communist German Democratic Republic (DDR) where a Berlin Wall was built to keep inhabitants from fleeing out of the communist ‘paradise state’, dissidents who don’t want to go to this ‘paradise’ (the gay label and lifestyle) will be dragged in, whether they want to or not. The slightest hint of same-sex attractions means you will be labeled “gay”; in therapy only gayness is allowed to be affirmed, such is the aim.
People leaving the ranks (ex-gays) will face public humiliation and persecution. They will be named and shamed, with nowhere left to go. Their allies, therapists, will be doing time in prison (see Malta, 2016).
9. Create bias at all costs
In order to make sure readers become sufficiently biased against therapy, the gay-lib political lobby group, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), the largest in the USA, adds slanderous remarks about the supposed motives of therapists:
“Due to continuing discrimination and societal bias against LGBTQ people, some practitioners continue to conduct conversion therapy.”
What we see here is activists speculating about the motives of therapists, but in no way do they refer their readers to the client-friendly statements on the websites or in the brochures of the therapists themselves. The allegations are fabricated and are the product of fantasy and a paranoid state of mind toward anyone outside the own inner circle.
What bias against people would therapists harbor? It is the other way around. People who do not want to immediately assume a gay identity or lifestyle but prefer to explore their full sexual potential, are discriminated against by an intolerant group of extremists. What we see here is called projection. The activists project their discrimination and bias onto therapists, making themselves look like victims and trying to evoke as much societal bias against therapists as possible.
10. Biased conclusions
When it comes to bias, we need only look at the website of the gay activists of the HRC:
“The (APA) task force found that there are no methodologically sound studies of recent therapy that would enable the task force to make a definitive statement about whether or not recent therapy is safe or harmful and for whom. In short, there is clear evidence that conversion therapy does not work”
What a biased conclusion. Imagine a judge saying:
“The prosecutor found there is no sound evidence enabling me to make a definitive statement about whether you did the right thing or not, or if there was any harm involved, or for whom. I therefore sentence you to twenty years of imprisonment.”
Welcome to gay-lib extremism and their biases.
To be continued.