On gay conversion therapy

I think we’ll all agree that Tom Robinson is gay? That leather outfit for “Motorway” was a tad of a clue.

I think we all agree that Tom Robinson has married – a woman – and had children.

No, we don’t know the details of that sex life.

“a gay man who happens to be in love with a woman”

Hmm, sexuality – the expression of it at least – does seem to be malleable to outside influences such as, say, love. Amazing that really.

24 comments on “On gay conversion therapy

  1. Surely “Gay” means the “Guild of Abstaining Youth”, an organisation within the Church of England? Or have things changed since the late 1940’s?

  2. Gay activists have argued that being Gay is an identity. That they cannot help being Gay because it is hard-wired. A point of view that NiV often supports. This is just flipping the older medical script on its head – in the 19th century doctors claimed that being homosexual was a disease that could be cured.

    The older Christian approach is that homosexual acts are sins. Some people give in to sin more easily than others. The issue is not the person but the act.

    Which view is closer to reality? Well most Gay people are not that Gay. At least not for long.

    http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/30/neil-gorsuchs-question-key-unlocking-upcoming-masterpiece-cakeshop-decision/

    There is not only no scientific evidence that sexual orientation is immutable, there is conclusive scientific evidence that most people who experience exclusive same-sex attraction end up developing an interest in the opposite sex over time. The stats on this have been printed out in tables and discussed matter-of-factly in the technical journals for decades, but they have a curious way of never quite making it out of the Archives of Sexual Behavior into CNN’s evening news.

    Consider what researchers found in 2007 when they examined a representative sample of more than 10,000 American youth, following each individual from the age of 16 to 22. Rather than rely on an individual’s reconstruction of his or her past based on current identity, researchers met with people three times throughout the six-year period. The first time, when subjects were 16, researchers asked subjects whether they had ever been romantically attracted to a member of the opposite or same sex. In each successive interview, they were asked about their romantic attractions since last interview.

    For instance, 17-year-old males were asked if, in the past year, they had a romantic attraction to another male or female. About 1.5 percent reported only having a romantic attraction to other males. Five years later, when that 1.5 percent of young men were asked about their romantic attractions since the last interview, the overwhelming majority of them (70 percent) reported a 180-degree flip in their sexual orientation—they only had romantic feelings for women.

    Similarly, among females, about 40 percent switched from exclusive same-sex attraction (SSA) to exclusive opposite-sex attraction (OSA). Most of the rest (45 percent of total) reported that they had feelings for both men and women. Only 1 percent of women who at 17 reported a full year of exclusive same-sex attraction reported a similar experience in the five years that followed.
    ….
    There is not only no scientific evidence that sexual orientation is immutable, there is conclusive scientific evidence that most people who experience exclusive same-sex attraction end up developing an interest in the opposite sex over time. The stats on this have been printed out in tables and discussed matter-of-factly in the technical journals for decades, but they have a curious way of never quite making it out of the Archives of Sexual Behavior into CNN’s evening news.

    Consider what researchers found in 2007 when they examined a representative sample of more than 10,000 American youth, following each individual from the age of 16 to 22. Rather than rely on an individual’s reconstruction of his or her past based on current identity, researchers met with people three times throughout the six-year period. The first time, when subjects were 16, researchers asked subjects whether they had ever been romantically attracted to a member of the opposite or same sex. In each successive interview, they were asked about their romantic attractions since last interview.

    For instance, 17-year-old males were asked if, in the past year, they had a romantic attraction to another male or female. About 1.5 percent reported only having a romantic attraction to other males. Five years later, when that 1.5 percent of young men were asked about their romantic attractions since the last interview, the overwhelming majority of them (70 percent) reported a 180-degree flip in their sexual orientation—they only had romantic feelings for women.

    Similarly, among females, about 40 percent switched from exclusive same-sex attraction (SSA) to exclusive opposite-sex attraction (OSA). Most of the rest (45 percent of total) reported that they had feelings for both men and women. Only 1 percent of women who at 17 reported a full year of exclusive same-sex attraction reported a similar experience in the five years that followed.

    We should reject the idea of homosexuality as an identity altogether. It is not like being Black. It is more like being an Arsenal fan. But with more sex with other men.

  3. Damn. I meant another cut and paste there, not the same one twice:

    A 2011 study, for instance, found that a little under 30 percent of those who identified as homosexuals at 40 identified as bisexual or heterosexual by the time they were 50.
    ….
    Overall, roughly half of those who have identified as homosexuals in the past no longer do, and roughly half of those who currently identify as homosexual used to identify as something else. This rule of thumb (noted, in part or in whole by multiple scholars) indicates homosexuality is about as stable as religion: roughly half of Americans have changed religions at least once.

  4. And here is Matthew Parris, attending a Flamenco bar in Andalusia (from yesterday’s Times):

    The guitarist was a man, the singer and dancer women. And I do mean women. These were not girls, not teenagers, not sylphs, and by no stretch of the imagination were they (to use that weird word) “nubile”. Raven-haired, full-bodied, with a beauty that had seen something of life, they had a form and manner that spoke of experience, as flamenco should.

    I can feel the allure of the overripe; of the bust that illustrates the use of “bosom” as a collective noun; of the face and figure that give some intimation of the fall to come.

    I can identify with that.

  5. I don’t understand the fuss.

    When I was a teenager, I would have regular homosexual experiences. Every Saturday we’d sit down as a family and watch Larry Grayson on the Generation Game.

  6. Interesting to hear that you Tim Worstall , potentially swing both ways. Just to clear things up, how malleable are you ? I mean how pretty would a chap have to be to cure you of heterosexuality ?Or maybe , as you say , it would be a sympathy of minds lurve …alright then.

    So you are trolling along with someone discussing how only rich people should have access to medical care and he says …” You know Tim you understanding of Adam Smith is really profound ”
    ” Why thank you Charles …look …. would you mind if I put my hand in your pants ? ”

    Is that how it works ?

  7. I know it is a little bigoted of me but I would be a bit sad if Tom Robinson was Gay. I mean he was great as Baldrick.

  8. Human sexuality is a broad church and I am sure that culture is part of that. The ancient Greeks looked at sexuality rather differently than us. That said, I do believe there are people who are innately homosexual and would be regardless of culture.

    I don’t see any moral problem with gay conversion therapy. I suspect it’s largely bollocks, but if we are going to ban therapies for that then there’s a long list.

    @t it – what the fuck are you on about? If you are going to troll, at least do so intelligibly.

  9. T It–are you T it or Facepainter today or do you even know.

    Sort out who you are before you worry about what direction other peoples dicks point in.

    Yours points toward “treason” whichever orifice it might be stuck in. Ask the 150 million murdered by socialism what access to medical care they had?

    You know his loony tone now reminds me of Arnald when the Gurnsea burger grease started to get on his lungs and unbalance his electrolytes.

    That you Arnald? After all these years?

  10. @Chris Miller
    Oh Christ! With everything else I have to suffer, I now might chance upon Matthew Parris in a flamenco bar. Does the world hold no forgiveness?

  11. Thus begins the war on the churches. What reason now would there be for serious Christians to vote Conservative?

  12. @bis
    I’m sure you’re aware MP has a cave house near Granada, as well as half a ‘castle’ near Barcelona. You have my sympathy 🙂

  13. I don’t really understand what the issue is with gay conversion therapy. If people undergo it out of choice, who cares whether it works – as long as they pay for it themselves. Funnily enough, the issue of who pays is never the one which causes the rows.

  14. “I don’t really understand what the issue is with gay conversion therapy. If people undergo it out of choice, who cares whether it works – as long as they pay for it themselves.”

    Agreed. Informed consent is the critical bit.

    I’ve not really been involved in this bit of the debate before, but of the arguments I’ve seen, most fall into three camps. One is the authoritarian bansturbators who want to ban it simply because it’s harmful – like people who want to ban smoking – or because it’s a purported medical treatment that doesn’t work and takes advantage of the gullible and vulnerable – like those who want to ban homeopathy. I don’t agree with that on principle – although I do think they perhaps need to do something about the “informed” bit of the consent, and ensure people know what the state of evidence is on its effects. It’s like the law on false advertising – if somebody offers you a service to change your sexuality and it doesn’t work, you get your money back plus compensation for the wasted time.

    A second camp argue that in the circumstances many of these people find themselves living in, the consent is not freely given. They usually live in communities where homosexuality violates strong social norms, and face dire consequences if they continue as they are. And children can’t give or deny informed consent, but have their parents exercise their consensual rights on their behalf. Thus, children can be forced into it by their parents, just like they can be forced to eat their vegetables and go to bed. By making the treatment available, it creates an opportunity for people to be pressured or forced into it, and for the safeguards on consent to be bypassed. There may be a valid argument here, but it may be that it can be dealt with better by improving safeguards rather than an outright ban. More discussion is needed.

    And the third camp is the gay activist community who see it as an attack on themselves, their beliefs, and their culture. It’s not an illness in need of a cure, and if anything needs “converting” by force it’s the primitive and outdated religious beliefs of the rest of the community. I certainly don’t agree with that.

    I find it useful, when trying to figure out the consistent moral position to take, to flip the situation around, and ask what would happen if your ideological enemies got hold of this tool.

    Suppose some people faced prejudice, persecution, and difficulty finding and keeping employment because of their outspoken right-wing sexist views. Somebody might therefore offer them treatments to “convert” them to a politically-correct socialist soy-boy. Why not?

    And of course if people are distressed by and ashamed of their sexism, and the friction it causes in their community, they can of course volunteer and pay for this treatment. It probably stands a much better chance of actually working than gay conversion therapy. So far, so good.

    But subtle pressure can be applied. It used to be that if you got caught speeding you got points on your license, end of story. But now you can instead volunteer to go on a course, at your own expense, to lecture you about the dangers of speeding and ‘convert’ you into a law-abiding citizen. In the same way, it used to be that if an employer caught you making right-wing sexist comments they could fire your ass, and tell all your future prospective employers why. But now they could offer you a choice – if you volunteer to go on an attitude adjustment course (‘diversity training’) using aversion therapy and ‘attack therapy’ (a real thing!), run by Mistress Justice and Mistress Warrior, that will ‘correct’ your dirty sexist behaviour, then you can keep your job.

    Does that still count as voluntary?

    As Kant put it: “Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.” Figure out what law you would like to apply to political conversion courses run by SJWs, and that your SJW parents and employers can consent you in to, and then translate back.

    If you’re all totally fine with kids of SJW parents being signed up for SJW-run political ‘attack therapy’ boot camps, then job done. You can consistently argue that no regulation of personality conversion courses is needed.

  15. “If you’re all totally fine with kids of SJW parents being signed up for SJW-run political ‘attack therapy’ boot camps, then job done. You can consistently argue that no regulation of personality conversion courses is needed.”

    To sidestep your 3 million words of cod-reasonableness –kids already are and have been since the socialist scum “Woodcraft Folk” of the 1930s( who were smart enough to be less arrogant and strident than todays womi trash).

    So screw the regulations and piss on the Fish Faced Cow. And your on your arrogance and scientistic bullshit about what is and isn’t possible.

  16. “To sidestep your 3 million words of cod-reasonableness –kids already are and have been since the socialist scum “Woodcraft Folk” of the 1930s”

    Sure. But the question wasn’t “Could it happen?” but “Are you all totally fine with that?”

    Are you?

  17. Freedom means that they can do that. The existence of any manifestation of socialism is not “fine” with me but if they leave me and mine be I’ll do the same. Since they don’t and of course never will it is inevitable that there will be war.

  18. “but if they leave me and mine be I’ll do the same”

    That’s still not quite answering the question. If it was *your* SJW parents, or *your* SJW employer demanding you go on a conversion course, that’s not “leaving you alone”. Would you be totally fine with that? Or would you want a ban in the case of children under 18? Or if threatened with unemploment and destitution?

    My point is that you saying “leaving you and yours alone” means you’re putting limits on it – you would want a ban in certain circumstances. What exactly are those circumstances? Once we’ve decided that, we know what policy to push for in the case of gay conversion therapy.

    And yes, you’re right that they’re not going to give up, stop doing it, and go away. I don’t expect the advocates for gay conversion therapy will give up, stop doing it, and go away either. Humans have an inbuilt authoritarian streak.

  19. Are snorting your facepowder again?

    How many times does it have to be said? I do not support anyone being “converted” to anything they don’t want to be converted to.

    I understand that parents may not be happy with declarations of supposed sodomitic disposition from their offspring. If said proclamation emerges around about puberty then maybe it is the cross the individual/family has to carry. If however any given individual would rather put down such cross he/she should be free to seek such help as is desired.

    However when we live in a shithole of CM evil and propaganda that starts working on kids too young to give a monkey’s about “sexuality” and bombarding them with a load of CM shite from about 3 years old then I don’t accept that such kids have the wit to rule on adult matters. They have been got at by your SJW pals–such as the 10 year old trannie. His “carers” would have big problems coming their way were I running the show. Big problems.

    In fairness so would the “carers” of a 10 year old who was allowed to dress like John Travolta in Saturday Night Fever and went around talking about his commitment to the “Laideez”. Both would have been the victims of adult scum-nutters.

    What quite to do about that given how the left has fucked everything up I don’t know–short of war.

    The ideal is to go back to a life where kids have next to nothing to do with sexual matters for the first 12 years of their life or so. Without mind poisoning then they turn out as they turn out. Fair enough. Paraphillias are likely imprints and there is such system vulnerability to that in the early years that it can’t really be guarded against. So if you get an imprint that leaves you as a homo or a paedo–them’s the breaks. Which is NOT to say that therapy cannot help. But that is down to the skill of the therapist not some one-size-fits-all scientistic bullshit.

  20. “How many times does it have to be said? I do not support anyone being “converted” to anything they don’t want to be converted to.

    I understand that parents may not be happy with declarations of supposed sodomitic disposition from their offspring. If said proclamation emerges around about puberty then maybe it is the cross the individual/family has to carry. If however any given individual would rather put down such cross he/she should be free to seek such help as is desired.”

    Then I think we’re in agreement. No ban on such treatments, but mandatory and extensive safeguards to ensure that consent is both informed and given freely, especially in the case of children and those emotionally or financially dependent on their social network. Yes?

  21. Humans have an inbuilt authoritarian streak.

    Projection.
    A lot of people want to be left alone to get on with their lives. People who enjoy and want to boss others around go into management or politics, maybe the military or police.

    It is not an authoritarian streak to resist changes trying to be imposed by a small minority which want to change the way things have worked successfully for a long time. That’s called not being a sheep.

  22. “A lot of people want to be left alone to get on with their lives.”

    You’re talking about being on the *receiving* end of authoritarianism. *Everyone* wants to be left alone to get on with their lives, authoritarians and SJWs included. The authoritarian mindset is always that *they* have the right and duty to tell *others* what to do, to make people conform to their social norms, but they object strongly when those *others* tell *them* what to do.

    It’s not a question of whether people want to be left alone to get on with their lives, it’s a question of whether people are willing to leave *other* people alone to get on with their lives. That’s very different, and far rarer.

    “It is not an authoritarian streak to resist changes trying to be imposed by a small minority which want to change the way things have worked successfully for a long time.”

    It depends whether the changes are in the direction of greater or lesser liberty. It was a small minority that chose to impose an end slavery, after it had worked successfully for a long time. Every tyrant overthrown, every right and freedom won, was a change made to a system that had worked successfully for a long time. Antiquity does not make a thing right.

    “Leaving people alone to get on with their lives” is itself a change imposed on society after millennia of bandits, slavers, warlords, priests, dictators, and aristocrats *not* doing so, very successfully. We have to *impose* it on the prodnoses. Nowadays we don’t decide what rules society can impose on its members by how old the rule is. We aim to decide on the basis of whether it prevents unconsented harm being done to others.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.