Pray your gay away! /s

[Pragma]

There are still some parts of the United States that you are taking a risk (be it physical, financial, or just social) by saying anything bad about a specific religion, and places outside the US where the instances that you mentioned still happen.

At least in my experience, the reverse has been true within the field. I closeted my own Christian beliefs during graduate school because other students (interestingly, not supervisors) constantly scrutinized Christian people.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[erg923]

At least in my experience, the reverse has been true within the field. I closeted my own Christian beliefs during graduate school because other students (interestingly, not supervisors) constantly scrutinized Christian people.

Try being a practicing Roman Catholic in a department full of atheists. Ash Wednesday always made for fun conversation. "No! It's not Dirt!"

 

[Qwerk]

Again, I appreciate the distinction you make and agree overall. However, that leads to why this legislation is problematic. I know we cannot be all things to all people, but (again, I may be an idealist) responsible practitioners know their limits, and I would like to assume actively seek to gain competence when they need to, whether that's out of personal desire or out of a noted lack of ability with a population that often shows up in their practice. This legislation allows an out (i.e., lack of competence or objectivity citation) for individuals who just plain don't want to treat someone because they don't like them or disagree with their humanity, and the rationale provided goes onto say "you can't force someone to gain competence in something they disagree with" which seems scary to me. Now, the likelihood that someone would continue to work in an area where populations they so strongly dislike exist is probably low, but still.

Who decides what we need to be competent at? Because I have zero interest in doing any therapy, period. I also don't want to learn how to assess children. But am I obligated to seek this knowledge just in case? Or can I safely refer?

I'm not saying that this is what Pragma is specifically referring to, but just to address something that's come up in this thread a few times, I find it weird that there are professionals who think that gays need a special kind of service provision that people who don't know a lot about gays can't provide. All providers need is a basic level of queer vocab and a minimum of respect. That's, like, a two-hour workshop. Going off conversations with colleagues, it seems like a lot of providers who refer gay/trans clients do so because they're uncomfortable or inexperienced, and not because they can't be competent if they try.

I think this applies just as much to other populations. A homeless guy or a guy with cancer is still just a guy. If he needs highly specialized care in an area you're not competent in (e.g. sex therapy or pain management counseling), by all means refer. But I wouldn't put that population in the "people-I-can-never-be-competent-with" box.

 

[MBellows]

At least in my experience, the reverse has been true within the field. I closeted my own Christian beliefs during graduate school because other students (interestingly, not supervisors) constantly scrutinized Christian people.

American academia has been a historic place for more liberally minded individuals. I'm sorry that you had to closet yourself, I personally don't think that anyone should have to do that for a part of themselves that isn't inherently negative. The problem that some people may find hard to admit is that there is often intolerance, or at least unwarranted or unprofessional snark that goes on in all camps.

 

[Pragma]

Try being a practicing Roman Catholic in a department full of atheists. Ash Wednesday always made for fun conversation. "No! It's not Dirt!"

I just think some people are such hard core liberals that they fail to differentiate between the idiot Christians out there and the ones that hold reasonable beliefs (without applying their personal behavioral expectations to other people). Those folks perhaps shouldn't be allowed to get licensed, either?

Wow, that took me awhile to read the whole thread.

 

[erg923]

All providers need is a basic level of queer vocab and a minimum of respect.

Queer? Really? Is this now a PC term? I assume it must be if you're using it. Where I come from it was the derogatory word of choice at my high school.

 

[Pragma]

American academia has been a historic place for more liberally minded individuals. I'm sorry that you had to closet yourself, I personally don't think that anyone should have to do that for a part of themselves that isn't inherently negative. The problem that some people may find hard to admit is that there is often intolerance, or at least unwarranted or unprofessional snark that goes on in all camps.

Oh I didn't have to. It just made it easier.

Yes very good point. The intolerance for beliefs different than one's own is not limited to conservatives or Christians.

 

[Qwerk]

Queer? Really? Is this now a PC term? I assume it must be if you're using it. Where I come from it was the derogatory word of choice at my high school.

It is, and has been in academic circles for 20+ years. (Google "queer theory.") It's an umbrella term that's increasingly being used instead of LGBTQ because people keep adding letters to that ridiculous acronym and it's hard to keep track. I try to only use it in the classroom or with other professionals because I assume that we're all familiar with the term, but I guess there's still a bit of regional variability. It's still a derogatory term in some circles, but I think the American Conference of Bullying Professionals switched to "gaywad" and "butt pirate" a while back.

 

[roubs]

I just think some people are such hard core liberals that they fail to differentiate between the idiot Christians out there and the ones that hold reasonable beliefs (without applying their personal behavioral expectations to other people). Those folks perhaps shouldn't be allowed to get licensed, either?

Wow, that took me awhile to read the whole thread.

Most of my program are hard core liberals and I can't think of an instance where we failed to differentiate between Christians of different opinions, I mean many of the hard core liberals are Christian themselves and open about it and discussing religious issues. I'm sure other environments feel more closed, but I don't think it's an automatic consequence of being in a more socially liberal academic environment. If someone couldn't withhold their judgement or their clinical work was impaired by being intolerance of other's belief in God, then I think that should fall under the same kind of remediation or sanction that has been mentioned regarding inability to work with other groups. That's not where the lawsuits are, though.

 

[Qwerk]

I just think some people are such hard core liberals that they fail to differentiate between the idiot Christians out there and the ones that hold reasonable beliefs (without applying their personal behavioral expectations to other people). Those folks perhaps shouldn't be allowed to get licensed, either?

I agree -- I don't think it's possible to be a competent professional who thinks it's okay to denigrate the religious beliefs of colleagues and clients. Working with people who have different beliefs should be standard, period. That said, we obviously need to differentiate between "talking openly about one's beliefs" and "expressing intolerant beliefs at work or in the classroom," the second of which is why the "idiot Christians" you mention give the rest a bad name.

 

[Pragma]

Most of my program are hard core liberals and I can't think of an instance where we failed to differentiate between Christians of different opinions, I mean many of the hard core liberals are Christian themselves and open about it and discussing religious issues. I'm sure other environments feel more closed, but I don't think it's an automatic consequence of being in a more socially liberal academic environment. If someone couldn't withhold their judgement or their clinical work was impaired by being intolerance of other's belief in God, then I think that should fall under the same kind of remediation or sanction that has been mentioned regarding inability to work with other groups. That's not where the lawsuits are, though.

Oh yes and I think a lot of people fail to realize that there are tons of liberal Christians. I am not taking the "persecuted Christian" stance here because I think that is obnoxious, but there is no denying that there are some people in academia that have a pretty clear bias against people who are Christians. It should be managed just like any other bias.

When I did therapy, many of my clients were underserved/low income and their churches were a tremendous resource for them (material and social) and they enjoyed discussing issues about their church in therapy. I could see this being a major problem for psychologists who look down upon people who hold Christian beliefs.

This is a very interesting discussion I think (the one related to how much bias a psychologist is allowed to have). Because you can't eliminate all biases. Which ones are okay to have and still provide treatment?

 

[Pragma]

I agree -- I don't think it's possible to be a competent professional who thinks it's okay to denigrate the religious beliefs of colleagues and clients. Working with people who have different beliefs should be standard, period. That said, we obviously need to differentiate between "talking openly about one's beliefs" and "expressing intolerant beliefs at work or in the classroom," the second of which is why the "idiot Christians" you mention give the rest a bad name.

Absolutely.

I only bring it up because I get sick of how biases are framed the same way all the time. I think of some of the comments I heard students make in class about Christians. Then I imagine what would have happened if similar comments were made about someone's sexuality or ethnicity. They probably would have been kicked out of the program or sanctioned in some manner. I find that interesting.

 

[Pragma]

That's not where the lawsuits are, though.

Very interesting -thanks for sharing. $75K - I wonder if the student had loans.

 

[MBellows]

This is a very interesting discussion I think (the one related to how much bias a psychologist is allowed to have). Because you can't eliminate all biases. Which ones are okay to have and still provide treatment?

I think it depends on the practitioner, just like some actors can play characters that they hate and you would never know. What the practitioner thinks should have nothing to do with the treatment, just like I wouldn't have to like to eat steak to cook one in a restaurant and serve it to a patron. Now if I couldn't hold in that personal distaste long enough to provide a great experience for the person I was serving, I probably shouldn't be doing what I'm doing, or maybe I should just serve people who eat chicken.

Therapy isn't special. If what you are being asked to do for money conflicts with who you are, don't do it. More than likely, you're going to suck at it and the market will either find a niche for you (or more likely) spit you out with nothing.

 

[Qwerk]

Absolutely.

I only bring it up because I get sick of how biases are framed the same way all the time. I think of some of the comments I heard students make in class about Christians. Then I imagine what would have happened if similar comments were made about someone's sexuality or ethnicity. They probably would have been kicked out of the program or sanctioned in some manner. I find that interesting.

I feel ya there. Being in a mental health profession has helped me to see some of my biases against Christianity more clearly. I'm finding that many of my clients draw great strength from their religious faith, something with which I have zero personal experience. And I've met a ton of very thoughtful Christian professionals. It's the kind of thing that makes me want to expand my competence.

 

[Qwerk]

I think it depends on the practitioner, just like some actors can play characters that they hate and you would never know. What the practitioner thinks should have nothing to do with the treatment, just like I wouldn't have to like to eat steak to cook one in a restaurant and serve it to a patron. Now if I couldn't hold in that personal distaste long enough to provide a great experience for the person I was serving, I probably shouldn't be doing what I'm doing, or maybe I should just serve people who eat chicken.

Therapy isn't special. If what you are being asked to do for money conflicts with who you are, don't do it. More than likely, you're going to suck at it and the market will either find a niche for you (or more likely) spit you out with nothing.

I like that analogy. During the controversy over whether pharmacists should allowed to refuse to dispense Plan B, I remember someone saying that it was like a vegan working in a steakhouse.

 

[Pragma]

I think it depends on the practitioner, just like some actors can play characters that they hate and you would never know. What the practitioner thinks should have nothing to do with the treatment, just like I wouldn't have to like to eat steak to cook one in a restaurant and serve it to a patron. Now if I couldn't hold in that personal distaste long enough to provide a great experience for the person I was serving, I probably shouldn't be doing what I'm doing, or maybe I should just serve people who eat chicken.

Therapy isn't special. If what you are being asked to do for money conflicts with who you are, don't do it. More than likely, you're going to suck at it and the market will either find a niche for you (or more likely) spit you out with nothing.

Sure - we are taught to manage our biases when working with clients. If you are any good as a therapist, most situations should be manageable. I can think of some obvious cases where referring makes sense (e.g., I was a rape victim and am not comfortable working with rapists).

I think I just still have a bad taste in my mouth from some of the comments I saw earlier in the thread (e.g., if you are anti-gay you can't be licensed). The folks that say those kinds of things, IMO, are the ones lacking the maturity and insight that would be required to practice competently. We all have some personal biases. Ideally one's training helps to promote clinical competence despite these biases.

 

[MBellows]

We all have some personal biases. Ideally one's training helps to promote clinical competence despite these biases.

I would also argue that over time the chances of someone who is in mental health practice will probably be higher than average that they would have some organic interaction with someone who they would be biased against but find significant commonality with, much like Qwerk did with Christian clients.

 

[Qwerk]

Sure - we are taught to manage our biases when working with clients. If you are any good as a therapist, most situations should be manageable. I can think of some obvious cases where referring makes sense (e.g., I was a rape victim and am not comfortable working with rapists).

I think I just still have a bad taste in my mouth from some of the comments I saw earlier in the thread (e.g., if you are anti-gay you can't be licensed). The folks that say those kinds of things, IMO, are the ones lacking the maturity and insight that would be required to practice competently. We all have some personal biases. Ideally one's training helps to promote clinical competence despite these biases.

It sounded like what people were saying was "if you're anti-gay and that affects your ability to work with clients or colleagues, you shouldn't practice," not "if you're anti-gay, well-trained, and competent despite your bias, you shouldn't practice." If I couldn't work competently with any Christian clients, I would be a crap clinician. But I can, so I'm not.

Do you feel that this is a meaningful distinction?

 

[Pragma]

It sounded like what people were saying was "if you're anti-gay and that affects your ability to work with clients or colleagues, you shouldn't practice," not "if you're anti-gay, well-trained, and competent despite your bias, you shouldn't practice." If I couldn't work competently with any Christian clients, I would be a crap clinician. But I can, so I'm not.

I think it was the overall idea that certain beliefs might preclude you from being a psychologist. I am guessing there are plenty of psychologists out there that have a personal issue with homosexuality, for example. I also took the statements earlier in the thread to say "Not able to be a psychologist" and not "shouldn't practice."

Also, why couldn't the same logic apply to a psychologist who refuses to treat alcohol or drug dependent folks? By extension, if someone's has biases and refuses to see these populations, then perhaps they aren't cut out to be a psychologist? Because boy, discriminating based on a medical condition doesn't sound good. It sure is a slippery slope here.

The related issue that I saw come up that I find interesting is the obligation to seek further training. If I refer out because of low competence (or personal bias, for that matter), is it my obligation to go get more training? What if I don't want to and prefer to refer those cases? People have alluded to an obligation to get more training, but why? Aside from being in an emergency situation where I have to provide care when no one is available, what is the purpose of me seeking further training in an area I don't want to practice in?

 

[JeyRo]

It sounded like what people were saying was "if you're anti-gay and that affects your ability to work with clients or colleagues, you shouldn't practice," not "if you're anti-gay, well-trained, and competent despite your bias, you shouldn't practice." If I couldn't work competently with any Christian clients, I would be a crap clinician. But I can, so I'm not.

Do you feel that this is a meaningful distinction?

I'm reasonably comfortable with that, the way you lay it out. Moreover, if this otherwise well-trained, competent clinician decided to set up a practice that deliberately managed to avoid treating gay clients through a responsible process of screening and referral (thereby insuring that every patient gets care in a timely fashion), I don't see how that hurts anyone.

I may have my own judgments of such a clinician, but that's a different matter.

 

[Qwerk]

I think it was the overall idea that certain beliefs might preclude you from being a psychologist. I am guessing there are plenty of psychologists out there that have a personal issue with homosexuality, for example. I also took the statements earlier in the thread to say "Not able to be a psychologist" and not "shouldn't practice."

Again, I felt like we were talking about behavior, not beliefs. But on that note, do you think it is possible to be a psychologist with an inability to behave professionally when working with gay people, whatever your personal beliefs? It still seems ethically questionable given the values of the mental health professions.

Also, why couldn't the same logic apply to a psychologist who refuses to treat alcohol or drug dependent folks? By extension, if someone's has biases and refuses to see these populations, then perhaps they aren't cut out to be a psychologist? Because boy, discriminating based on a medical condition doesn't sound good. It sure is a slippery slope here.

That's a competence issue, not a personal bias issue. If you think all substance abusers are scum and that's why you refuse to see them (even if they're not seeing you for a drug-related problem), then yes, you're probably not a great practitioner. If you're simply not experienced with drug issues, or if you have trauma in your past related to drug use, then that's obviously different.

The related issue that I saw come up that I find interesting is the obligation to seek further training. If I refer out because of low competence (or personal bias, for that matter), is it my obligation to go get more training? What if I don't want to and prefer to refer those cases? People have alluded to an obligation to get more training, but why? Aside from being in an emergency situation where I have to provide care when no one is available, what is the purpose of me seeking further training in an area I don't want to practice in?

I think we can all agree that there is a minimum of training that psychologists and related professionals should have. Part of that training should include basic knowledge of human sexuality and gender and a perfunctory understanding of human diversity. I don't see how that counts as "extra." Gay people aren't exactly a separate practice area.

 

[Qwerk]

I'm reasonably comfortable with that, the way you lay it out. Moreover, if this otherwise well-trained, competent clinician decided to set up a practice that deliberately managed to avoid treating gay clients through a responsible process of screening and referral (thereby insuring that every patient gets care in a timely fashion), I don't see how that hurts anyone.

I may have my own judgments of such a clinician, but that's a different matter.

This makes less sense if you've lived in a small town or conservative community with less access to treatment. It only takes a few biased clinicians to discourage someone from getting help. For this and other reasons, I still feel that people who won't overcome their biases to treat vulnerable clients can't practice ethically.

For what it's worth, I see clients who violate my sense of ethics all the freakin' time. They cheat the benefits system, they lie constantly, they neglect their kids, they commit acts of violence, or they say horribly racist things. I treat them with respect and dignity and truly hope that I can help them. Maybe this is just a question of social work ethics vs. psychology ethics, but if a psychologist can't work with someone who violates their sense of right and wrong, what made that person want to get into the profession in the first place? What clients could that person work with? It's funny how this only seems to happen with gay clients.

 

[Pragma]

Again, I felt like we were talking about behavior, not beliefs. But on that note, do you think it is possible to be a psychologist with an inability to behave professionally when working with gay

What do you mean by behave professionally? I mean, if there is a psychologist out there that has a problem with gay people and doesn't want to treat them, it seems that referring those cases could be considered "behaving professionally." I guess I am just trying to determine what people are thinking here - that the bias/belief itself should not be tolerated within the profession, or that choosing not to work with certain clients is really the problem.

That's a competence issue, not a personal bias issue. If you think all substance abusers are scum and that's why you refuse to see them (even if they're not seeing you for a drug-related problem), then yes, you're probably not a great practitioner. If you're simply not experienced with drug issues, or if you have trauma in your past related to drug use, then that's obviously different.

It could be both. I happen to be very passionate about this area and think there are a lot of incompetent psychologists when it comes to addiction that don't refer when they should. Then there are also psychologists who refuse to see anyone until they have met some kind of a sobriety timeline (which is really stupid IMO), or ones who just won't see people because of their biases against drug and alcohol users. For those people (and have observed tons of outright bias by psychologists towards substance users) - are they "probably not a great practitioner" or should they be stripped of their license?

I think we can all agree that there is a minimum of training that psychologists and related professionals should have. Part of that training should include basic knowledge of human sexuality and gender and a perfunctory understanding of human diversity. I don't see how that counts as "extra." Gay people aren't exactly a separate practice area.

I guess I wasn't talking specifically about sexual orientation. I was speaking about client subpopulations generally. To use what you mentioned above - those people with a lack of competence in treating people with substance use disorders - are they obligated to get more training?

Not everyone is or wants to be a generalist. I personally view being competent to manage issues related to addiction as a very basic and fundamental thing that all psychologists should be competent in. It shouldn't be "extra" either. So should everyone have to go get more training if they refer due to lack of competence in the area? I am guessing we could pick a bunch of different types of clients and debate about this.

 

[Pragma]

This makes less sense if you've lived in a small town or conservative community with less access to treatment. It only takes a few biased clinicians to discourage someone from getting help. For this and other reasons, I still feel that people who won't overcome their biases to treat vulnerable clients can't practice ethically.

For what it's worth, I see clients who violate my sense of ethics all the freakin' time. They cheat the benefits system, they lie constantly, they neglect their kids, they commit acts of violence, or they say horribly racist things. I treat them with respect and dignity and truly hope that I can help them. Maybe this is just a question of social work ethics vs. psychology ethics, but if a psychologist can't work with someone who violates their sense of right and wrong, what made that person want to get into the profession in the first place? What clients could that person work with? It's funny how this only seems to happen with gay clients.

Actually, it happens all the time with offenders, substance users, and sex addiction. If a clinician can't work with these clients because of personal bias, then can they ethically practice?

I don't think you can have it both ways here. These are very common issues. Why would someone get into the profession if they can't work with someone who was incarcerated or who has a drug problem? Plenty of psychologists refuse to see these groups of people. Do you view these psychologists the same way?

 

[MBellows]

....They cheat the benefits system...

This happens in rehab too and it pisses me right off. I've argued forever that there should be certain benefits that clinicians can put stop to, or at least have a half-way decent agency branch for investigating abuse of services. Though again, that's a different topic (one that I'd be more than happy to contribute to if someone makes a thread).

 

[Qwerk]

Actually, it happens all the time with offenders, substance users, and sex addiction. If a clinician can't work with these clients because of personal bias, then can they ethically practice?

I don't think you can have it both ways here. These are very common issues. Why would someone get into the profession if they can't work with someone who was incarcerated or who has a drug problem? Plenty of psychologists refuse to see these groups of people. Do you view these psychologists the same way?

Well...kind of. As you said above, a basic knowledge of substance abuse issues is a minimum level of competence for a mental health professional. So is a basic knowledge of incarceration. And professionals who refuse to work with drug users or formerly incarcerated clients because they think they're dirtbags (as opposed to not wanting to work in a prison or drug rehab as a practice setting preference) are, in my opinion, not minimally competent. Others may disagree, but I call that unacceptable bias. I might waver a little and say that working specifically on substance abuse issues with current users might be best left to those with more training in that area, and that working in a prison setting presents a lot of unique challenges that not everyone can handle, but I wouldn't call a therapist who dislikes and won't consider working with members of these populations who come to them for help "competent."

 

[JeyRo]

This makes less sense if you've lived in a small town or conservative community with less access to treatment. It only takes a few biased clinicians to discourage someone from getting help. For this and other reasons, I still feel that people who won't overcome their biases to treat vulnerable clients can't practice ethically.

I sort of see what you're saying. However, I would say that perhaps if its so important for this hypothetical anti-gay therapist to avoid catching the gay disease they should then choose to work in a large city where they have a referral base to work from, then your problem here is neatly solved.

On the other hand, lets say this anti-gay therapist instead insists on staying in a small community, and this therapist is agreeable to seeing patients on any emergency basis (of any kind), so they're not grossly negligent with their care provision.

Let's say this therapist is approached by some gay client with some existential issues, wants to work on personal growth, etc. - if that therapist doesn't want to work with that gay patient (I'm obviously playing devil's advocate here), then what's the problem? First, it's not an emergency issue. Second, that same client could easily seek out the many practicioners available online which grow in number day by day who would be happy to work with them.

It may be f****d up that such a practicioner would do such a thing, and online therapy has many drawbacks from live therapy, but given all of this, again, what would be the harm, and why shouldn't that person be allowed to hang up a shingle?

For what it's worth, I see clients who violate my sense of ethics all the freakin' time. They cheat the benefits system, they lie constantly, they neglect their kids, they commit acts of violence, or they say horribly racist things. I treat them with respect and dignity and truly hope that I can help them. Maybe this is just a question of social work ethics vs. psychology ethics, but if a psychologist can't work with someone who violates their sense of right and wrong, what made that person want to get into the profession in the first place? What clients could that person work with? It's funny how this only seems to happen with gay clients.

Good questions!

 

[Pragma]

Well...kind of. As you stated above, a basic knowledge of substance abuse issues is a minimum level of competence for a mental health professional. So is a basic knowledge of incarceration. And people who refuse to work with drug users or formerly incarcerated clients because they think they're dirtbags (as opposed to not wanting to work in a prison or drug rehab as a practice setting preference) are, in my opinion, not minimally competent. Others may disagree, but I call that bias. I might waver a little and say that working on substance abuse issues with current users might be best left to those with more training in that area, but I wouldn't call a therapist who dislikes and can't work with current/former drug users "competent."

Substance abuse is much more common than homosexuality. You have a much higher liklihood of seeing a client who has a substance abuse problem than a gay client.

I am really not trying to be too argumentative (and I have a feeling we agree). But I get bothered by issues getting cherry picked when we make judgments about practicioners. If someone were to tell me that you are a horrible psychologist if you don't want to work with gay people, but it is okay to refer all of your addiction clients, I'd have a lot of trouble respecting that person's opinion.

I also wonder about what you mean here with "practice setting preference." (By the way, you don't need to work in rehab to work with people with addiction problems). So it is okay for me to choose a particular setting to work at that might give me some control over the types of clients I see, but it is not okay to refer people to accomplish the same thing?

 

[smearedblackink]

.

 

[smearedblackink]

.

 

[SmoothJams]

I would also point out that objection to homosexual acts does not make one a "homophobe", or a bigot.

I guess this is dependent on the definition of "objection to homosexual acts". If you use this term to mean that you personally don't want to engage in them, then I see your point. That doesn't make you a bigot or anything.

If, however, this in any way means that you judge, or have any kind of issue with other people engaging in homosexual acts...sorry, you're probably a bigot.

 

[Qwerk]

I get bothered by issues getting cherry picked when we make judgments about practicioners.

They're not cherry-picked so much as they're mentioned in the ethics and guidelines of our respective professions. These are topics that our professional organizations have designated significant. Disagree with their importance if you want, but don't say that they were chosen capriciously.

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/guidelines.aspx
http://www.socialworkers.org/diversity/new/lgbt.asp

 

[Pragma]

I guess this is dependent on the definition of "objection to homosexual acts". If you use this term to mean that you personally don't want to engage in them, then I see your point. That doesn't make you a bigot or anything.

If, however, this in any way means that you judge, or have any kind of issue with other people engaging in homosexual acts...sorry, you're probably a bigot.

Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

I think we can cast a pretty wide net here.

 

[SmoothJams]

No one is saying this, so give that aspect of your argument a rest.

Um...actually, JeRoy basically did do that. And no need to give people orders here. (Give it a rest? Bossy much?) You aren't "in charge" here.

 

[erg923]

The Ash Wednesday comment struck a chord with me--several of my younger colleagues appeared to be appalled at the idea that a faculty member would show up after attending Ash Wednesday services.

Geez, I never experienced anything like that. What do you think that's about? And why younger colleagues, I wonder.

Am I supposed to go home after service? lol. I can't take siestas, unlike my European counterparts.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I think it's ludicrous to suggest that clinicians don't judge their clients because frankly, therapy is in large part about clinical judgement, What behaviors or cognitions are maladaptive? What interpersonal styles are maladaptive? What behaviors pose of a risk of harm to self or others? How impaired is a client overall? Those all involve judging the client and,, often with children and adolescents, their family With adolescents, this can get particularly tricky with issues like sex and substance use--when do those cross the line to levels that they become true risks? that you need to tell the parent?

The question is, I think, where do psychologists have the purview to professionally judge clients and where don't they? As a field. we have identified child abuse, abuse of elderly or disabled people, suicidality, and imminent threat of severe harm to others as areas requiring immediate action, but that leaves a lot of gray area--fraud, theft, domestic violence,bigotry, etc., etc., among many other things. Where should we judge and intervene? Where should we hold back our own beliefs? It's an interesting ethical question, I think, although somewhat tangential from the original post.

 

[erg923]

Um...actually, JeRoy basically did do that. And no need to give people orders here. (Give it a rest? Bossy much?) You aren't "in charge" here.

Captain obvious, is that you?

And, um, actually, we have both explained multiple times that it was an analogy, not a comparison. So, yes, give it a rest, pal.

PS: Morpheus is in charge. Ah, the 90's...

 

[Pragma]

They're not cherry-picked so much as they're mentioned in the ethics and guidelines of our respective professions. These are topics that our professional organizations have designated significant. Disagree with their importance if you want, but don't say that they were chosen capriciously.

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/guidelines.aspx
http://www.socialworkers.org/diversity/new/lgbt.asp

Of course it is an important issue. My program really emphasized working with queer clients (in fact, sometimes so much that we joked that we didn't know how to work with non-queer clients).

I am not trying to minimize the issues facing the queer population. But what I am saying is that some of the people throwing stones here engage in their own discrimination against larger subpopulations of clients. I mentioned substance abuse because you noted earlier that a basic understanding of queer issues should not require any outside training in order to work with queer clients. Well, the population of clients with substance use disorders is larger than the queer population, so that training should (arguably) also be emphasized. One could also argue that providers refusing to see these addiction clients is an even bigger problem.

 

[erg923]

I guess this is dependent on the definition of "objection to homosexual acts". If you use this term to mean that you personally don't want to engage in them, then I see your point. That doesn't make you a bigot or anything.

If, however, this in any way means that you judge, or have any kind of issue with other people engaging in homosexual acts...sorry, you're probably a bigot.

Or it could mean you uphold the teachings of the Roman Catholic church? The term behaviors was used, not person. Think about it.

 

[smearedblackink]

.

 

[Qwerk]

I sort of see what you're saying. However, I would say that perhaps if its so important for this hypothetical anti-gay therapist to avoid catching the gay disease they should then choose to work in a large city where they have a referral base to work from, then your problem here is neatly solved.

On the other hand, lets say this anti-gay therapist instead insists on staying in a small community, and this therapist is agreeable to seeing patients on any emergency basis (of any kind), so they're not grossly negligent with their care provision.

Let's say this therapist is approached by some gay client with some existential issues, wants to work on personal growth, etc. - if that therapist doesn't want to work with that gay patient (I'm obviously playing devil's advocate here), then what's the problem? First, it's not an emergency issue. Second, that same client could easily seek out the many practicioners available online which grow in number day by day who would be happy to work with them.

It may be f****d up that such a practicioner would do such a thing, and online therapy has many drawbacks from live therapy, but given all of this, again, what would be the harm, and why shouldn't that person be allowed to hang up a shingle?

I agree that this professional would be doing the least harm possible, which leaves the question of whether doing a tiny amount of harm based on bias is okay. It makes me uncomfortable, but I admit that I can't imagine anyone being damaged by this perfectly competent professional. And I don't think I need to point out that this rarely happens in practice.

My issue with the Eastern Michigan University student was that she refused to work with a client in an educational setting. In essence, she was not only refusing to work with gay clients, but to learn how to work with gay clients. I see this as akin to refusing to complete a classroom assignment that deals with gay issues. Being a student is all about learning to deal with uncomfortable situations. She also seems to have been working in an agency, which means that she really should have abided by their rules. If she couldn't find a new placement setting that her school was willing to work with, that would have be no one's fault but her own.

(In addition, she said that she couldn't work with the client while "not affirming homosexual behavior as morally acceptable," which is all shades of wrong. Grrr.)

 

[Qwerk]

Of course it is an important issue. My program really emphasized working with queer clients (in fact, sometimes so much that we joked that we didn't know how to work with non-queer clients).

I am not trying to minimize the issues facing the queer population. But what I am saying is that some of the people throwing stones here engage in their own discrimination against larger subpopulations of clients. I mentioned substance abuse because you noted earlier that a basic understanding of queer issues should not require any outside training in order to work with queer clients. Well, the population of clients with substance use disorders is larger than the queer population, so that training should (arguably) also be emphasized. One could also argue that providers refusing to see these addiction clients is an even bigger problem.

It sounds like we pretty much agree -- that working with queer clients and working with substance-abusing clients are both important training topics, and that anyone who doesn't want to work with either of these populations out of personal animus has a huge competence problem. Does that sound about right?

 

[Qwerk]

Or it could mean you uphold the teachings of the Roman Catholic church? The term behaviors was used, not person. Think about it.

This smacks too much of "love the sinner, hate the sin," which has been used to justify all kinds of nonsense. Being gay usually means having gay sex. Having a problem with that = having a problem with homosexuality.

Anyway, setting aside the labeling issue (identifying or not identifying someone as a "bigot" is much less important than their actual behavior), do you think that a Roman Catholic clinician who follows to-the-letter the teachings of the church -- who believes that homosexual acts are wrong -- can still work competently with a gay client? I ask this because I know several devout Roman Catholic gays and a several Roman Catholic clinicians who have no problem working with gays.

 

[smearedblackink]

.

 

[erg923]

This smacks too much of "love the sinner, hate the sin," which has been used to justify all kinds of nonsense. Being gay usually means having gay sex. Having a problem with that = having a problem with homosexuality.

Sucks that it has misused. But, yes, that is what I'm saying.

Anyway, setting aside the labeling issue (identifying or not identifying someone as a "bigot" is much less important than their actual behavior), do you think that a Roman Catholic clinician who follows to-the-letter the teachings of the church -- who believes that homosexual acts are wrong -- can still work competently with a gay client? I ask this because I know several devout Roman Catholic gays and a several Roman Catholic clinicians who have no problem working with gays.

Yes.

 

[SmoothJams]

Captain obvious, is that you?

And, um, actually, we have both explained multiple times that it was an analogy, not a comparison. So, yes, give it a rest, pal.

PS: Morpheus is in charge. Ah, the 90's...

While your wit is wonderful, your constant condescension and snark to those you disagree with is tiresome. Just because it was an analogy doesn't make it correct. The only thing that needs to take a "rest" on this board is you and your constant need to demean.

 

[Pragma]

It sounds like we pretty much agree -- that working with queer clients and working with substance-abusing clients are both important training topics, and that anyone who doesn't want to work with either of these populations out of personal animus has a huge competence problem. Does that sound about right?

I think we agree on whether they are important topics, but really I only brought mine up as an example.

Personally, I am okay with people referring clients that they might have a problem treating, regardless of the reason for it. If they have a problem with drug addicts or queer folks, then those clients are better off being referred anyways. Same thing with other subpopulations that sometimes people are uncomfortable with.

I also know that, practically speaking, some psychologists pick exactly which clients they want to work with all the time. Some only practice with specialized populations (and then can avoid populations they don't like), and some refer clients who present with issues they do not want to deal with.

I am not 100% comfortable saying that having some kind of personal bias against a group and referring those cases means that a clinician is incompetent. They could be plenty competent to work with a lot of other people. I think if you want to call someone who refers out a gay client because of their personal bias incompetent, then you probably have to call any practioner that refers out for any other personal bias incompetent. If you start doing that, I think our "incompetent" psychologist numbers are going to skyrocket, because people do this a lot already. I don't necessarily think it is right.

 

[erg923]

While your wit is wonderful, your constant condescension and snark to those you disagree with is tiresome. Just because it was an analogy doesn't make it correct. The only thing that needs to take a "rest" on this board is you and your constant need to demean.

Yes master morpheous...

 

[G Costanza]

I keep hearing how if someone isn't comfortable working with an LGBT client they would just refer them. What happens when you have been seeing this client for 9 sessions and you build enough trust where they come out for the first time to anyone and they pick you? I've had that happen. So all of sudden I say, "Sorry we can't work together anymore." How does an anti-gay handle that? Think of the implications for rejecting that person in that moment of their life.