In the text of the bill AB2943 in California, a picture of “contemporary science” was presented to legislators. An array of professional organizations was depicted, all of whom seem to condemn therapy. As a result, the activists insist that books have to be banned, just like in 1933 pre-war Germany. The activists want to be the one who decides for you what is good for you. To that end, they search for state coercion, meaning ultimately state-approved violence, in order to run other people’s lives, to shape their thoughts and to direct their emotions. In a learned tone of voice, the supporters of the bill announce sound and trustworthy research. But when we read carefully, we observe that the array in itself is false, deceptive and fraudulent. Activists present fake news. Let us choose one of these professional organizations, SAMHSA, and examine what it has to say. The other organizations are merely more of the same.
In paragraph 2.o, we read
“o) In October 2015, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) of the United States Department of Health and Human Services issued a report titled “Ending Conversion Therapy: Supporting and Affirming LGBTQ Youth.” The report found that “interventions aimed at a fixed outcome, such as gender conformity or heterosexual orientation, including those aimed at changing gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation are coercive, can be harmful, and should not be part of behavioral health treatment.”
1. SAMHSA report is a scam
The report (SMA15-4928) of the SAMHSA is deceptive and fraudulent. (Notice how the accusation of “coercive” is subliminally sneaked into the narrative and casually presented as a fact. How can you, by all licensed professional standards, coerce a person to look into his or her former life? That can only be done voluntarily, on the part of the client! Where is the evidence to the contrary? In which official and objective publication? No article to be found.)
This department of the federal government has done no independent research on its own clients, nor has it analyzed the available literature on specifically the subject of substance abuse and therapy. In fact, they haven’t done any research on psychotherapy for sexual deviant behavior at all, drug-addict or otherwise.
This so-called report is literally a copy-and-paste exercise of the APA report of 2009. The APA report is reiterated, and all the paragraphs that the APA activists have wanted to be publicly broadcasted in 2009, have been published as a finding of the SAMHSA itself, grammar mistakes and all.
The basic idea, that there are no underlying mental issues and internal problems associated with homosexual feelings and behavior, is purely an opinion and not an established fact. It is a sample of wishful thinking that was rammed down the throat of psychiatrists by means of force, intimidation and terrorist behavior at their psychiatric convention in 1973 (see part 2 of this series).
In spite of brutal activist pressure, 42% of psychiatrists nationwide in 1973 voted against removing homosexuality from the list of noteworthy topics for counseling and research.
This doubt stands to this day. And the books, conferences, articles and facilities that we see nationwide, are a living tribute to the existence of a bigger scope of view, as if looking at the world from the International Space Station.
2. An activist battle
The battle of homosexuals telling psychiatrists what does, and what does not constitute psychiatry, continues to this day. Recently, gender-confused adults have joined the choir, wishing to normalize the amputation of genitals at the youngest age possible if a boy, for example, acts like a sissy for more than six months. Although 85% to 96% of gender-confused children and adolescents get over the confusion as long as you do not affirm it, affirmation of the confusion is marketed as the appropriate professional response. And the battle is raging in full swing.
3. The High Lords
In the SAMHSA report (2015), we read that homosexuality has not (yet) been completed removed from diagnostic manuals:
“Certain homosexuality-related diagnoses remain in the ICD, although there is some movement underway to remove them in the next edition of ICD (Cochran, S. D., Drescher, J., Kismödi, Giami, García-Moreno, Atalla & Reed, 2014).”
Here, in the bracketed reference above, we see a contributor who you could call the High Lord, the Osama Bin Laden, of the extremist gay-liberation army, psychiatrist Jack Drescher. He has been called the bully of all ex-gay individuals. He is now endeavoring to remove any reference to homosexual feelings and gender confusion from any diagnostic system. He is the co-author of the book “Activism and LGBT-Psychology”. He wishes to coerce professional thinking by simply rewriting diagnostic manuals.
This coercion is done at the expense of moderate thinkers in the gay emancipation movement (in Islamic ideological terms: the blasphemists), thinkers outside the gay movement (the Unbelievers) and those who have left the movement and deserted its train of thought (the Apostates). May the wrath of the Rainbow Colored Flag be upon them!
He has also infiltrated the American Psychiatric Association, and has managed to get into the committee which reviews new editions of the Diagnostic Statistics Manual. There, he apparently succeeds in manipulating opinion by means of his pseudo-scientific publications in LGBT magazines, journals which are not recognized by regular science. To combat this lack of recognition, the extremist activists have created so-called LGBT magazines of their own, which are later cited (by themselves) as a reliable source of regular scientific findings and recommendations.
4. A new parallel LGBT science universe
To this end, they have created a host of LGBT societies, a parallel universe, which poses as a peer-reviewed library of knowledge. They assume beforehand that you were ‘born that way’ and they take it from there. This means that no other outcome is possible than that you were born that way. The idea that you were predestined to be gay and transgender is not the output of research, it is the input. Hence, no other conclusion is possible. These phony and rigged articles constitute the zenith of biased and narrow-minded thinking of people locked up in the gay sectarian label; it is the voice of a self-acclaimed tribe.
This scientific parallel universe of “knowledge” is increasingly growing, and now includes:
Canadian Online Journal of Queer Studies in Education, Columbia Journal of Gender & Law, Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, Best Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Law Review Articles, Gay and Lesbian Issues and Psychology Review, Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide, GLQ: A Journal of Gay & Lesbian Studies, IAMURE International Journal of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Studies, InterAlia: a journal of queer studies (English/Polish Language), International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies, International Journal of Transgenderism, Jahrbuch für die Geschichte der Homosexualitäten, Journal of Bisexuality, Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, Journal of GLBT Family Studies, Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, Journal of LGBT Youth, Journal of Homosexuality, Journal of the History of Sexuality, Journal of Lesbian Studies, Lambda Nordica, LBGT Health, LBGTQ Policy Journal [Harvard University], LES Online: Digital Journal on Lesbian Issues, Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, QED: A Journal in GLBTQ Worldmaking, Queer Studies in Media & Popular Culture, Sextures, Sexualities, SGP: Sexuality, Gender, and Policy Journal (Policy Studies Organization), SQS: Journal of Queer Studies in Finland, Tulane Journal of Law & Sexuality: A Review of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in the Law, Transgender Health, Transgender Studies Quarterly.
Apparently, the SAMHSA has no problem with Drescher’s initiative to remove all mention of homosexuality from oncoming international and domestic manuals. In a professional sound of voice, they announce his initiatives as a fact of life, ignoring and if possible, deleting the abundant professional criticisms.
It must be made clear that SAMHSA is a puppet of the gay-liberation movement, and that it takes its orders from the activists behind the APA 2009 report, a publication to which, by the way, Drescher himself contributed greatly.
5. The need for independent SAMHSA research
The SAMHSA has no right to publish a paper based on the writings of Drescher & Co, without doing any substantiatable research on its own clients. It takes Drescher for granted, and gives him a platform to reiterate his personal activist views on the subject. His documents are heavily biased; they are opinion statements.
If the SAMHSA wants to compete in this field, it needs to examine its own (drug addict) population, to question their sexuality, to document and review any psychotherapeutic intervention they have received, to compare these interventions with other interventions that were offered to other clients, and to give the therapists who are mentioned, the ability to supply their view on the allegations of the SAMHSA clients if the client treats the therapist in an unfair way.
None of this has happened. There is no field research, no comparison, and no review of the immense criticism that Drescher has received in the psychiatric mainstream community.
The SAMHSA report is a scam. They write,
“This document is based on the consensus statements developed by an expert panel convened by the American Psychological Association, Division 44, July 2015.”
It was not an expert panel discussion, it was a War Council, where PR-strategies were discussed and agreed upon. One year earlier, Kate Kendall (CEO of the National Center of Lesbian Rights) had set a date for the complete annihilation of conversion therapy in the USA: the year 2019, the date of her retirement. It is to be her legacy. The “panel discussion” is comparable to Sir Winston Churchill, calling allies to the table in 1945 to determine the outcome of the battle.
With this statement, SAMHSA publicly admits that it didn’t do any research on its own clients in any way. It merely agreed to broadcast statements coming from APA activists (Division 44), and in doing so, its report is an effort to make the harmonic voices of the anti-psychotherapy choir louder, more prominent and more convincing.
The use of all these statements in the draft of the bill, coming from an array of organizations, none of whom have performed independent research on clients in their own field pertaining to offering psychotherapy, undermines the legitimacy of these proposed laws.
To be continued
Job Berendsen, MD