In the bill AB2943 in California, we read this sentence, “Furthermore, anecdotal reports of ‘cures’ are counterbalanced by anecdotal claims of ‘psychological harm’.” The phrase on “anecdotal reports” forms the heart of the extremist argument.
1. No second weighing
If a client goes into therapy, he/she makes a decision about benefit versus harm. Every client does that, and it is his/her inalienable right to do so. Therefore, if a client says, “Well I am glad I did it”, then as a scientist you are not allowed to perform a second weighing of the harm versus benefit decision.
If a client says, “I am glad I did it”, then that statement stands, no matter what.
If an equal number of clients say: “I am glad I did NOT do it”, then their argument stands too, but it stands for very personal reasons. You are not allowed to perform a SECOND weighing of these arguments with your own arguments (read: activist arguments), that is, in accordance with your secret activist agenda.
2. The local supermarket
Here is an every-day comparison. Imagine our local supermarket. The manager is marketing a new brand of soup. It was offered to 50 customers and they loved it, despite its weird color and weird label. 50 other customers denied the offer.
What is the supermarket manager supposed to conclude? If he is heterosexual, he will sell the soup, despite the sour faces of the 50 who declined the offer. That is what the competitive supermarket branch is all about. Even if only 15 customers buy it, well done. Nice try for a new brand of soup. Who knows what the future may bring!
The gay LGBT-psychologists however, will conclude,
“Anecdotal reports of liking the soup are counterbalanced by anecdotal reports of not liking the soup”.
Therefore, no soup in the supermarket.
If he doesn’t watch it, the supermarket manager may even find himself being prosecuted for consumer fraud. After all, 50 liked it and 50 didn’t. Welcome to LGBT-psychology.
3. Annihilation of testimonies
What we are seeing is a feeble and desperate attempt to annihilate the fact that licensed therapy is quite successful. The success is downplayed by biased activists and referred to as mere ‘testimonies’. And then by means of pseudo-logic, it is swept under the carpet.
If there IS any comparing to be done, then things must be comparable.
The activists did not inform readers which specific “therapies” actually contributed to the “benefit” testimonies that they appear to rely on, and which specific actions contributed to the alleged “harm” testimonies. Are we talking about the same thing?
Radical gay-lib throws all sorts of discussions about sexuality onto one big heap, labeling it ALL “conversion therapy”. This term may mean licensed professional therapy,
But in their view it also means all sorts of alleged self-flagullation, alleged amateur exorcism, alleged spiritual cleansing, a call to Allah, walking over burning charcoal, alleged inappropriate aversion therapy. There are even extremist claims of drugs being used (which is highly unlikely; they have not described in any substantiatable way).
There are also rumors of electrocution especially in the groin with electric belts, the freezing of limbs, the penetration of testicles, and the pushing of needles under the fingernails. Therefore, what are we talking about?
Extremists spread rumors that rubber bands are placed on the wrists of innocent victims, and that they are forced to snap them when a good looking guy comes along. It helps fighting the demon of urges, and replacing them with soothing masochistic sensations, aimed to heal.
Others would be forced to undergo electrocution with electrocution belts firing at specific intervals, until they finally cave in. At each session, so we are told, the conversion therapist increases the voltage until the desired outcome is reached. And all this would be happening under our very noses.
There are even rumors of “reparative rape”, especially on lesbians in cellars all over the country, secretly hidden from view. No-one has seen them yet. Just goes to show how sly and dangerous these therapists are. No one know for sure, therefore society needs to be on the look out. Yep.
In this fashion, extremist gay-lib (notably the so-called ‘Human Rights Campaign’ HRC) manages to mystify and hence slander all stances but their own. It could very well be that those who have benefited from taking a look at their sexual feelings have done so in a totally different way than those who have answered to the appeal of the HRC to supply them with negative stories.
This mess may never be the basis for sound legislation.
Sufficient articles of the enormous success rate of licensed therapy have been published, but in the 2009 APA report these articles have deliberately been ignored. The APA report is a scam.
4. The report written by NARTH in 2012
In 2012, the APA members who are united in The Alliance For Therapeutic Choice And Scientific Integrity NARTH pubished a sound response to the 2009 report of the Gay Task Force. In a 128 page document called What Research Shows the NARTH researchers exposed the false notions and unethical behavior of the Task Force.
Although the members of NARTH had asked beforehand to be able to join the Task Force to help do the research, they were not allowed in. Perhaps chairperson and activist Judith Glassgold thought she could silence them. Well, that didn’t work. But the Task Force has never reacted to their document. In fact they ignore it. And in the Californian bill we see that the LGBT-psychologists ignore all criticism, even it is backed up by more than 250 articles.
The success of therapy is well documented, and it stands as tall and firm as the Twin Towers of New York. No one has the moral right to fly an airplane into them, to tear them down and remove them from sight and from history.
Section I of the report is a brief overview of 125 years of clinical and scientific reports documenting that volitional change from homosexuality toward heterosexuality is possible. Many advocates of these therapies have reported that they are helpful and that in many cases changes in heterophobia are maintained.
Many researchers and theorists agree that sexuality is fluid. As Forstein concluded in 2001, no existing studies document that such therapies are harmful (p. 177). No study using a random survey concludes that reorientation therapy is likely to be harmful.
A broad range of treatment modes and attitudes toward homosexuality have been demonstrated across various disciplines (Lamberd, 1971). There are two principal premises underlying the treatment of homosexuality: first, it is primarily developmental or adaptational in nature, with other contributing factors (such as learning through nonconsensual sexual activity). Second, people with a homosexual adaptation can be helped to experience a more inclusive adjustment.
The outcomes of interventions aimed at addressing sexual issues vary, as they do in all forms of psychotherapy. Success rates have been generally defined by a decrease in homosexual attraction and a shift in sexual desire toward heterosexuality, as determined by self-reports, therapist reports, or specific measurements - such as penile plethysmography, the 7-point Kinsey scale, and the multi-item KSOG.
The topic of sexual feelings has been reduced to a social debate, with media outlets conducting discussions that are confusing, biased, and unscientific. It is then amidst this confusion, slander and deliberately provoked emotions that extremist gay-lib tries to silence dissidence for once and for all.
For legislators, the use of the phrase that testimonies cancel each other out, is deceptive and fraudulent. It is a form of pseudo-logic and is not acknowledge by regular science. If a therapist were to reiterate this phrase, then he/she would be deceiving clients, and damaging consumer interests.
To be continued.
Job Berendsen, MD.