Gay and Out - Curious about experiences of other applicants!?

[whyadoctor?]

Originally posted by pheck
i would first call you insensitive whydoctor, then intolerant. and no, i refuse to tolerate the intolerant. (this in reference to an unwanted PM i received from this person.)

you're confusing insensitivity with direct, unadultered analysis. calling me intolerant and anti-gay is simply unsubstantiated by any comment i've made on this thread. i truly hope you don't make such outrageous and unbased inferences when it comes to your future patients' lives. nearly everyone on this thread loves to hate those that don't share their same opinion. you're in the right place.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[saiyagirl]

i dont understand why whyadoctor is making all this fuss in the first place.

we know your point is that admission shouldn't be based on "sexual orientation" but on qualifications. that's fine and dandy, but if someone wants to show how the way his sexual orientation or race or culture or religion taught him something fundamental about himself--something that would be useful in medicine--then he has every right to. it's completely appropriate.

yeah, so you forgot to mention you were a heterosexual. so did i. but you know what? chances are we have little reason to mention we are heterosexual. chances are we haven't been discriminated against or maliciously teased or been denied basic rights and freedom, if not social acceptance--things EVERYONE wants. why are we so shocked by the obvious? why are we so shocked that a homosexual would mention his sexuality in a grad school essay? we shouldn't be. for someone who is constantly faced with intolerance--the source of that intolerance is likely to become more and more of a defining characteristic for that person. and, it's more likely to become part of their "personal" statement.

someone else mentioned that it's sad that gays constantly define themselves more and more by their sexuality. but ANY person who is constantly reminded of their "other-ness" will do this. look at the history of any group discriminated against, and this is what you will see.

whyadoctor, if you can turn a challenge from your life into a learning experience, by all means write about it.

but don't mock others for doing what you would probably do if you were in their shoes. put yourself in their shoes! think about it!

 

[puddinsnack]

As a graduate student in Human Sexulaity Studies in San Francisco, I am appalld and distraught about many of the comments presented here regarding the status of homosexulaity and the medical community. I realize the original posting was by a future medical student looking for advise on the interview process in regard to his openness in his personal statement, but it has now evolved into more.

My appologies to those of you who do not need to be lectured on matters of sexuality and professionalism, but it is importnat that individuals like 'whyadoctor' learn something about sexual behavior before he ruins another life.

Sexual behavior is a personal characteristic. It is as unique to each individual as thier finger print.

The Victorian era of the early settlings in America led us to believe in sex for procreation only (I hope you don't masturbate 'whyadoctor' becuse that also would be a disorder in your classification). The decision by the APA in 1973 to depathologize homosexulaity from the DSM was not made because of a loud voice of minorities, it was made because there was not a single shred of statistical research conducted that could distringuish between heterosexual and homosexual individuals. It was/is the loud minority of the Christian Coalition that has supressed sexuality in any form.

To think of homosexuality as a disorder or sexual dysfunction puts it in the mind frame of the medical, why not then put it in the hands of the government and prevent everybody from giving and receiving oral sex, hell lets just jump back to the 17th century and say it's a sin so we could be burned at the stake for masturbating and put our sexulaity back in the hands of the church. Sexuality is a behavior that is shaped. A behavior that develops through ourselves and through our culture. America is Sex negative, Sambians are sex positive (similar to the behavior of the bobo monkeys mentioned earlier, sex with anything- although they too have cultural taboos like sex with your aunts second daughter).

So please, as our future doctors and people that we all turn to at some point in our lifes for guidance over our sexual health, learn about human behavior, not just human biology.

 

[vivekap2007]

Originally posted by Tweetie_bird
I agree with the last sentence of what you said RP. Although, I do have to present one side which is often "not" talked about. A friend of mine is actually quite (and I mean, QUITE) homophobic. It really bothers me how she talks about gay people, yet I feel like I need to try and understand wehre all these fears come from. You have to understand that there are still a LOT of people that are "new" to this...and have a hard time accepting being gay as a norm.

Now, the specific thing I wanted to address was your comparison to racism and homophobia. That is hardly similar (as you said) and I think one should not even try to compare them. Reason being is that a LOT of homophobic people I have seen (being brought up in a very "traditional, old fashioned" community, I have seen plenty) actually believe that being gay is a CHOICE somebody makes. They think it's not genetic. Now, if person A makes a certain CHOICE to do something that others may see is "wrong," that person A will be condemned. That's a ****ty position for a gay person to be in but that's a different point.

Anyway, the same can not be said about racists. I believe that racists will actually understand that whatever this person is (black...hispanic..or whatever) is NOT because of their CHOICE. They were born into it. Racists may "hate" a certain race for whatever reason, but it's sure as hell not going to be "because you choose to be ....."....it's more like "because you ARE....".
See the difference?

This is why you probably don't see as many racist people as homophobic. In any case, all I wanted to say that it's unfair to compare the two groups (although both lead to discrimination) because the ROOT of the hatred is different. I hope i made sense.

I'm gonna have to disagree with you there Tweetie...the root of racism and homophobia are the same: xenophobia. Racists don't like other groups just based on skin color; their hatred is usually based on stereotypes of behavior (which people can choose) of the hated group. People who say they believe the "homosexual lifestyle" is immoral because it is chosen are rationalizing their own internal hatred of thing(s) that are different. I don't buy religious arguments either because the same texts that say "shalt not lie with man etc" tell you not to wear clothes from two different threads. Why follow one and not the other? Because racist/homophobic person's God agrees with them, not the other way around. Convenient religion.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to get on my moral high horse. I've had the same stereotypes drilled into my head as everyone else and have to work to see through them and this kind of dialogue helps...somebody.

 

[whyadoctor?]

Originally posted by puddinsnack
The decision by the APA in 1973 to depathologize homosexulaity from the DSM was not made because of a loud voice of minorities, it was made because there was not a single shred of statistical research conducted that could distringuish between heterosexual and homosexual individuals.

check out this link
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9703/opinion/moberly.html

i think you should do more research on why and how the decision to depathologize homosexuality came about.

 

[puddinsnack]

Thank you for providing me us with the link to Moberly's article whyadoctor. Unfortunatley there is rhetoric like this out there. Moberly and her cohorts (the Christian Coalition) have made the same argument for decades, and they are entitled to thier opinion (as you are) even if it is an uniformed and biased. I urge you, if you want to understand the American history of sexuality (not just homosexuality) to read "Intimate Matters: A history of Sexuality in America" by D'emilio and Freedman. It is probably the most comprehensive historical representation of how culture shapes our sexuality, including myths that the medical community once believed (the theory of the "One Sex" model in which women were simply to be an invert of the male body, thus positing that there was no "real" female; thus enforcing the power system of the times- men over women - Thomas Laqueur 17th c)- of course there is always Michel Foucault's "The History of Sexuality" as well if you are up for a fun read!

There is also a lot of documented research by historians, anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists, and biologists that demonstrate (conversly to Moberly's arguement) that there is no distinguishable characteristics between heterosexual and homosexual individuals except that of sexual preference. Please do some reading of historical and anthropological contexts that show the act of homosexuality (although most cultures refuse to label it that due to the stigma America has caused it) as a norm.

Isn't it interesting that the term heterosexuality was coined in America about three decades after that of homosexuality in a response to the threat of male masculinity?! Why in the History of the world was there no need for a distintion to be drawn before?

I am curious whyadoctor (or anybody else), why do you think the act of homosexuality is a sexual dysfunction or mental disorder? What does it mean to be gay to you?

 

[DW]

cant we all just GET ALONG?!?!?!

 

[scootad.]

puddinsnack, excellent post, one of the most intelligent ones I've read on SDN to date.

 

[GoodMonkey]

Originally posted by DW
cant we all just GET ALONG?!?!?!

*sigh* it doesn't look that way, does it? this thread has turned into beating a dead horse, unfortunately, when all the OP wanted was to find some people in a similar situation as he is.

 

[whyadoctor?]

Originally posted by puddinsnack
Thank you for providing me us with the link to Moberly's article whyadoctor. Unfortunatley there is rhetoric like this out there. Moberly and her cohorts (the Christian Coalition) have made the same argument for decades, and they are entitled to thier opinion (as you are) even if it is an uniformed and biased. I urge you, if you want to understand the American history of sexuality (not just homosexuality) to read "Intimate Matters: A history of Sexuality in America" by D'emilio and Freedman. It is probably the most comprehensive historical representation of how culture shapes our sexuality, including myths that the medical community once believed (the theory of the "One Sex" model in which women were simply to be an invert of the male body, thus positing that there was no "real" female; thus enforcing the power system of the times- men over women - Thomas Laqueur 17th c)- of course there is always Michel Foucault's "The History of Sexuality" as well if you are up for a fun read!

There is also a lot of documented research by historians, anthropologists, psychologists, sociologists, and biologists that demonstrate (conversly to Moberly's arguement) that there is no distinguishable characteristics between heterosexual and homosexual individuals except that of sexual preference. Please do some reading of historical and anthropological contexts that show the act of homosexuality (although most cultures refuse to label it that due to the stigma America has caused it) as a norm.

Isn't it interesting that the term heterosexuality was coined in America about three decades after that of homosexuality in a response to the threat of male masculinity?! Why in the History of the world was there no need for a distintion to be drawn before?

I am curious whyadoctor (or anybody else), why do you think the act of homosexuality is a sexual dysfunction or mental disorder? What does it mean to be gay to you?

uninformed and biased? labeling opinions as uninformed and bias does not make them so. how is that you adhere to one side as being informed and objective and claim the other side is ignorant and subjective? any book that you have read that hails homosexuality as normative human behavior is bias. and the claim that because other cultures accept homosexuality as normal doesn't make it so. frankly, i really don't care what two men or two women choose to do in the privacy of their bedrooms. there are all kinds of sexual expression. what do you think about sex with beasts? using your logic, sex with anything and anyone is perfectly normal. i simply disagree.

 

[scootad.]

Whyadoc, what criteria do you use to distinguish between normal vs. pathological sexual expression?

 

[whyadoctor?]

http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html

how about suicide rates? the studies discussed on that web page show an larger percentage of homosexuals displaying suicidal tendencies even after societal pressure is factored out. is suicide a normal human function?

 

[scootad.]

does correlation equal causation?

 

[womansurg]

Originally posted by whyadoctor?
the studies discussed on that web page show an larger percentage of homosexuals displaying suicidal tendencies even after societal pressure is factored out.

Now THERE'S some science for you! I'd like to meet the genius that figured out how to quantify that.

 

[puddinsnack]

Originally posted by whyadoctor?
uninformed and biased? labeling opinions as uninformed and bias does not make them so. how is that you adhere to one side as being informed and objective and claim the other side is ignorant and subjective? any book that you have read that hails homosexuality as normative human behavior is bias. and the claim that because other cultures accept homosexuality as normal doesn't make it so. frankly, i really don't care what two men or two women choose to do in the privacy of their bedrooms. there are all kinds of sexual expression. what do you think about sex with beasts? using your logic, sex with anything and anyone is perfectly normal. i simply disagree.

I respect your criticism. At the same time, neither of the referred materials that I recommended to you are pro-homosexuality or anti-homosexuality; they merely provide a comprehensive look into the history of the way sexuality has been perceived in America (i.e. gov't, the church, the middle-class, the medical community, etc.).
Furthermore, as a professional dealing in specific matters of human sexual health, I have a growing concern with the "I don't care" motto of others who are regarded as an authority over issues of health.
Why then are we debating this? I am because I fear a future patient confirming their internalized homophobia because of the misguided personal beliefs of a doctor- not scientific or medical; and furthering the mental and emotional damage already created by society.

Suicide is higher among adolescents stuggling with their sexuality- you are right. Tell me how one can factor out societal pressure from the development of an adolescent and I will attempt to answer that question further.

 

[lola]

"NARTH's primary goal is to make effective psychological therapy available to all homosexual men and women who seek change."


"The public must be made aware that some homosexual people do seek and achieve change. The change is neither quick nor easy, but many believe---as we do---that the goal is a worthy one"

 

[CaNEM]

Originally posted by Blitzkrieg
I thought that diversity of opinions, beliefs, etc. was cherished by those on this board....The discrimination against those who agree that homosexuality is abnormal is the same discrimination felt by those not too long ago who thought homosexuality was normal. Do I see hypocrisy?

Oh, I see how it is! Now you're discriminating against those who discriminate against people who discriminate against homosexuals! Why can't you just tolerate people who choose not to tolerate others who won't tolerate gay people? Geez!



Ok, this thread has gotten out of hand...

 

[whyadoctor?]

what exactly is your opinion on homosexuality? what causes it? why are 90% of humans heterosexual and 10% homosexual? why isn't it the other way around? why is it that homosexual behavior has been demonized? what caused society to believe that it is pathological? my point is that if it were just another attribute, like hair color, that spanned all human cultures from the beginning of human evolution, we wouldn't even be discussing it. if there were no human problems inherent to homosexuality it would never have been unacceptable. why does western religion condemn homosexuality? simply because they were homophobic? they didn't understand? personal vendetta? i would have to agree with you that accepting homosexuals as perfectly healthy individuals benefits them greatly. since understanding what causes this pathology is much too complex and pretty much impossible.

 

[lola]

religion has deemed it unacceptable. it doesn't mean there are inherent problems with homosexuality. religions can make up whatever they want and say whatever they want to say is wrong. it doesn't mean it is wrong. it may be that those who decided homosexuality was wrong didn't understand or were homophobic. why is that an unreasonable explanation?

also, sex is an uncomfortable sumject for many. to say it is wrong is easier than to admit we are all sexual beings and have sexual tendencies other than just "normal" heterosexual attractions.

 

[scootad.]

Why are 80 something percent of human beings right handed? Why were left handed people considered evil by many Eastern cultures? Is it just a coincidence? Why was masturbation universally considered the cause of hairy palms and many fatal disease just a century ago?

 

[whyadoctor?]

Originally posted by lola
religion has deemed it unacceptable. it doesn't mean there are inherent problems with homosexuality. religions can make up whatever they want and say whatever they want to say is wrong. it doesn't mean it is wrong. it may be that those who decided homosexuality was wrong didn't understand or were homophobic. why is that an unreasonable explanation?

also, sex is an uncomfortable sumject for many. to say it is wrong is easier than to admit we are all sexual beings and have sexual tendencies other than just "normal" heterosexual attractions.

so you are claiming that religion bases its teachings arbitrarily. you think that some person back in time just came up with the idea that homosexuality was wrong? something about it had to spark that belief, whether it was disease, altered mental health, or some other malady associated with homosexuality.

 

[lola]

Originally posted by whyadoctor?
so you are claiming that religion bases its teachings arbitrarily. you think that some person back in time just came up with the idea that homosexuality was wrong?

i wouldn't say that all teachings by religions are arbitrary, but yes, i do think that some person back in time just came up with the idea that homosexuality was wrong. sounds logical enough to me. why do you think there are so many different religions with different teachings? they can't all be right, can they? they all have slightly different ideas on things. some religions claim birth control is wrong for example, while others have no problem with it. what makes something wrong has nothing to do with religion. for me, it has to do with whether or not it hurts someone else. killing, adultery, etc.... those hurt someone else. who does homosexuality hurt?

this is my last post on this for real cause i know that minds will probably never be changed on this matter

 

[scootad.]

I'm still waiting for a response as to why masturbation is no longer thought to be the cause of hairy palms but is considered a normal act of sexual expression even though the Bible disagrees.

 

[scootad.]

Silence is golden.

 

[::Seabass::]

Originally posted by scootad.
Why was masturbation universally considered the cause of hairy palms and many fatal disease just a century ago?

Has anyone ever met anyone with hairy palms? Was this a big problem 100 years ago before laser hair removal?

 

[whyadoctor?]

hairy palms? is that a joke? much of what religion teaches stems from the belief that life is the ultimate commodity and a gift from god. in times when resources are scarce and reproductive pressures great, then masturbation and homosexuality is wasteful. neither produce offspring. today, children are no longer seen as a blessing or a gift from god, rather they are seen as a burden and tossed out with the garbage. what if everyone was homosexual? homosexuality leads to death, not just because of disease or suicide, but because it rejects life.

 

[scootad.]

if you havent noticed there is a huge overpopulation problem in the world that is only going to get worse. who is going to feed all those babies?

 

[whyadoctor?]

"February 28, 2002 the UN Population Division published its updated estimates of the effect of fewer births on world population, aging and the economy. The UN estimates that in the world as a whole, the number of births began declining about 1985-1990. Because of the continual ongoing decline in births in the entire world, the UN experts project that the population aging and shortage of young workers in Europe will soon be the norm for the entire world. The UN projects serious economic problems caused by the tripling in the ratio of elderly compared to the number under age 60."

maybe you should take notice.

 

[::Seabass::]

Originally posted by whyadoctor?
hairy palms? is that a joke?

yes, see the smile? I was kidding with scootad.

 

[GoodMonkey]

Originally posted by seaworthc
Has anyone ever met anyone with hairy palms? Was this a big problem 100 years ago before laser hair removal?

 

[scootad.]

sure, but again, the worlds population is far outstripping our natural resources to feed them regardless of if they are old or young. is the solution to have more babies?

 

[whyadoctor?]

"The idea that unbridled population growth will lead to environmental and social disasters as the world meets its ?carrying capacity,? is a canon of the environmental movement. Yet increasing evidence ? including a new study released in Nature magazine this month ? is painting a starkly different picture. Rather than continue to increase, world population is likely to stabilize at about 9 billion in 2070 and begin declining from there, according to researchers in Austria.

In Europe, a ?birth dearth? is threatening not only long term population declines, but the viability of European economies. Without replacement levels of population, there are too few people to pay for the generous pension plans typical there. Sure, population rates are still high in poor countries, but as countries develop and become more prosperous, birth rates fall dramatically in those countries as well."

there is absolutely no evidence that the world's population is "far outstripping our natural resources to feed them". rather the contrary is true. the great central valley in california alone can provide enough food to feed the world. overpopulation is a myth.

 

[scootad.]

we are very privileged to live in the developed world we dont have to worry about where our next meal is coming from. if overpopulation is a myth tell that to the starving children in africa and south america. an equitable distribution of the worlds resources would surely reveal a negative balance of resources for everyone.

 

[tBw]

come on people. If you posted that "green was green" 'whyadoctor?' would post that "green is not green, green is red" and undoubtedly come up with some hokum, neo-nazi, flat-earth, FBI-conspiracy web page that backed up his claims (Because if someone put it on the web, it must be true).

This is a Pavlovian experiment gone completely wrong.

 

[DR. UCSB]

The word "personal" in personal statement refers to a personal circumstance that has changed the life of the applicant in some way...being gay, having been raped, a death, right? being gay does create many challenges and is indeed a great topic. right "whybeadoctor"?

 

[saiyagirl]

whyadoctor, if you're so convinced that the goal of human life is simply to procreate, if you're so convinced that we're just here to make babies, if you are determined to only see things in terms of DNA and RNA and organic molecules, then why the hell are you wasting your time on the computer?

spending time on this website isn't at all helping you to spread your seed. in fact, it's equivalent to death, because it rejects life. and it rejects life in the sense that it does nothing to propogate it. isn't this your logic?

you better find a partner and get the hell out of here man! quickly, you're wasting precious time! go and pander to your own values...leave everyone else alone.

 

[scootad.]

Ha! Maybe he's not sexually dimorphic enough to have his seed dispersed as widely as he'd like. [*darwin smirks in the corner*]

 

[nappy kat]

Homosexuality is nasty
It is an unhealthy lifestyle, and it is proven that they have higher mortality rates
Please choose to follow nature's intentions
Many people have a real, burning lust to molest children, but that does not make it natural
Many people like to practice bestiality, but that does not make it natural
Men are made for women and women are made for men. The design of our bodies should make this ridiculously obvious

 

[scootad.]

...and God hath spoken. hallelujah!

 

[ohiowa]

i invite nappy kat to join the rest of the world in the 21st century. homosexuality is a reality, like it or not. i think this point is rediculously obvious.

i hope n.k. was joking.

 

[nappy kat]

Originally posted by AegisZero
Homosexuality is different than all the examples you provide because there is mutual consent. "Nature's intentions" contributed to their choice for a homosexual lifestyle.
There is really no such thing as "following the design of our bodies." The fact is, nature doesnt matter when people feel natural about a certain thing. I am all for protecting people's rights to do what they please as long as it is consentual and does not harm themselves or others. It is none of my business what people do behind their closed doors if the above criteria are met. But it is my business if people want to start prying open people's private doors to try to impose their arbitrary moral view on others.

I agree with much of your argument, with the exception of one point.....your foundation. I doubt that nature's intentions contribute to their choice for a homosexual lifestyle. Natural selection nips this argument in the bud. You also claim that it is "none of your business what people do behind their closed doors." I agree, but you must need glasses because the doors aren't closed; they are apt to have their agenda in the wide open (to the point of wanting "alternative lifestyle" literature read in the public school sector; I don't want my children exposed to the abnormal lifestyle because 4% of the population wishes to practice the sickness, so it is my business. BTW, just because something feels good does not make natural.

 

[scootad.]

Praise the Lord!

 

[owen_osh]

Originally posted by nappy kat
Homosexuality is nasty
It is an unhealthy lifestyle, and it is proven that they have higher mortality rates
Please choose to follow nature's intentions
Many people have a real, burning lust to molest children, but that does not make it natural
Many people like to practice bestiality, but that does not make it natural
Men are made for women and women are made for men. The design of our bodies should make this ridiculously obvious

So basically, you believe we should follow "nature's intentions." If this is so, then why do you want to pursue a career in medicine?

For example, have you ever taken a course in microbiology? If you have, then you would know a little about the amazing intricacies of many microbes that make them perfectly suited to infecting and killing human beings. Yet, those damned doctors and researchers totally disregard "nature's intentions" and try to save lives. Surely God will have a special place in Hell for anyone who would so blantantly subvert the will of nature. I guess the only thing you can really do in medicine if you don't want "follow nature's intentions" is work at a hospice.

 

[LoneCoyote]

Reading this thread makes me feel physically ill and makes me realize just how conservative this profession still is. I keep coming back to it hoping that someone will go back to the original intent of the thread which was to provide a forum for gay applicants to share their experiences. I have spent a good part of my life arguing with intolerant people, like some of those posting here recently, and I know that I cannot change their minds just as they cannot change mine. I am posting, however, because past experience has shown that there are gay and lesbian people out there who are reading this, and some may be becoming discouraged by what they were seeing. Were I a new GLBT member of this forum trying to use this board to make educated decisions about whether to apply to medical school, the homophobic ranting on this thread might dissuade me from applying. In fact, I have friends who have become disillusioned with medicine due to the homophobia that is still so prevalent in many medical schools.

That said, I encourage anyone out there who is offended by some of the postings on this thread to take solace in the fact that for every homophobic person who has posted their rant, there are probably at least 20 people who either don't agree or just didn't care to respond to the thread since they have no problem with GLBT people.

Frankly, I do not see how anyone so closed-minded can ever be a good doctor. You don't have to be a gay rights activist, or even to like/approve of GLBT people. But you do have to be respectful of other peoples' differences no matter what they may be to provide competent health care. Medical school are starting to recognize this and hopefully the homophobes on this board will not make it past the screen process.

For the record, being gay is not a choice that someone makes. As it was well put to me once, "why would anyone choose to wake up one day and join one of the most despised groups in America today?" There is no "gay agenda," or demands for "special rights" for gay people. What the GLBT community wants is the same rights that most people in America have (or at least have in theory), such as protection from job and housing discrimination. In most states you can still be fired or evicted for being gay. Recent polls have shown that the majority of Americans support these basic rights for GLBT people.

To get these rights, existing discrimination must be acknowledged. And acknowledgement means that GLBT people will not be invisible as they were as recently as 30-50 years ago. This is not some sort of plot to take over the schools and propagate an"agenda." There is no "agenda."

I could go on and on here. I recognize that this won't change the minds of those that are closed to it. But maybe it will give some people out there, regardless of what they believe on this issue, something to think about. Feel free to flame away. I've been at this fight a long time and theres not a whole lot I haven't heard.

Peace.

 

[scootad.]

well said.

 

[puddinsnack]

Excellent statement.

 

[SistaKaren]

Originally posted by azpremed
That said, I encourage anyone out there who is offended by some of the postings on this thread to take solace in the fact that for every homophobic person who has posted their rant, there are probably at least 20 people who either don't agree or just didn't care to respond to the thread since they have no problem with GLBT people.

I think I would fall into the lattermost category. However, maybe I'm just a jaded skeptic...but I don't believe the statistic is true. Prejudice against gays is so insidious....I don't believe so many people are enlightened about it. I think it's gradually becoming more accepted, but I think we have a long way to go...as evidenced by this board. I felt like my school was pretty liberal (UNC-Chapel Hill)...but you still have idiotic editorials in our paper talking about how there shouldn't be university funds to fund a LGBT resource center because the gay population may someday decline...like it's a friggin' interest club or something!

I'm sad this thread degraded the way it has...but I had to add that in. I think that it's still a huge problem.

 

[LoneCoyote]

Maybe my 20 people statistic is too hopeful, especially among pre-meds who seem to be more conservative in general, based on my observations of people in my classes and on this forum in general. Anyway, just to clarify, the # was not come to by rigorous scientific calculations Thanks for the positive feedback on the last few postings.

Peace.

 

[womansurg]

Originally posted by azpremed
Reading this thread makes me feel physically ill and makes me realize just how conservative this profession still is.

Unfortunately this is more true than many of us realize going in. Bigotry is common place, tolerated, and encouraged in many cases. On page 2, I think, of this thread I talk about the experiences of my friend in our large, well known, urban medical school (not the type of environment you would typically associate with small mindedness) who suffered tremendous abuses due to his open acknowledgment of his sexuality.

When I assumed the care of an end-of-life HIV patient, his devastated mother stayed with him through the end. She graciously consented to our request for an autopsy, hoping to add to our knowledge about this horrible disease. When the pathology residents were performing the autopsy, they gleefully and openly exchaged cruel, inhumane comments like, "well, that's what you get for letting somebody f*** you up the butt!" I felt as though I had betrayed her trust in us by placing her beloved child in the care of those ugly individuals; I could barely look her in the face afterward.

 

[Sweet Tea]

Well said, azpremed.

I have refrained from posting on this thread because I have been so sickened by the homophobic comments made, but you deserve to be complemented on such a great post. I'm sorry this thread has strayed so far from the OP's original question and has degenerated into messages of hatred and ignorance. Thanks for such a well-written post, azpremed.