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

[nappy kat]

The microbe argument won't work because you are not even "aiming your gun" at the right target. Killing human beings would be a natural function of such an organism. Human beings are superior to bacteria, so we do have a "right" to expunge the threat at the cost of their welfare.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[nappy kat]

Why is it so hard to see the complimentary functions of the vagina/penis. A man's penis is not made for another man's rear-end! That is grossly unnatural!

 

[whyadoctor?]

azpremed and all others. i've noticed that you are so quick to revert to name calling. calling the opposition to your currupt mislead lifestyle homophobic. as if i "fear" homosexuals. you are dillusional. wait, i'm just a small-towner with small-mindedness. i must've gone to some small catholic school where they indoctrinated me with 17th century ignorance and intolerance. what faith you have that all of this must be true in order for another human being to contrast your 21st century enlightenment. your ideas are grossly flawed and you have no evidence or basis for any claims made. keep searching, in vain, for some twisted piece of information that makes homosexuals feel better about themselves.

 

[lola]

Originally posted by nappy kat
Why is it so hard to see the complimentary functions of the vagina/penis. A man's penis is not made for another man's rear-end! That is grossly unnatural!

it's not made for your mouth either, but i bet it's been there

 

[whyadoctor?]

you lose that bet with me.

 

[puddinsnack]

Originally posted by whyadoctor?
azpremed and all others. i've noticed that you are so quick to revert to name calling. calling the opposition to your currupt mislead lifestyle homophobic. as if i "fear" homosexuals. you are dillusional. wait, i'm just a small-towner with small-mindedness. i must've gone to some small catholic school where they indoctrinated me with 17th century ignorance and intolerance. what faith you have that all of this must be true in order for another human being to contrast your 21st century enlightenment. your ideas are grossly flawed and you have no evidence or basis for any claims made. keep searching, in vain, for some twisted piece of information that makes homosexuals feel better about themselves.

I apologize that this dialogue, although attempting to enlighten, invigorated your bigotry and ignorance to such a level of categorizing and stereotyping an entire culture. Your assumption that everyone on this thread defending the homosexual lifestyle is also homosexual further represents your inability to see outside of your own box.

As for evidence or basis for our "claims," try reading the research of Evelyn Hooker (who, for your own edification, was the influencing researcher over the APA and their decision in 1973), Alfred Kinsey (1948), Gilbert Herdt, Barry Adam (1986), Daryl Bem (1996), Ruth Benedict, Diane Binson (1995), Evelyn Blackwood (1986), Joseph Carrier (1980), Nancy J. Chodorow ((1992), John D'Emilio (1983), Judith Gay (1986), Teresa de Lauretis (1993), etc....need I go one with documented studies that routinely posit the absence of any mental differentiation across sexual orientation boundaries and also the prevalence of "homosexual acts" throughout most (if not all) cultures? I think it would be mocking if I did.

I am not even going to justify your last sentence with a comment.

This will be my last posting on an issue that stupefies the ignorant.

 

[whyadoctor?]

Originally posted by the boy wonder
come on people. If you posted that "green was green" 'puddinsnack' 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.

 

[tBw]

Don't alter my posts and then put it up as a if it were an exact quote rather than an altered one.....

 

[whyadoctor?]

i just thought i'd save you time, sorry.

 

[GoodMonkey]

Originally posted by the boy wonder
Don't alter my posts and then put it up as a if it were an exact quote rather than an altered one.....

reall uncalled for there whyadr.

 

[LoneCoyote]

Thanks to lola, puddins, and others for saying much of what I would say back to the responses to my post. I won't bother to repeat it. Frankly, whyadoctor, I don't think anyone who is arguing against what you are saying is "name calling." Homophobic is used in my post as an adjective to describe the type of rhetoric that you are posting on the forum. Just as writing that uses gender stereotypes would be called sexist, language that stereotypes and degrades GLBT people is termed homophobic. Do I think your posts, and those of some others, are homophobic? Yes, I do. If you want to take that as name-calling, you may do so. I think if true name calling were going on here this thread would look A LOT nastier coming from both sides of the issue.

FYI, I make no assumptions about anyone's background who is posting on this thread. I have met people from all over the country, from small towns and urban centers, of all different races, ethnicities, and religions, who have negative feelings about GLBT people. And I have met all kinds of people, gay and straight, from all walks of life who support GLBT rights. To assume that anyone who is posting for GLBT rights is gay is as ignorant as assuming that anyone who is against it is, as you put it, "Catholic," and from a "small town." I think one of the virtues of the Internet is that it allows people to engage in this type of dialogue in relative anonymity and to hear a variety of perspectives. But that virtue is lost when stereotypes are made about the identity of the posters in any respect.

Peace.

 

[jamylk02]

Ok so I had what seemed a very simple goal in starting this thread. I wanted to talk with other gay applicants about the process and what they thought could be done to reduce the additional stress and complications that I assume I am not alone in encountering. From deciding when, and if to out oneself... to interviews ... to talking to schools about their support of GLBT students or trying to get a read from students as to how accepting each school is. I have had very varied and interesting experiences so far and I would love to talk with others with similar experiences.

Of course I should have anticipated the contraversy that even that simple idea could have created, but I guess I am nothing if not persistent. So I just want to encourage anyone who is interested in talking about this topic and this topic alone to email me at [email protected]. This thread seemed like a good idea at the time, but obviously I thought wrong. I must admit I keep reading it out of some morbid curiosity.

Well back to work now.

Jamie

 

[whyadoctor?]

i wasn't at all trying to imply that you or anyone else was homosexual, i apologize if anyone took it that. i agree that inferences about someone's background in internet land is not advantageous to the discussion. this is precisely why i made that sarcastic post in the first place. references to my background and other's who share my view have already been made throughout this thread. i'll try and refrain from such sarcasm in the future.

the use of the term homophobia is an adjective used by those wishing to demonize and ridicule individuals who share well-informed, less tainted views on homosexuality. don't kid yourself into believing that this term is an objective one.

 

[whyadoctor?]

heterosexual (adj.) - early 1890s, in translation of Krafft-Ebbing's "Psychopathia Sexualis." The noun is recorded from 1920, but not in common use until 1960s. Heterosexuality is first recorded 1900.

homosexual (adj.) - 1892, from homo-, comb. form of Gk. homos "same" + sexual (see sex). The noun is 1912 in Eng., 1907 in Fr. Slang shortened form homo first attested 1929. Homo-erotic first recorded 1916; homophobia is from 1969.

taken from etymology dictionary. seems to refute puddinsnack's previous claim:

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?

keep making wild claims...you will succeed at confusing and convincing the lazy minds of masses.

 

[wallie]

Originally posted by jamylk02

Of course I should have anticipated the contraversy that even that simple idea could have created, but I guess I am nothing if not persistent. So I just want to encourage anyone who is interested in talking about this topic and this topic alone to email me at [email protected]. This thread seemed like a good idea at the time, but obviously I thought wrong. I must admit I keep reading it out of some morbid curiosity.

I agree that this thread is totally out of hand, but it's really only due to 2 or 3 individuals that chose to debate the premise behind the original post instead of what the actual post was about. I still think, however, that it's worthwhile to talk about issues that affect gay applicants in a general forum. I don't want to let a few annoying posters make me feel unwelcome in a place that has provided me with lots of useful info.

 

[nappy kat]

puddinsnack, please don't propogate any more erroneous factoids to promote your agenda without at least providing the unreliable source. You, like many others, are hurting your own cause.

 

[jamylk02]

Ok I see your point Wallie. But I know what happened when I just mentioned I outed myself in my application. I can just see the reaction I would get if I talked honestly about the ups and downs of the experience.

But just to prove myself a complete idiot, here goes. Two years ago when I came out at Dartmouth, I remember that no one knew what to tell me. No one had any idea how I should deal with telliing people and deal with rumors that were going around or what people's reactions might be when I talked to them. It felt pretty isolating to talk with different people who despite great intensions couldn't really give me any advice or expectations because things had been changing so quickly and because the experience is so personal.

Fortunately it went well and every experience I had was very positive. A lot of fraternity members and other athletes came out while I was at school as well as other students from all areas of the college, and now I hope that if someone was put in a similar situation they would have someone to turn to who had been through it before.

But to bring it back to the topic, the experience with medical schools has been similar. I have talked with so many people about the issue but have gotten little real concrete advice, and i have talked to only one other person who is currently applying to schools as an out canidate. I guess I just wish there was more info out there and that I didn't feel like I was walking in blind every time I go for an interview. Its a hard enough process as it is without adding additional pressures and uncertainities.

At the same time. Being gay doesn't define me and I have never been involved with gay rights issues before mostly because I have had a lot of other things to deal with. In fact, any credibillity I recieved at school was based on my seeming "normalcy". I could play my part and fit in at fraternity formals or pong tournaments (its a drinking game). And I recieved praise for not being involved in "sexual identity politics" from many other mainstream gay people. There were issues between some of these newly out people and the more fringe members of the Rainbow alliance or the GLBT support groups on campus.

In my opinion these attitudes among gay men (i have to say I don't know many lesbians) only seem to complicate the issue. But I could go on about this forever, What Im really curious about are other peoples beliefs. Do other people wish there was more info out there to research schools and admissions policies and does anyone think this can be changed or really how would it be changed?

 

[puddinsnack]

Originally posted by whyadoctor?
heterosexual (adj.) - early 1890s, in translation of Krafft-Ebbing's "Psychopathia Sexualis." The noun is recorded from 1920, but not in common use until 1960s. Heterosexuality is first recorded 1900.

homosexual (adj.) - 1892, from homo-, comb. form of Gk. homos "same" + sexual (see sex). The noun is 1912 in Eng., 1907 in Fr. Slang shortened form homo first attested 1929. Homo-erotic first recorded 1916; homophobia is from 1969.

taken from etymology dictionary. seems to refute puddinsnack's previous claim:

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?

keep making wild claims...you will succeed at confusing and convincing the lazy minds of masses.

I applaud your efforts to find epirical evidence that supports your claim. Con Grats. Although one must realize that Kraft-Ebing also subscribed to the train of thought that if one drop of semen was used for any other purpose than procreative sex, it would lead to insanity, they did have many milestones for thier time.

However, after reviewing my original copy of PSYCHOPATHIA SEXUALIS by Kraft-Ebing, 1931, and the section entitled: "Reasons why legal proceeding against homosexual acts should be stopped" (keeping in mind that in the 1930's sexulaity was still switching from the control of the governement to the medical community) one must pay attention to the quote:

"Under all circumstances the phenomenon is anomalous; but the word 'pathological' conveys another meaning, which I cannot think suits this phenomenon; at least, asI have had occastion to observe it in very many cases. I will allow, a priori, that, among urnings [for those of you who don't know, urnings was the original term used to discuss individuals who had sex with others of the same sex], a far higher proportion of cases of insanity, of nervous exhaustion, etc., may be observed than in other normal men. DOes this increased nervousness necessarily depend upon the character of urningism, or is it not, in the majority of cases, to be ascribed to the effect of the laws and the prejudices of society, which prohibit the indulgence of their sexual desires, depending on a congenital peculiarity, while others are not thus restrained?"

I believe a similar response like that was made to whyadoctor's suicide comment among gays.

Furhtermore, Gilbert Herdt, director of the only comprehensive human sexulaity studies MA program in the US, author of several anthropological, historical and psychology research articles, and author of over fifteen books posits (along with his cohorts), that the historical time period of coined sexulatiy terms is as follows: Bisexuality in early 1840's (date not exact), homosexuality in 1869, and heterosexuality in 1892. I am not aware of the etymology dictionary and what they say, but the leaders (following Gilbert Herdt) in sexuality studies in the world today subscribe to the dates I listed.

So wild cliams I think not....

 

[jtheater]

I hesitate to post this but hope that my story will be useful for someone who either is or will be applying to medical schools in the position that a few of us are in. First off, did I choose to be gay? No, absolutely not. Think about it. The idea is absurd. Do you choose who you think is hot when walking down the street? No. It just happens. But have I choosen to accept this aspect of myself and act on it? Yes. I don't want to look back at my life 40 years from now and see that I lived a lie.

Coming to terms with my sexuality was difficult in college. I quickly found that I didn't really care what others thought about it, but to accept this part of myself I had to overcome my own prejudice. I found it much more difficult to accept my difference than the differences of others. For years, family and society had told me what was "appropriate." What I should do. Marry, have kids, white picket fence, two cars. Life just isn't like that for most Americans.

At first I was nervous about losing my friends once I told them. But when I did, none of them seemed to care. I still went out with them. Still partied, still went to baseball games. Sometimes they would even go to a gay bar/club when I went. If anything, the ones who had any problems were those that many people assumed just hadn't dealt with the issue themselves.

As for coming out on my application, I did have some activities that could indicate my sexuality. I did needle exchange with gay and transgendered prostitutes (although I was the only gay member of the 12 member group). I continue to do a lot of work with infectious diseases (again, most people are straight in my office). The only time I actually acknowledged this aspect of myself during the application process has been once in an interview and on some secondaries. I have recieved interviews from some of those secondaries (in addition to others that I did not "come out" on.) The reason I mentioned this was that it was the only legitimate answer to the question--what is the most significant personal challenge in your life? I felt that is most the truthful answer.

Does being gay make me a better physician? No. But I think the ability to come to accept yourself and others for who they are... whether gay, straight, transgendered, bi, obese, drug addicted, HIV positive... does make someone a better physician. I will better be able to understand how self-hatred can change someone. It affects both their physical and mental health. With that, perhaps I can forge a better intervention than someone who writes the root of their problems off as "a mental, perverted sickness" rather than a self-image problem induced by a society that fears those who are different.

As for people out there who wonder what it is like to be gay in the medical community, I think the answer is the same as what it would be like in almost any other well educated community. There will be people who hate you just based on your sexuality and there will be others who are ambivalent or accepting. I work at the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases at NIH and two of the Associate Directors are openly gay. Many other researchers and physicians are too. There are MANY MANY gay doctors out there. So be assured that we are not alone.

Ok, enough story telling. Here is the website to the gay and lesbian medical association. www.glma.org If you interview at a school, look at their webpage and search for the gay and lesbian group. You can generally find contact info for a student or faculty mentor. If you have questions, email them. If you have questions for me that you don't want to address on the main board email or IM me on AOL. My name is [email protected] (original, I know).

Ciao

 

[LoneCoyote]

whyadoctor: Heres the definition of homophobic I was going by from the American Heritage Dictionary/dictionary.com

ho?mo?pho?bi?a Pronunciation Key (hm-fb-)
n.
Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
Behavior based on such a feeling.

You may choose to interpret what I said however you would like. If I had intended to call you a name, however, I would have probably used something stronger, like the barb you threw at me in your response about my supposed "corrupt mislead lifestyle" among other things. I will not argue about semantics on this thread anymore.


Now, back to the discussion of what this post was originally intended to do. Thank you to jtheater for posting your story and the glma site. I think it is important for there to be more information out there for GLBT applicants. This issue is really not talked about and many pre-med advisors so not seem able to give good advice on the matter. From what I can see, most of the GLBT people I know who have already applied have gotten information mostly through networking with GLBT doctors and med students which, of course, is more easily done at schools with visible GLBT student groups and out faculty. One website that is helpful is on the American Medical Students Association site. They have a branch called LBBT People In Medicine. http://www.amsa.org/adv/lgbtpm/ Also on the site they have surveys where people rate their med schools and one of the categories is environment for GLBT people. This might be a start to get some idea about different schools.

Peace.

 

[medicnas]

Just a few comments...

I spent a while reading this whole thread, and when I pulled myself back from the brink of insanity I noticed a few key things that people seem to gloss over.

1) Ought v. is - it would serve the entire population of the world a great deal if people would learn the difference. One "cannot ride roughshod" over the gulf between what is (nature) and what ought to be (morality). It's Philo 101: naturalistic fallacy...learn it, live it, love it. It swings both ways: things that ARE, do not have an intrinsically positive or negative value. Remember, humans created codes of moral conduct (or God, if you're into that stuff )...or if monkeys/dolphins have them we don't know about it yet. Either way, they would have created them too.

2) Moral relativism is a slippery slope. All too often people seeking acceptance for a cause will highlight the wrongness of society by lapsing into moral relativism: "Well, we only think this because we're socialized to think this." OK, well fine. But more often then not, they're IMPOSING a set of morals onto other people. "Activity X is only wrong because society thinks it's wrong. But you're wrong for agreeing with society." Wait a minute, how can anybody be wrong if nobody is wrong? Moral relativism assumes that there IS NO right or wrong, or that EVERYBODY is right. So, my advice: don't use the relativism argument, it will come back to you.

3) Even if one firmly believes that homosexuality is NOT wrong, they should really be careful about persecuting somebody else for their beliefs that homosexuality IS wrong. You're doing to somebody else what you're asking them to NOT do unto you. Double standard much? Now, I'm careful not to lapse into relativism here and here is the defining idea: words are not actions. I believe firmly in free speech, and I would, agreeing with Voltaire, die for a clansman's RIGHT to speak (certainly not for the greaseball him/herself. Even though you might not like what somebody has to say, they have the right to say it so long as they are not being verbally (textually) abusive. I didn't see any posts that would qualify as abusive. In fact, the existance of this thread speaks to the moderator's concurring that assertion.

That's the end of my lecture series. Anyways, here's my post for the OP: I'm glad that you took a chance. I would bet a lot of money that your essay will get trashed at some places, but at the other places it will make you that much better than you peers. Anybody can write a boring, albeit wellwritten, essay about how awesome they are, or how they overcame breaking their arm You're obviously smart since you're interviewing at Penn...and you undoubtedly have great credentials. Here's the news slim: so does everybody interviewing there. So I applaud you for taking a chance with the ONLY part of your application where you're able to distinguish yourself from the rest of the people applying for demi-God status. My essay took a chance (my chance was in the writing style (narrative/stream of consciousness)) but people remembered it and commented about how much they liked it compared to the mediocre essays that they'd had to read all morning.

Bottomline: Make them laugh, make them cry, or make them hurl...buy BY GOD, make them do SOMETHING!

Best of luck and peace out,

Neil


PS: I took a evol bio class and we discussed homosexuality/bisexuality. MeganRose got it right, and so did the person who paraphrased her. The only thing I would add is that in that system, there is a maximum percentage of the population that can be non-hetero (otherwise there are no relatives to take care of ) Altruism in nature is a great thing to find, and even greater when it works with the theories.

 

[cheesewhiz]

puddinsnack and everyone else who is trying to help the intolerant (but obviously very curious) homophobes lean about what it means to be gay - why bother? haven't you all done that before in your lives when coming out? if you're like me, you probably spent time trying to educate and help your parents, family, and friends to understand, love, and accept you in a different light. family and friends matter to us. they are important to spend energy on ? at least initially. but really, are nappykat , whydoc and other like minded folks really worth your time? i think not.

i also think that there are probably a lot of gay people on this site, as has been said before. we should get back to the original question, as i think it's something that we're (the gays) all interested in. we should ignore the trash, and take conversation back to the original issue so that we can learn something from eachother about how to handle interviews and to choose the school that will be the best fit - ie not have a surplus of whydoc et al attitude that would hinder us from becoming the best docs that we can be. if all of the gay people who are reading this would start posting all of our gayest interview experiences, whydoc would get lost in the shuffle. drown him out.

we don?t need to tell how or why coming out has afforded us something to talk about in a personal statement. we all know why. we don't need to educate on morality versus religion versus whatever. we don't need to argue how pigs and ducks and sheep have sex, or whether they have sex with eachother, or whether gay guys and lesbians enjoy watching them have sex. enough of helping whydoc learn about life. if this is what people want to debate - the existance, practicality, morality, acceptance of - WHATEVER - homosexuality - there is surely a website and a message board for that. THIS post was meant for gay people helping eachother through the admissions process.

so let's take this thread back, and talk about the original issue. the original poster wants to do private email now or start a new thread. screw that. what is this, the 50's (puddinsnack, correct me if my decade is off). we're not going back into the closet. we're not going to go to a secret underground club to drink and party. we're here. we're going to post. we're going to talk. we're going to be doctors who are gay, and we're going to advance the procession once we get there, just as we're doing in many other realms. but first, let's get there by helping eachother out with our experiences.

whydoc (and likeminded folks), if you people are so curious about gays, get out from behind your computer and go to a city or something. meet some people. where the heck are you anyway? this thread is so tired of helping you to get a life. the only other thing you should have to add to this thread is where you get into med school - if by some freak chance that happens - so that we avoid sitting next to you in class one day.

 

[HarvardDoc]

if all of the gay people who are reading this would start posting all of our gayest interview experiences

what exactly does that mean. and...can you not be gay and have one of the "gayest interview experiences"

just need some explanation, sorry for interrupting the speech

 

[nappy kat]

All that I've said up to this point has been true, so I'm quiet sure that I need not be educated (how would you possibly educate anyone on this anyway? All you could do would be a diatribe justifying your misguided sexual fantasy). The homosexual community is looking for someone to feel sorry for them, and they will not be the recipients of my sympathy because they do choose to obey their abnormal craving just as a child molester pursues his deviant behavior borne of an unnatural desire. Just because you lust after the unnatural, I'm supposed to applaud your filth in the name of freedom? The least you could do is stay in the closet (for your sake and the rest of the population's) because many do not want to see it.

 

[sfjohn]

great points cheesewhiz!

i am gay, and am applying to med school right now. to give you some background, i previously attended rpi (NY) and mit (MA) where i studied engineering, and now live in california. i was out at both instutitions, both of which were heavily composed of geeky men, and were conservative. i didn't march a rainbow flag into class each day, but most people that knew me knew that i dated guys. to my surprise, it wasn't a big deal at either school, even at rpi located in a small town in upstate NY.

my personal statement was very straightforward, and talked about why i want to be a doctor, and why i think i am qualified to study medicine. i backed these statements up with clinical, social, and research experience that i have accumulated while in college and in the 6 years since i've graduated. the fact that i was gay did not work its way into this statement.

in most secondaries, when asked about the "most difficult" or "most challenging" or other similar personal experiences i talked about difficulties/discrimination/abandonment associated with coming out. i felt as though certain secondary app question were trying to figure out how we coped with difficult situations - the best being ones that were emotional, as working in healthcare will be - and to show how we managed to work through them sanely and logically, for better or worse. so i thus outted myself to schools to which i would be interviewing, and potentially attending, in order to truthfully answer the question.

this was a gamble. some 70 year old old-school doctor may have been screening me, have been put off by my application, and rejected it right there. some 20-something elitist with an attitude like whyadoctor may have been reading it resulting in a similar rejection. that would have been fine with me. for the past 10 years, i have been living in 2 major cities where people are, for the most part, open-minded and appreciate another point of view that someone different from them might add to their life - whether they're gay, black, asian, or muslim. at this point in my life, i want to focus on my own learning, and not so much on educating people like whyadoctor. i would be happy to not go to a place that would hold prejudice against me and make the upcoming 4 years any more difficult than it's going to be. i was pretty confident of my abilities to get into at least one school, and so took that gamble.

i have since interviewed at 5 schools, have 3 upcoming interviews, and have 3 acceptances.

while interviewing, i talked about gay-related issues at 3 schools. in 2 of those 3, the interviewers were very easy to talk to and asked me directly about being gay, or about how my life experiences have influenced me to be a different doctor than someone whose most difficult personal challenge was his last genetics exam (i interviewed panel style at one school. one candidate actually said that the exam was one of the most difficult things in his life, and the interviewer turned to me and said "i see you've had some more difficult challenges, tell me how yours would make you think differently about patient diagnosis and care than your fellow candidate). the interviewers at the other school seemed personally conservative, and skirted saying the word "gay" for some time, although it was clear that that was what they wanted to talk about. at the other 2 schools, no questions directed me to talk about my sexuality or difficult personal times, and so we didn't. in all cases, the conversations were not strained. we didn't get into morality or normalacy or the psychiatric stance on homosexuality. none of those were relevant to why i was sitting in that interview - and they were smart enough to realize that.

in my experience, it has been important for ME to be comfortable talking about these issues, sometimes with interviewers who weren't. i felt as though they were looking to see if i was scared to talk about something so personal, or ok with it. they saw that i was genuine and sincere, and i believe that those are the qualities that at least those interviewing me were looking for.

aside from those experiences, i can also tell you that i work at a medical school that is one of the most progressive in the country in terms of its diversity mission. but it is still, even here, a conservative profession. that said, we need to change the atmosphere. the population that you will be treating, like it or not, is going to be diverse! culturally, socially, economically. some will do drugs. some will beat their children and their spouses. as a medical provider, you need to be able to understand and treat other people who are not like you, and that can't start unless you're comfortable in your own skin.

be yourself. that will shine through in your interviews, and you'll end up at the right place.

best of luck to everyone.

 

[nappy kat]

Originally posted by nappy kat
All that I've said up to this point has been true, so I'm quiet sure that I need not be educated (how would you possibly educate anyone on this anyway? All you could do would be a diatribe justifying your misguided sexual fantasy). The homosexual community is looking for someone to feel sorry for them, and they will not be the recipients of my sympathy because they do choose to obey their abnormal craving just as a child molester pursues his deviant behavior borne of an unnatural desire. Just because you lust after the unnatural, I'm supposed to applaud your filth in the name of freedom? The least you could do is stay in the closet (for your sake and the rest of the population's) because many do not want to see it.

The homosexual can be helped because many are cleansed from the lifestyle

 

[whyadoctor?]

Originally posted by azpremed
whyadoctor: Heres the definition of homophobic I was going by from the American Heritage Dictionary/dictionary.com

ho?mo?pho?bi?a Pronunciation Key (hm-fb-)
n.
Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
Behavior based on such a feeling.

exactly. i have neither fear nor contempt for homosexuals.

anyway, i'll stop rattling my "intolerant" chains. i think many of the people following this thread need to read medicnas' post.

and cheesewhiz, you sound like a blubbering idiot. you've successfully degraded this discussion and done more to support my arguments then i ever could. if you really want to know where i'm from, which i doubt, then pm me.

although this thread has strayed from the original poster's intent...who cares? why is that such a problem? that's the beauty of open conversation. anyone at any time could have responded to his post within the confines of his inquiry. and they have.

it's pretty obvious that no one is going to change anyone's mind about this topic. all we can hope for is that our voice is heard.

 

[SMW]

whyadoctor? indeed. And nappy kat resorts to quoting himself!

Kudos to jamylk02, wallie, puddinsnack, jtheater, azpremed, medicnas, cheesewhiz and sfjohn (my apologies if I've left anyone out) who've elevated the level of discussion here. Sorry I don't have any useful information to impart, but I wanted to wish you all the best of luck with your applications. And welcome to SDN, cheesewhiz and sfjohn!! Oh, and you too, HarvardDoc, despite that rather lame question.

 

[lola]

is nappy kat a guy? that's a rather feminine name. i guess he's gay?

 

[SMW]

Originally posted by lola
is nappy kat a guy? that's a rather feminine name. i guess he's gay?

 

[CaNEM]

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

I don't think we should equate "conservativism" or "liberalism" with pro-gay or anti-gay. Cant a person respect homosexuals even if he or she has conservative ideals? If you are saying conservatives are anti-gay and liberals support gay rights, then this profession must be quite liberal, because almost everyone on this thread (myself included) support the human rights of homosexuals - wiht only two or three exceptions. These couple exceptions do not make SNDers as a whole "anti gay" and they do not represent most people who have certain conservative beliefs.

 

[SMW]

Conservative on social issues has a different meaning than it does in a political context. I think everyone else got az's drift. Let's try to keep the controversy on-track here!

 

[LoneCoyote]

Thank you SMW.

Where in my post do I mention conservative or liberal in a political context I ask? I was a history major in a past life and so take conservative to mean favoring traditional values and tending to oppose change. I don't think it is unreasonable to argue that the medical profession is fairly conservative in this regard as it is only very recently that issues of GLBT health have even been raised. Case in point, if you searched all the medical literature for last year you would find a single digit number of articles on lesbian health. This has nothing to do with the politcal sense of the word. And I would agree that there are definitely political conservatives who are not anti-gay. Look at Arizona's own Barry Goldwater, for example.

 

[CaNEM]

Originally posted by SMW
Conservative on social issues has a different meaning than it does in a political context. I think everyone else got az's drift. Let's try to keep the controversy on-track here!

Social issues are a part of politics. I just dont agree with saying health care professions are conservative just because of one or two anti-gay people on this thread. I also don't agree that someone who has conservative ideals with regard to some social issues necessarily would be anti-gay.

 

[CaNEM]

Originally posted by azpremed
Thank you SMW.

Where in my post do I mention conservative or liberal in a political context I ask? I was a history major in a past life and so take conservative to mean favoring traditional values and tending to oppose change. I don't think it is unreasonable to argue that the medical profession is fairly conservative in this regard as it is only very recently that issues of GLBT health have even been raised. Case in point, if you searched all the medical literature for last year you would find a single digit number of articles on lesbian health. This has nothing to do with the politcal sense of the word. And I would agree that there are definitely political conservatives who are not anti-gay. Look at Arizona's own Barry Goldwater, for example.

Pro'lly just a misunderstanding then. Carry on!

 

[tBw]

Ok, if we're really going to take things out of context...

I also don't think being conservative should be equated with being anti-gay. Air resistance and friction are two examples of non-conservative forces, and, in my humble but well-informed opinion, they are no more gay than any other force.

 

[lola]

oh, come on! how can you argue that friction is not a gay force. friction is SO gay. in fact, i know of no force that is gayer than friction.

 

[SMW]

SDN is not the health care profession. And even if the health care profession in its entirety is not conservative, adcoms may tend to be more so. At least it is a legitimate worry for gay and lesbian applicants. azpremed specifically said that political conservatives are not necessarily conservative on the social issues surrounding homosexuality.
So what's the argument?

 

[jamylk02]

Ok so I had a long day at work, (im still there) ;-) But cheesewhiz your response definately made me smile. Thanks everyone for finally starting a real discussion. I propose we ignore those who shall remain nameless with nothing productive to say.

I have to say that if I were to write a personal statement today it would probably be very different. I live in NYC now and work in an ICU doing clincal research for a Critical Care department, but at the time talking about my experiences at Dartmouth were really important because they were a big part of my growth in college and a real turning point in my life.

But needless to say I was somewhat nieve in not even considering the impact on my interviews. Ive had five so far. My first interviewer was a very nice but conservative middle aged woman who didn't read my application until minutes before my interview. She really couldnt bring herself to say the word gay and despite trying her best to make me feel comfortable I walked out of the room confused. The interview seemed to have gone so well, but it didn't mesh well with my application or seem to present myself fully. We talked mostly about my research, travels, and move NY. I don't know what to think about this one. Unfortunately it was at my top choice school.

After that I had a closed one where I didn't bring it up (the man was soo old, but very nice), and then another closed file one where I finally started talking about it when asked a vague question about my life outside of academics. Funny thing was I realized how much more comfortable I was when I did so. Yes the person didnt really know what to say at times. Though he kept praising my "articulate" way of describing the experience. ( i keep getting that one) We got a long really well and then he ended the interview talking about how boring other pre-meds could be during interviews.

I then got on a role and talked about it my next two without actually being given anything more than a vague question. Both went very well. Though both assume that older people would be very offended. One asked if the administration at dartmouth was supportive or more conservative because they were older than the students and the other actually asked whether I would feel comfortable at their school or maybe thought I would fit in better somewhere else. To his credit I think he was thinking out loud more than anything else as we were getting a long really well. He seemed honestly concerned with the dilemma and followed up with something a kin to well you obviously don't back away from a challenge, but why put yourself through the experience? And then asked what I wanted him to write to the committee so that they would accept me.

Does anyone know anything about out students at Columbia or NYU? I know they both have GLBT clubs which I guess I will contact, but I just wondered if anyone knew anything?


Jamie

 

[whyadoctor?]

Originally posted by SMW
whyadoctor? indeed. And nappy kat resorts to quoting himself!

Kudos to jamylk02, wallie, puddinsnack, jtheater, azpremed, medicnas, cheesewhiz and sfjohn (my apologies if I've left anyone out) who've elevated the level of discussion here. Sorry I don't have any useful information to impart, but I wanted to wish you all the best of luck with your applications. And welcome to SDN, cheesewhiz and sfjohn!! Oh, and you too, HarvardDoc, despite that rather lame question.

dude! you left me out!

i hope that the people on SDN don't actually think that they are an accurate portrayal of the medical profession, a random slice of the future doctors of america...

 

[nappy kat]

Originally posted by lola
is nappy kat a guy? that's a rather feminine name. i guess he's gay?

The truth of the message stands firm regardless of the sex of the one who proclaims it. You all can be helped, but first you must realise that you have a problem (I'd be willing to bet that you are aware of your error, even if repressed to a subconscious level). Homosexuality is the quintessential unhealthy/sad lifestyle, yet deliverance from it is possible. I've seen the literature that address the means to escape. I can do a search if interested.

 

[lola]

but i'm not a homo. can you help me??? please please please!

 

[SMW]

Originally posted by jamylk02
I propose we ignore those who shall remain nameless with nothing productive to say.

If you click on one of the aforementioned nameless posters' profiles, at the bottom of the profile you can add them to your "ignore" list.

 

[nappy kat]

Originally posted by SMW
whyadoctor? indeed. And nappy kat resorts to quoting himself!
I quoted myself because I didn't want the much needed comment lost behind the next poster. I don't really care about my own opinions, the truth is true rather we choose to believe it or not.

 

[nappy kat]

Originally posted by SMW
If you click on one of the aforementioned nameless posters' profiles, at the bottom of the profile you can add them to your "ignore" list.

We call this stage "denial"

 

[sfjohn]

Originally posted by azpremed
Thank you SMW.

Case in point, if you searched all the medical literature for last year you would find a single digit number of articles on lesbian health.

wow, this is finally going somewhere worthwhile. let's just continue not to get sidetracked.

your point about lesbian health is very interesting, and if you're into advancing it, that might be a great (and unique) thing to bring up in an interview. being a lesbian and wanting to further medical care for such a particular group shows a personal motivation for medicine. this interest will not only further lesbian healthcare, but womens health in general.

it's similar to what happened with gay men's health. if you looked up "gay men's health" circa early 80's, you would likewise find few scholarly papers. actually, you wouldn't even have found any information on such topics as oral/anal contact. obviously, this is practiced in the gay community. it's also practiced in the straight community, although it wasn't documented until there was a gay mens health movement. there was a spike in the number of such "impolitical" issues raised as gay mens health issues entered medical acknowledgment and debate. the issues talked about, though initiated in light of gay sex, ultimately help everyone.

unfortunately, the broader discussion about gay mens health was cut short with the arrival of HIV. things became much more focused on HIV-specific info.

my point is that there are gay and lesbian specific medical issues. as part of this community, it makes sense that we would be the ones wanting to tackle them - we're directly affected. apparently, there's still a lot that remains unaddressed on the lesbian side, and this might be the niche that one of the future lesbian docs of america cuts out for herself.

i know that i said oral and anal. these two words taken together can take this into another tangent. if you're gay, you probably know it's fun, so let's not even indulge the anticipated responses about how gross and abnormal it is...

 

[LoneCoyote]

sfjohn,

It is a very interesting issue and one that is just starting to come to light. I actually got that statistic from the 2nd Annual Lesbian Health Conference which took place at UCSF this past summer. UCSF is home to the nation's largest (and most likely only) lesbian health research center. The NIH recently approved funding specifically to look at lesbian health issues, such as breast and ovarian cancer, which strike lesbians, and particularly lesbians of color, at a higher rate than women in the general population. So it is an issue that is finally starting to emerge on the radar screen now that womens health has emerged as a growing and respected field. I also think that some of the visibility that was cast on "gay health" as a result of the AIDS epidemic has helped to bring lesbian health some more attention. There is definitely so much work that needs to be done in both lesbian and gay health. People of color are for the most part invisible in studies that look at lesbian and bisexual women, and though I have not done research on gay men's issues, I can imagine that gay men of color are often underrepresented in clinical studies as well. A large majority of gay men and lesbians do not like to go to the doctor due to fear of being mistreated, ostracized, etc. So the need is definitely out there and I think that med schools are starting to recognize that the need exists and realize that one way to address the problems is to get out gays and lesbians into medicine.

Peace.

 

[whyadoctor?]

let me ask those of you who are homosexual, how you became that way. did your parents teach you this? did society teach you this? does anybody know any parents who taught their children to be homosexual? I've concluded that the answer to these questions is "No".

now, if you weren't taught to be homosexual, and in all probability it was intended that you be taught heterosexuality, then what was intended did not occurr. therefore, homosexual behavior is an error in the socialization process.

now, bring on the genetic evidence for homosexuality...there is none. in fact, many of you have already argued that there is no physical difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals.

sex is a learned behavior, homosexuals either failed that class or weren't given a teacher.

 

[scootad.]

Whyadoc, what difference does it make why gays are the way they are? They are the way they are. Why do you care so much?

 

[whozshoe]

Hi everyone,

Actually, there is considerable literature citing ' evidence' for a biological basis for homosexuality. Granted, there are weaknesses in some of the research, but it's still intriguing. Hope you find the references below helpful:

Simon LeVay and Dean Hamer. "Evidence for a Biological Influence in Male Homosexuality." Scientific American, May 1994 pp 20-25

A critique of LeVay and Hamer's research is written by Richard Horton. "Is Homosexuality Inherited", New York Review, July 13:36-41.

None of the present work is definitive, but it certainly suggests that human sexuality is much more complex than a simple "error in the socialization process."

PC
Peace and Compassion