When is "pray away the gay" just advocating harm?

[futureapppsy2]

I start this thread with some trepidation, but I really am interested on hearing your thoughts...

Recently, someone (a licensed psychologist) responded to a "Happy Pride/let's discuss how LGBTQ+ issues relate to [subfield]" message on a psychology (APA division) listserv by emailing the people who sent LGBTQ-affirmative messages to the listserv a link to a "pray away the gay/pray away the trans-ness" article from an anti-LGBTQ lobbying group and a message that he and others believe that LGBTQ+ identities are mental illnesses and should be treated as such. The Division leadership heard about this and sent out a message reminding everyone of the official APA guidelines and stances on LGBTQ identities and clients, the history of the de-pathologizing of homosexuality, the negative mental health effects of homophobia/transphobia, and that the Division is supportive and welcoming of LGBTQ+ members and communities. Thoughts?

My take would be that sexual-orientation-change therapies have been shown to be both ineffective in changing orientation and very iatrogenic, that this is acknowledged by pretty much every major medical and psychological organization, and that an increasing number of states have banned the use of these therapies for minors, so at some point in becomes a matter of advocating for something that is a known, documented, and acknowledged harm versus just a difference of belief, but I admit that I'm heavily biased as a member of the LGBTQ+ community and someone who does LGBTQ+ research through an affirming lens.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MCParent]

Definitely advocating harm. The "treatments" are not effective (not that that is the important point) and actively cause severe harm to people.

There are other more interesting sides to this topic. E.g., what do you do with a gay man / lesbian woman couple who are coming to you for marriage counseling to help them navigate their relationship, which they see as essential to being able to maintain contact with the families (i.e., coming out would result in being totally disowned), who have each decided that they will prioritize their family relationships over having a sexual relationship, and who have no intention of trying to change their sexual orientations.

 

[WisNeuro]

Agree, advocating harm. We've been trying to get the conversion therapy ban for minors in our state for several years now as part of our state association legislative agenda. If our members don't like that, they're free to leave. As you stated @futureapppsy2 , the data are pretty compelling on the issue. It shouldn't be political, it should just be settled science. Luckily, this isn't an issue in which we've gotten pushback from members on. Our state's GOP led senate on the other hand...

 

[Mad Jack]

It's advocating for harm and against all professional standards. A person can believe what they want in their personal life, but when those beliefs harm patients they should be held accountable

 

[MCParent]

It's advocating for harm and against all professional standards. A person can believe what they want in their personal life, but when those beliefs harm patients they should be held accountable

And yet more of the more interesting stuff. How do programs manage trainees who believe something like being trans is a mental illness, but supposedly do not act on it. The implications of this stuff are super interesting (what do we do with trainees who are transphobic and just hide it bc they know their beliefs will be seen as aberrations? Are we inadvertently just letting those people slide through while holding those beliefs?)

 

[WisNeuro]

And yet more of the more interesting stuff. How do programs manage trainees who believe something like being trans is a mental illness, but supposedly do not act on it. The implications of this stuff are super interesting (what do we do with trainees who are transphobic and just hide it bc they know their beliefs will be seen as aberrations? Are we inadvertently just letting those people slide through while holding those beliefs?)

This one's tough, because we'd need to see direct actionable evidence that those beliefs impact their ability to deliver clinical care. This kind of gets into the thought police area. Essentially, if we're discussing passing/failing students through a training placement of some sort, my bar for failing a student includes being able document reasons for failure that I'm pretty certain would be easily upheld were my training program and/or myself sued for that students dismissal.

 

[foreverbull]

I’m surprised at the gall of someone to send a very anti-APA stance and anti-research message to folks in an APA division listserv that is purely based on religious teachings and historical prejudice. I don't think that ethnicity is equivalent, but for the sake of argument, imagine someone in an APA forum arguing that folks from X ethnicity are inherently inferior and should be treated as such (without alluding to the Bible, but it being clearly pulled from religious teachings). That would NOT fly, and neither should this. There is a large body of research that not only suggests that conversion therapy is harmful, but also that LGBTQ folks face higher rates of suicidality/attempts because of lack of acceptance/support (particularly in families, but certainly societiel lack of acceptance and discrimination also play a role in this as well).

At the risk of going off topic (and not to conflate sexual orientation with gender identity), there is a debate in the more extreme LGB community members wanting to drop the "T" from the community and arguing that trans-affirmative therapy is "conversion therapy" because in their minds, it "erases" possible LGBQ identity in favor of gender transition (i.e. refers to a few studies that suggest that the majority of children who have "gender concerns" will later identify as LGBQ and not have gender dysphoria later in life--these studies have methodological issues, however, so the topic is extremely nuanced, although this nuance is lost on the general public). For an interesting example, Iran is a very conservative country that supports gender transition and punishes/shuns same sex behavior/attraction. Some more extreme thinking LGBQ folks believe that the U.S. is moving too fast in encouraging transition instead of teaching kids that girls and boys can have a wide range of attractions and preferences. In their minds, "boy" and "girl" are being increasinly boxed into more rigid standards by telling kids who have both "masculine" and "feminine" traits that this must mean they are nonbinary or trans, rather than this being completely normal for many people beacause our personalities contain a lot of different traits that can be judged as "feminine" or "masculine."

Of course, the folks arguing that trans identity is erasing LGBQ identity also ignore the fact that folks who are gender nonbinary or transgender aren't always "straight" anyway--that there's still a fair amount of variability in sexual orientation within the trans and nonbinary community as well. I read the arguments on both sides as someone who is part of the LGBT community who has worked closely with several folks who identify as trans, and I am always leery of extreme arguments and how dangerous and reductionistic they are. That said, I'm in support of expanding what our society considers "appropriate" for boys and girls in terms of behaviors and preferences, while still holding that gender nonbinary and transgender identity can still exist even so--we can have both realities, and that's okay.

If this is too off topic, let me know and I"ll pop this into a new thread. The topic of conversion therapy reminded me of this debate.

 

[Mad Jack]

I’m surprised at the gall of someone to send a very anti-APA stance and anti-research message to folks in an APA division listserv that is purely based on religious teachings and historical prejudice. I don't think that ethnicity is equivalent, but for the sake of argument, imagine someone in an APA forum arguing that folks from X ethnicity are inherently inferior and should be treated as such (without alluding to the Bible, but it being clearly pulled from religious teachings). That would NOT fly, and neither should this. There is a large body of research that not only suggests that conversion therapy is harmful, but also that LGBTQ folks face higher rates of suicidality/attempts because of lack of acceptance/support (particularly in families, but certainly societiel lack of acceptance and discrimination also play a role in this as well).

At the risk of going off topic (and not to conflate sexual orientation with gender identity), there is a debate in the more extreme LGB community members wanting to drop the "T" from the community and arguing that trans-affirmative therapy is "conversion therapy" because in their minds, it "erases" possible LGBQ identity in favor of gender transition (i.e. refers to a few studies that suggest that the majority of children who have "gender concerns" will later identify as LGBQ and not have gender dysphoria later in life--these studies have methodological issues, however, so the topic is extremely nuanced, although this nuance is lost on the general public). For an interesting example, Iran is a very conservative country that supports gender transition and punishes/shuns same sex behavior/attraction. Some more extreme thinking LGBQ folks believe that the U.S. is moving too fast in encouraging transition instead of teaching kids that girls and boys can have a wide range of attractions and preferences. In their minds, "boy" and "girl" are being increasinly boxed into more rigid standards by telling kids who have both "masculine" and "feminine" traits that this must mean they are nonbinary or trans, rather than this being completely normal for many people beacause our personalities contain a lot of different traits that can be judged as "feminine" or "masculine."

Of course, the folks arguing that trans identity is erasing LGBQ identity also ignore the fact that folks who are gender nonbinary or transgender aren't always "straight" anyway--that there's still a fair amount of variability in sexual orientation within the trans and nonbinary community as well. I read the arguments on both sides as someone who is part of the LGBT community who has worked closely with several folks who identify as trans, and I am always leery of extreme arguments and how dangerous and reductionistic they are. That said, I'm in support of expanding what our society considers "appropriate" for boys and girls in terms of behaviors and preferences, while still holding that gender nonbinary and transgender identity can still exist even so--we can have both realities, and that's okay.

If this is too off topic, let me know and I"ll pop this into a new thread. The topic of conversion therapy reminded me of this debate.

I mean, it matters in the context of the discussion. It's a group of people advocating against the APA standards of care because of personal beliefs. Many of the "drop the T" types are often more conservative leaving white gay and bu men or TERF lesbians that seem to fear loss of their own privilege by the association with trans individuals with their cause. If being trans is a mental illness rather than a sexuality, the thought of these sorts goes, what place does it have with LGB? My argument is that any relationship with a trans person is going to be viewed by society at large as not straight no matter what the individual identifies as (a mtf dating a woman looks like a lesbian relationship to the public rather than a straight one more often than not, while mtf dating a man is typically viewed as gay) so they face many of the same discriminatory pressures regardless of their personal sexual identity, in addition to unique stressors brought on by being trans. This neglects the long and intertwined history of the trans community with the rest of the lesbian, gay, and bisexual community at large. Regardless of the reason these exclusionists feel the way they do, their views strike me as potentially damaging to patients if they can't separate them from the standards of care. I feel like most that I know in psychiatry, at least, do a good job of separating their personal beliefs from their treatment by allowing the patient's autonomy and beliefs, as well as the standards of care, to be the guiding force in treatment.

I gues tl;dr is that bigotry in the name of self interest is no different than bigotry in the name of religion in my book.

 

[MCParent]

imagine someone in an APA forum arguing that folks from X ethnicity are inherently inferior and should be treated as such

Yup, this has happened. Or licensed psychs saying similar on twitter or whatever.

My concern is that when the field swings to finding these things totally unacceptable in any form to the point of being unspeakable, its not like that eliminates the beliefs. It just drives them underground, never to be worked on in training or elsewhere and only to emerge later, after the person is licensed and ostensibly endorsed by the profession as qualified.

 

[foreverbull]

I mean, it matters in the context of the discussion. It's a group of people advocating against the APA standards of care because of personal beliefs. Many of the "drop the T" types are often more conservative leaving white gay and bu men or TERF lesbians that seem to fear loss of their own privilege by the association with trans individuals with their cause. If being trans is a mental illness rather than a sexuality, the thought of these sorts goes, what place does it have with LGB? My argument is that any relationship with a trans person is going to be viewed by society at large as not straight no matter what the individual identifies as (a mtf dating a woman looks like a lesbian relationship to the public rather than a straight one more often than not, while mtf dating a man is typically viewed as gay) so they face many of the same discriminatory pressures regardless of their personal sexual identity, in addition to unique stressors brought on by being trans. This neglects the long and intertwined history of the trans community with the rest of the lesbian, gay, and bisexual community at large. Regardless of the reason these exclusionists feel the way they do, their views strike me as potentially damaging to patients if they can't separate them from the standards of care. I feel like most that I know in psychiatry, at least, do a good job of separating their personal beliefs from their treatment by allowing the patient's autonomy and beliefs, as well as the standards of care, to be the guiding force in treatment.

I gues tl;dr is that bigotry in the name of self interest is no different than bigotry in the name of religion in my book.

Yes, I see your point and appreciate your thoughts on this. And completely agree that the real issue in all of this is whether folks can separate their personal beliefs from standards of care--absolutely. I think that begs the question how likely is it that someone is competent and well-trained in a particular area of care that completely contradicts their personal values? For example, is it likely that a psychologist would be competent to treat LGBT folks if they personally believe it's "wrong" or unnatural?" Is it just better to refer out?

I think in this forum, there are varying opinions on the degree to which we believe implicit bias will affect care, so this is a very interesting discussion.

 

[foreverbull]

Yup, this has happened. Or licensed psychs saying similar on twitter or whatever.

My concern is that when the field swings to finding these things totally unacceptable in any form to the point of being unspeakable, its not like that eliminates the beliefs. It just drives them underground, never to be worked on in training or elsewhere and only to emerge later, after the person is licensed and ostensibly endorsed by the profession as qualified.

Yes, I am reminded of my program choosing some folks who were from multicultural backgrounds/perspectives in some ways but then ended up expressing a particular "ism" view after they got into our program, which was completely incongruous with our program philosophy and foundation. How does a program handle something like this, I wonder? Any thoughts on effective ways to address "isms" in grad school?

We've talked before in SDN about how shaming is not useful in terms of teaching; I'd love to hear how programs handle this to prevent it getting to the level at which you describe--already a licensed psychologist who goes "underground" with their beliefs. And is there anything that can be done at this point if the view isn't considered "unspeakable" but can be talked about openly amongst psychologists?

Based on my observations from grad school, exposure to students from X background and developing friendships with them does help in some cases (i.e. peers interacting more with a person from X group that challenged stereotypes), but for some, that wasn't effective.

What do you think would be helpful?

 

[MiniLop]

And yet more of the more interesting stuff. How do programs manage trainees who believe something like being trans is a mental illness, but supposedly do not act on it. The implications of this stuff are super interesting (what do we do with trainees who are transphobic and just hide it bc they know their beliefs will be seen as aberrations? Are we inadvertently just letting those people slide through while holding those beliefs?)

This happened at my program. Long story short, it was handled badly by everyone on every side (there's a lot of room for nuance in the situation, but none was really allowed for by either side). The student ended up leaving the program.

 

[erg923]

Demi Lovato is....something? I heard? Sometimes I feel like a got my phd in 2011 and then woke up in a different world. Talk to me....

That said, I am seasoned enough to know that "conversion therapy" is nonsense and often harmful. I don't support any person advocating such a thing. Even most Catholic Christians do not support this kind of thing, And let's face it, beyond that its mostly just Baptists and the "Born Agains...."

 

[WisNeuro]

Demi Lovato is....something? I heard? Sometimes I feel like a got my phd in 2011 and then woke up in a different world. Talk to me....

That said, I am seasoned enough to know that "conversion therapy" is nonsense and often harmful. I don't support any person advocating such a thing. Even most Catholic Christians do not support this kind of thing, And let's face it, beyond that its mostly just Baptists and the "Born Agains...."

We've been fighting for statewide ban here for years, and we have a pretty low relative number of Baptists and born agains, I think you may be underestimating religious support for this.

 

[borne_before]

I think we need to be very clear about defining transphobia - there is a very real potential for creep. I've seen people online claiming that having a genital preference is transphobic...

 

[borne_before]

Yes, I am reminded of my program choosing some folks who were from multicultural backgrounds/perspectives in some ways but then ended up expressing a particular "ism" view after they got into our program, which was completely incongruous with our program philosophy and foundation. How does a program handle something like this, I wonder? Any thoughts on effective ways to address "isms" in grad school?

We've talked before in SDN about how shaming is not useful in terms of teaching; I'd love to hear how programs handle this to prevent it getting to the level at which you describe--already a licensed psychologist who goes "underground" with their beliefs. And is there anything that can be done at this point if the view isn't considered "unspeakable" but can be talked about openly amongst psychologists?

Based on my observations from grad school, exposure to students from X background and developing friendships with them does help in some cases (i.e. peers interacting more with a person from X group that challenged stereotypes), but for some, that wasn't effective.

What do you think would be helpful?

This is the classic postmodernist standoff. Whose identity exerts the most control and power in this situation.

I'm reminded about a colleague who is a faculty member at a program. The diversity course professor (who is black) assigned people to interview from oppressed groups. One of their students interviewed a white gay man who served during the don't ask don't tell days. The student was failed on the assignment because the gay service member was white. It's clear this faculty member was only looking at things through a racial lens.

 

[PsyDr]

Why is any psychologist advocating for praying anything? That's not in our professional scope.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

For those interested, a recent review (not mine):

APA PsycNet

psycnet.apa.org

It is clear, from the evidence, that conversion therapy does not work. It is pretty clear that it likely harms. On top of that, conversion (or reparative or whatever name they call it) therapy is, at its core, a poor treatment. It does not reflect the standards of practice, the science of mental health, or the rights of people.

Is the person sending the emails advocating harm? Based on the info, they are advocating using an ineffective method. They are advocating doing something that is not scientific. They also seem to not understand the science on sexual orientation. However, are they advocating harm (also, defining harm is tough and we probably don't want to go down that pathway)? To me, it seems like they are advocating ignorance that, in turn, could be harmful to some.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

My concern is that when the field swings to finding these things totally unacceptable in any form to the point of being unspeakable, its not like that eliminates the beliefs. It just drives them underground, never to be worked on in training or elsewhere and only to emerge later, after the person is licensed and ostensibly endorsed by the profession as qualified.

Beliefs also take a long time to change. As long as training programs (at all levels) talk about it, I think over time this will continue to become less prevalent.

I should also add that this becomes very tricky at the training level. Some states have specific legislation restricting dismissing students if they have a religious belief about homosexuality (or whatever else). Unfortunately, there will be plenty of mental health professionals across fields that have these discriminatory, outdated, non-scientific, and superstitious beliefs. But, hopefully it will continue to be less and less common.

 

[MCParent]

I should also add that this becomes very tricky at the training level. Some states have specific legislation restricting dismissing students if they have a religious belief about homosexuality (or whatever else). Unfortunately, there will be plenty of mental health professionals across fields that have these discriminatory, outdated, non-scientific, and superstitious beliefs. But, hopefully it will continue to be less and less common.

And may the Flying Spaghetti Monster help you if the conservative state legislate finds out about it, and tries to force “viewpoint diversity” (read: your program should mirror the US population, sure. Well, some Americans are white supremacists so you are now required to enroll 5 of them next year.”)

 

[WisNeuro]

And may the Flying Spaghetti Monster help you if the conservative state legislate finds out about it, and tries to force “viewpoint diversity” (read: your program should mirror the US population, sure. Well, some Americans are white supremacists so you are now required to enroll 5 of them next year.”)

R'amen

 

[futureapppsy2]

Definitely advocating harm. The "treatments" are not effective (not that that is the important point) and actively cause severe harm to people.

There are other more interesting sides to this topic. E.g., what do you do with a gay man / lesbian woman couple who are coming to you for marriage counseling to help them navigate their relationship, which they see as essential to being able to maintain contact with the families (i.e., coming out would result in being totally disowned), who have each decided that they will prioritize their family relationships over having a sexual relationship, and who have no intention of trying to change their sexual orientations.

I’m sorry this discriminatory thing that literally happened to me last week is boring to you.

 

[MCParent]

I’m sorry this discriminatory thing that literally happened to me last week is boring to you.

What did I say that indicated that it was boring? Yes, it is advocating harm. That's the question you asked. My point was that this specific issue is not localized to experiences on a list serve.

And do I need to break out my rainbow flag to prove that the same incident is also discriminatory to me?

 

[Grenth]

My program is graduating an international student this very year who has openly supported conversion therapy which is illegal in our state. Definitely not a Baptist or born again, just what is more accepted in their country of origin. This person also somehow just finished internship at a research heavy VA in a liberal city. The school just dismisses it as cultural differences and now it's probably less than a year before the person starts sending out conversion therapy supporting emails on LISTSERVs as a licensed psychologist. Maddening. No effective gatekeeping anywhere.

 

[bluecolourskies]

Harm or mental illness?

There is a considerable majority, and an entire Faith, in which anything outside of heterosexual norms are considered a sin. In that population, prayer and repentance is the only way to defeat sin. Prayer then is faith and hope. It is anything but harm.

I have listened to two speakers who, through prayer and repentance, have been able to abandon the sin of homosexuality. The act is the sin. The incohate urge is merely a yoke that through with prayer and absolute faith can also remedy.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with this school of thought. We're of course talking about Christians, yet many see "Christian" or "Christ" as among the most reprehensible of all nouns. A true Christian won't hate, and when they feel hate they'll pray and make effort to repent from that sin as they do all sins for Christians know they are sinners.

I don't know what Judaism teaches about it, and we know Muslims throw homosexuals off roofs. The various Eastern philosophies are all very foreign to me so I can't speak to that either.

I, personally, am a firm and devout believer in the presence of sin and believe transness, homosexuality, the various -philias, etc to all be sin. Many behaviors are sinful, and it's out of place of Christians to "cast stones" or practice hypocrisy. Perhaps conversion therapy should be better embraced?

There'll probably be hate and lashing out at this reply as well as a ban. This is all fine.

I think we just went over this, in that conversion therapy has harmful outcomes- and it doesn’t work. As a practitioner, I can’t recommend things that have been proven not to work.
And if your goal is to “cure” homosexuality, why would you also want to recommend something that has been shown not to work? Just for the heck of it?

 

[MCParent]

I, personally, am a firm and devout believer in the presence of sin and believe transness, homosexuality, the various -philias, etc to all be sin. Many behaviors are sinful, and it's out of place of Christians to "cast stones" or practice hypocrisy. Perhaps conversion therapy should be better embraced?

There'll probably be hate and lashing out at this reply as well as a ban. This is all fine.

posting about how your beliefs are inconsistent with science and every professional organization, and then trying to claim victimhood clout for it 🙄

A negative reaction to your stress at not being able to force others To comply with your personal religion is not “hate.”

 

[MiniLop]

posting about how your beliefs are inconsistent with science and every professional organization, and then trying to claim victimhood clout for it 🙄

A negative reaction to your stress at not being able to force others To comply with your personal religion is not “hate.”

Right, but they just said that they "listened to two speakers who, through prayer and repentance, have been able to abandon the sin of homosexuality [citation needed]". How can you argue against such ironclad, anecdotal evidence?

 

[MCParent]

Right, but they just said that they "listened to two speakers who, through prayer and repentance, have been able to abandon the sin of homosexuality [citation needed]". How can you argue against such ironclad, anecdotal evidence?

Speakers who I’m sure had zero financial stake in it…

 

[DownJonesIndustrial]

posting about how your beliefs are inconsistent with science and every professional organization, and then trying to claim victimhood clout for it 🙄

A negative reaction to your stress at not being able to force others To comply with your personal religion is not “hate.”

No, people like me aren't and won't ever be victims. Understand that. We also don't cry "hate." Rather, people say believers are hateful, lol. I think you had that backwards. If not, it's ok. Not everything is explained by science.

 

[DownJonesIndustrial]

Speakers who I’m sure had zero financial stake in it…

Who cares? You've got to make the inference that others through the history of time have done the same.

 

[WisNeuro]

No, people like me aren't and won't ever be victims. Understand that.

Well, one could argue about being a victim of dogmatic beliefs that have no empirical basis.

 

[DownJonesIndustrial]

Well, one could argue about being a victim of dogmatic beliefs that have no empirical basis.

I think the Bible is very empirical, yet this isn't what I came around to discuss. I made a statement supporting prayer and of course instead of attacking prayer you're attempting to negate an entire Faith.

 

[WisNeuro]

I think the Bible is very empirical, yet this isn't what I came around to discuss. I made a statement supporting prayer and of course instead of attacking prayer you're attempting to negate an entire Faith.

I wasn't talking about the bible, or god. I was talking about the belief that conversion "therapy" should be embraced. The evidence against it is pretty overwhelming. This isn't about "negating" an entire faith, or christians claiming victimhood at every turn. It's about some people advocating for a treatment that we know does not work, at best, and causes harm in many situations.

 

[MiniLop]

I think the Bible is very empirical, yet this isn't what I came around to discuss. I made a statement supporting prayer and of course instead of attacking prayer you're attempting to negate an entire Faith.

This is all irrelevant. You're arguing in support of a treatment approach that empirical research has repeatedly demonstrated to be ineffective and even harmful to patients (happy to provide citations if needed). It is unethical to conduct such a treatment, regardless of your religious beliefs. Just because you heard anecdotal evidence of the effectiveness of "praying the gay away," that is not enough to suggest that such an approach is effective. Your ethical obligations as a therapist trump your religious beliefs.

 

[MCParent]

Who cares? You've got to make the inference that others through the history of time have done the same.

Yup. They disclose it in the preamble to the presentation. I think the answer to the question of whether or not the people you are talking about did so is so trivially obvious it need not even be asked.

 

[Mama Bear]

I am a Christian who is LGBTQ friendly. I, too, have seen the speakers who have self-identified as no longer gay. Keep in mind it is a big, wide world out there, so encountering people out there with such an experience is not unusual (we also meet people who realize they are gay later in life). These experiences do not mean there is a structured way to change sexual orientation. Efforts to forcibly change sexual orientation (such as conversion therapy) do not work. That is science. Some people will say they are the exception. That is a part of life.

 

[borne_before]

Yup, this has happened. Or licensed psychs saying similar on twitter or whatever.

My concern is that when the field swings to finding these things totally unacceptable in any form to the point of being unspeakable, its not like that eliminates the beliefs. It just drives them underground, never to be worked on in training or elsewhere and only to emerge later, after the person is licensed and ostensibly endorsed by the profession as qualified.

The way a lot of the postmodernist/grievance studies stuff is discussed is just as dogmatic as the religions. I am reminded of the following: such discussions give people the superficial sense of being good, noble, compassionate, openhearted, and wise. So, if for the sake of argument anyone disagrees, how could that person join the discussion without being considered anticompassionate, narrow minded, racist and wicked?

Is it any wonder why people head underground in the anti discourse climate the academic left has cultivated? Less they be slandered. Hence the dogma.

 

[borne_before]

I am a Christian who is LGBTQ friendly. I, too, have seen the speakers who have self-identified as no longer gay. Keep in mind it is a big, wide world out there, so encountering people out there with such an experience is not unusual (we also meet people who realize they are gay later in life). These experiences do not mean there is a structured way to change sexual orientation. Efforts to forcibly change sexual orientation (such as conversion therapy) do not work. That is science. Some people will say they are the exception. That is a part of life.

C'mon guys. There are tons of dudes who do gay things in prison and don't when they're out.

 

[MCParent]

The way a lot of the postmodernist/grievance studies stuff is discussed is just as dogmatic as the religions. I am reminded of the following: such discussions give people the superficial sense of being good, noble, compassionate, openhearted, and wise. So, if for the sake of argument anyone disagrees, how could that person join the discussion without being considered anticompassionate, narrow minded, racist and wicked?

Is it any wonder why people head underground in the anti discourse climate the academic left has cultivated? Less they be slandered. Hence the dogma.

I don’t disagree about the potential for dogmatism on any side but there is a substantial and practical difference between being reminded to use the right pronouns and being told be the government that you are not allowed to marry the person you choose.

 

[MCParent]

I am a Christian who is LGBTQ friendly. I, too, have seen the speakers who have self-identified as no longer gay. Keep in mind it is a big, wide world out there, so encountering people out there with such an experience is not unusual (we also meet people who realize they are gay later in life). These experiences do not mean there is a structured way to change sexual orientation. Efforts to forcibly change sexual orientation (such as conversion therapy) do not work. That is science. Some people will say they are the exception. That is a part of life.

Behavior can certainly be changed. Obviously the world is filled with people who are gay and have never so much as kissed a person of the same sex. And, straight porn stars and such engage in same-sex activities as part of their jobs. So sure. Its a much different convo when the behavior change is compelled and maintained under duress or with the endorsement of a supposed mental health practitioner.

 

[foreverbull]

If we live in a multicultural world and are multiculturally-trained, why would folks enter the profession of counseling/clinical psychology without embracing multiculturalism in all of its forms? This is genuinely perplexing to me. I do not understand the motivation here to enter our field if someone strongly believes that X population is somehow sinful, inferior, or just plain wrong as a group but then will probably go on to encounter/treat some of them in practice.

We don’t always agree with clients, but there’s a difference between believing that they’ve made a poor choice and believing that their identity either doesn’t exist or that they are constantly failing to live appropriately by dating someone of the same sex, or deciding to transition if they are trans. Seeing someone’s identity as wrong (or inherently inferior) is a completely different ballgame and is more dangerous as clinicians to hold as we treat others, especially because we likely can’t completely avoid treating someone who eventually identifies or does identify as LGBTQ or from whatever population we have negative beliefs about. I question whether we can truly keep these ironclad beliefs under wraps enough to not affect treatment in any way, shape, or form.

And regarding the idea of lack of discourse pushing people with these beliefs underground, I wonder about their openness to change or feedback anyway. If this thread is any indication, some folks’ beliefs are pretty solidified and there’s probably not much if any interest in a real dialogue for understanding—it’s more about sharing one’s opinion if we go back to the original issue in this thread regarding APA. We can’t always assume that everyone who holds these beliefs WANTS to change and are just waiting for the perfect argument from someone else to blow their minds….

 

[PsyDr]

And regarding the idea of lack of discourse pushing people with these beliefs underground....

Some ideas are bad. Our society allows us to tell people that an idea is bad (e.g., warning labels). Regardless, people are generally free to believe whatever they want.

Which is why the FDA has to tell people something like, "don't drink bleach. It will not cure autism."

 

[MCParent]

If we live in a multicultural world and are multiculturally-trained, why would folks enter the profession of counseling/clinical psychology without embracing multiculturalism in all of its forms?

I bet they think they do. I'd bet money that ultra-bigots would score super high on measures of how multiculturally aware they think they are. Look at the poster above, who is deeply offended at how awful and bigoted the world is for not letting them force everyone else to comply with their religion.

We paint ourselves into a bad spot in training if we simultaneously state that we all have biases (which I agree with) and then refuse to openly discuss/process some of those. All we'd do by requiring "embracing mc in all its forms" is push people to avoid acknowledging and working on biases. Process, not end point.

 

[WisNeuro]

I bet they think they do. I'd bet money that ultra-bigots would score super high on measures of how multiculturally aware they think they are. Look at the poster above, who is deeply offended at how awful and bigoted the world is for not letting them force everyone else to comply with their religion.

We paint ourselves into a bad spot in training if we simultaneously state that we all have biases (which I agree with) and then refuse to openly discuss/process some of those. All we'd do by requiring "embracing mc in all its forms" is push people to avoid acknowledging and working on biases. Process, not end point.

Probably a good topic for a separate thread. I think one issue is how we conceptualize multi-culturally aware, as it's a vastly broad topic, with varying degrees of empiricism behind it. I also think the "discussion/processing" is done in a wide variety of ways, some good,some bad. I've been in some great discussions on this topic, but I've also been in some terrible "discussions" that were more along the lines of "you're going to sit there and listen about how terrible you are." At an old training site, I had near universal feedback from trainees who attended a full day diversity training in which they said they just didn't say anything as the tone was set pretty early that there was really no room for error in discussion. I would think a good discussion could be had about how to actually engage in discussion on these topics where you can get people engaged and involved in the discussion, rather than shutting down.

 

[Shiori]

Summary: Do no harm. 🤸‍♀️

 

[Sanman]

Why is any psychologist advocating for praying anything? That's not in our professional scope.

This. Conversion therapy is not an EBP or standard of care. Beyond that, I am not really for managing personal beliefs as long as the person can practice healthy boundaries. This is why I prefer to stay neutral on many political or social justice issues...what causes harm can differ based on the person sitting in front of you.

 

[Fan_of_Meehl]

This. Conversion therapy is not an EBP or standard of care. Beyond that, I am not really for managing personal beliefs as long as the person can practice healthy boundaries. This is why I prefer to stay neutral on many political or social justice issues...what causes harm can differ based on the person sitting in front of you.

Where things REALLY get interesting is for the folks calling themselves 'clinical chaplains' or pastoral counselors.

As a psychologist, I don't prescribe medications, service dogs, marijuana, or religious creeds.

 

[borne_before]

Where things REALLY get interesting is for the folks calling themselves 'clinical chaplains' or pastoral counselors.

As a psychologist, I don't prescribe medications, service dogs, marijuana, or religious creeds.

Aww man, I was looking for someone to help my dog fly free, get me high, and help me find or not find god.

 

[MiniLop]

Aww man, I was looking for someone to help my dog fly free, get me high, and help me find or not find god.

That's what life coaches are for.

 

[Sanman]

Aww man, I was looking for someone to help my dog fly free, get me high, and help me find or not find god.

For $400/hr cash I am happy to help you find god. Have you checked under the couch cushions?