New York Times:
President Obama will call for an end to psychiatric therapies aimed at “repairing” gay, lesbian and transgender youth, White House officials said. His decision on the sensitive issue is the latest example of his continuing embrace of gay rights.
In a statement to be posted on Wednesday evening alongside a WhiteHouse.gov petition begun in honor of a transgender teenager, Leelah Alcorn, who committed suicide, Mr. Obama will condemn the psychiatric practice, sometimes called “conversion” or “reparative” therapy, which is supported by some socially conservative organizations and religious doctors.
Good for the President. I am not sure this is a national issue legally but it should start discussion. I can’t think of anything more harmful than to try to make someone something they aren’t. Certainly no federal funds should go towards this type of quackery.
Yeah, freedom to be whatever sexual orientation and gender you want is pretty basic levels of privacy and freedom. Some would say it is the heart of one’s religious experience as well since the family unit is how we experience love and a model for our relationship with God. Thus any attempt to force gender or sexual orientation on someone is an attack on their religious freedom. Oh wait, no, no, no it is an attack on the religious freedom of social conservative who have a God given right to force their choice of gender or sexual orientation on others thereby eliminating any and all those LGBTs that the Satanic Progs created. My bad!
It is part of the Texas GOP platform – http://www.newsweek.com/texas-republican-party-adopts-discredited-reparative-therapy-gays-254168
and Colorado just voted down banning the use of the therapy on minors yesterday on party line votes.
The ‘therapy’ has been discredited by every major medical group – another area where the GOP is anti-science. They are becoming the flat earther’s. Even Freud concluded that being Gay was not an illness.
Being a Republican is an illness. The President should explicitly recommend conversion/reparative therapy for them.
For the sake of a discussion, I’ll take the other side. (I don’t really care a whit about ‘conversion’ therapy, but what’s the point of having a thread where everybody says yes.)
How is ‘conversion’ therapy significantly different than gender reassignment surgery? Both are making someone into something they aren’t.
I certainly don’t think anyone should be forced into ‘conversion’ therapy against their will, but if there are gay people who want to be heterosexual, why are we forcing them to accept a sexual orientation they don’t want?
I’ll concede that Pat Herve may have a good point about it not being effective, but most people don’t seem to oppose conversion therapy because it’s not effective. Most people seem to oppose it on principle. So my question is, how, in principle, is ‘conversion’ therapy different from gender reassignment surgery?
Good leadership.
Furby makes a good argument. But IMO gender reassignment surgery should be frowned on also. It’s unnecessary mutilation of the body. It is probably in large part a reaction against the old mindset of “you are whatever the private parts you have are”, which is why I cringe when i hear some (usually older) person say that.
I agree about choice. However the gay conversion therapy was chosen by parents to inflict on their teenage children. That is different from a middle age crises where some one wants to switch gender teams or a gay person wants to be hetero.
The effectiveness argument is one that comes into play when tax dollars are used. If a medical procedure or therapy does not improve the person’s quality of life for the money invested, then it should not be funded with limited shared resources. If some one wants to do it (I’m not limiting this to sexual issue, maybe “it” is to amputate their legs and replace it with a bionic ones) and can get a doctor to agree and funds it themselves, it is none of my business.
I think sex conversion surgery is the same category as breast augmentation surgery….elective and cosmetic.
@Ed Myers
I agree with you that teenagers (or anyone else) shouldn’t be forced into conversion therapy, but that’s not what The Executive is condemning. He is condemning it as a concept. (And I don’t think conversion therapy should be taxpayer funded.)
I would also agree with you about gender reassignment surgery being elective. But it isn’t as far as the federal government is concerned. Instead, taxpayers are footing the bill for Chelsea (nee Bradley) Manning to have her/his genitals lopped off while in a military prison. Why? Because the government considers amputating genitals to be a legitimate form of treatment for Manning’s psychological issues. But not ‘conversion’ therapy.
There is a fair amount of evidence to support that gender reassignment surgery is not effective either. Well, technically it’s effective in that it doesn’t grow back 🙂 but it isn’t particularly effective in treating the person’s underlying psychological issues. Look at the high suicide rate for people who have had gender reassignment surgery.
So why is one “treatment” taxpayer funded while the other is beyond the pale? If we are going to pay for expensive surgical procedures to make your uncle an aunt, why doesn’t the government fund the comparatively cheaper Camp Gay-Be-Gone? (To be clear, I’m saying we shouldn’t be paying for either. But if we are OK with one, why not the other?)
The government isn’t ordering Manning to become a woman.
I agree though that it’s not appropriate to pay for Manning, or anyone else’s, gender reassignment surgery.
@Moon-howler
Nobody said the government was forcing Manning to have his/her genitals cut off. (That would be torture) But we are paying for it.
Likewise, the government isn’t ordering anybody to go to conversion therapy, but for a reason nobody has been able to explain yet, the government won’t pay for it. Or are you saying that absolutely no one goes to Camp Gay-Be-Gone voluntarily?
(And since if I don’t repeat certain points in nearly every post: I am against forcing people to go to conversion therapy against their will and I don’t want the government to pay for it. I do want the government to stop paying for gender reassignment surgery since it is elective surgery.)
and Viagra should not be covered under a government supported health plan – but there are those that see a difference in a man getting viagra and a raped woman looking for plan b.
I hope right wing whacko “conversion” or “reparative” therapy is still ok? I think these folks made a conscious choice to be crazy. They can be helped with the right treatment!
@Pat.Herve
I don’t know why people have an issue with Viagra or think it is somehow related to birth control.
Viagra treats a disease. It restores a man to normal health. A healthy man should be able to get an erection, so if the government pays for some curative treatments, why not Viagra?
Pregnancy is not a disease. If you want to make a case for funding birth control, it shouldn’t be based on the concept that pregnancy is a disease. (I’ll add my usual anti-strawman disclaimer: I am not opposed to plan b funding for rape victims who could not otherwise afford it.)
Anyone who thinks there is a relation between Viagra and birth control is letting their sense of social justice and/or misandry overrule logic and common sense.
Are you saying you think it is more important for a male to get an erection than it is for a woman not to get pregnant?
I am just laughing at you if that is what you think. Thanks for making my case for me.
@Furby McPhee
Viagra treats a disease. – since when is getting old a disease? Body function declining as people get older is natural just as it is in all other species.
@Pat.Herve
So I should stop taking my blood pressure meds, Zocor, and my heart meds?
No other species in nature does that. I often wonder why Christian Conservatives don’t object to such medications. When God decides its time to go, who are we to fight it?
They fight for the right to life to comply with God’s will, why not fight for the right to die, and object to efforts to prolong the natural death God intended?
The same philosophy should apply “coming and going” shouldn’t it?
Getting older and death are natural, aren’t they?
Don’t me started on this issue. (right to die).
@Moon-howler
You do like trying to put words in my mouth.
Here’s what I said: “Pregnancy is not a disease. If you want to make a case for funding birth control, it shouldn’t be based on the concept that pregnancy is a disease. ”
Are you saying that ED isn’t a disease? Or that pregnancy is?
I didn’t say anything about which was more important because the two are completely unrelated. So are cancer, heart disease, strokes, Alzheimer’s, etc. I was asking why Pat Herve felt the need to limit men’s access to a legitimate (albeit funny) medical treatment because of something entirely unrelated to the disease. BTW Pat, ED is not necessarily age related. It happens to lots of men. Or so I’m told. 🙂
If you want something that is closer to a reasonable comparison, compare ED to fertility treatments for women. If somebody invents a $10 pill that cures infertility, I’m pretty sure the government will cover it. (usual anti-strawman disclaimer: yes, I would support the government covering this hypothetical pill because infertility for a menopausal woman is a medical treatment to restore her to normal health.)
ED and pregnancy are both medical conditions. Why bring the word disease into the discussion?
Pregnancy and ED are unrelated? Are you sure about that? Other than the various types of artificial insemination, isn’t erection sort of necessary for pregnancy to take place? I have had a couple of kids. I distinctly remember that certain physical conditions had to be present….you get my drift.
To answer your question, I don’t think ED is necessarily a disease. I would say it was a condition with many different causes.
You are correct, Furby, ED is not just age related but I am guessing most of the legitimate use of the blue pill is correlated to the aging process more than most folks want to admit.
Why are you saying that menopausal women need to be restored to normal health? Why isn’t menopause considered normal in your eyes? Are you referring to menopausal women meaning those who are in some stage of menopause or do you mean post menopausal women? Do you think those women want to be restored to “normal health?”
I would like to take a survey about how many menopausal women want their supposed infertility restored. I doubt if you would get many takers.
@Furby McPhee
Is ED a disease?
Is baldness treatment covered by insurance?
because infertility for a menopausal woman is a medical treatment to restore her to normal health – normal aging process is normal.
Michelle Bachman anther husband must be going nut since they are big time into conversion therapy.
if they are going nuts. it’s a short trip.
@Rick Bentley
good one.
@BSinVA
Being a Democrat means you are beyond all hope of a cure. Terminal. Tsk, tsk. Not even converson therapy can help this POTUS.
Wolve, what are you smoking out there in Loudoun?
So, POTUS calls for an end to “conversion therapy.” Interesting. From some of the responses here, one would think that the Lord and Master Obama had just issued an ukase, and everything is a done deal. I couldn’t give a rat’s ass about conversion or reparative therapy or whatever, but it sure seems like some actually believe that the republic is a thing of the past.
@ElGuapo
Maybe God wants us to take those meds so we can keep on His schedule?
New policy. Nasty liberal posts get conservative jabs in response. Good practice for when the big election gets closer. Keeps things lively.
Condemning something isn’t the same as outlawing it.
This will put the idea of “conversion” alongside things like racism and sexism, which aren’t illegal per se, but which our society has gradually come to agree are no good for anyone.
Excellent point, Rick. I think a lot of us have overlooked the difference.
Smoking is a good example of condemnation vs outlawing. It just isn’t smart or cool to smoke. Look at the change of attitudes in the past 40 years. How many lives has this change saved? It’s probably Too soon to tell.
Very good comparison there, I agree.