PFOX Mad About Committe Recommendation
As expected, PFOX is upset about the citizens advisory committee's vote to recommend the inclusion of medical and scientific organizations' statements about sexual orientation in the Montgomery County, Maryland, public schools' sex-ed curriculum. Not quite so expected, their venom is directed personally toward David Fishback, who is not a member of the committee that proposed the wording, either this time or in 2007 when it was first approved.
PFOX posted a statement on their blog and Ruth Jacobs, president of the Citizens for Responsible Whatever, copied-and-pasted it into an email blast to her group. They don't call it the "echo chamber" for nothing.
As they always do, PFOX -- Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays -- twists the whole thing into an attack on "ex-gays" by liberals. They wrote:
You can scroll down this blog or CLICK HERE to read the five statements. If you do, you will notice that none of the statements advocated by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the citizens advisory committee say anything about "former homosexuals" or "ex-gays." So it will be interesting to see how PFOX turns this around to be about themselves.
And then they link to two documents they and related organizations have produced, saying bad things about David Fishback.
First of all, PFLAG does not "actively support hate against the ex-gay community". PFLAG provides support for parents and friends of gays and lesbians. They don't have anything at all to do with ex-gays, and do not "support hate" for anybody.
Because really, if somebody used to be gay and now they aren't, they are straight, right? Isn't that what "ex-gay" means? And why do straight people need an advocacy group? I am pretty sure PFLAG has not taken up that cause! Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays and Straights ...? No, I don't think so.
Second, David Fishback is not a "discredited" anything. He chaired a citizens advisory committee that developed a comprehensive sex-ed curriculum for our county. The school district in the end decided not to adopt the curriculum as part of a legal deal to prevent a lawsuit, and also reformed the committee with all new members, including its chair, in accordance with the same settlement agreement. The curriculum was not "illegal" in any sense whatsoever. PFOX and other nutty groups won a temporary restraining order against implementation of the curriculum, and the school district bargained with them to prevent a lawsuit, so they could move forward improving the curriculum.
Third, it is ludicrous for PFOX to say that Fishback cost the county $36,000 in legal fees, when they themselves were the suers.
Fishback's groundbreaking work on the sex-ed curriculum allowed the school district to develop another new curriculum which was even more progressive and approached issues of sexual orientation and gender identity squarely and fairly -- and PFOX wasted the county's money trying to block that curriculum too!
The PFOX blog goes on to say:
The current citizens committee does not have representatives of organizations on it. Peter Sprigg is there as an individual. Sprigg is actually a high-ranking official with the hate group Family Research Council, and it is not clear why the Montgomery County Public School District has put him on the committee at all.
Research has not found that people can change their sexual orientation through therapy, prayer, or choice, and the statements recommended by the citizens advisory committee reflect these findings, as they are expressed by official policy statements by the American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association, and other mainstream professional organizations. The research results contradict the perverse ideology of groups like PFOX and the Family Research Council, and so they oppose including it in school materials. I expect there will be more here.
PFOX posted a statement on their blog and Ruth Jacobs, president of the Citizens for Responsible Whatever, copied-and-pasted it into an email blast to her group. They don't call it the "echo chamber" for nothing.
As they always do, PFOX -- Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays -- twists the whole thing into an attack on "ex-gays" by liberals. They wrote:
On April 13, MCPS’ Citizens Advisory Committee on Family Life and Human Development (Committee) voted to recommend to the Board of Education (School Board) that it include five statements about homosexuality in school lessons. One statement attacks the right of individuals with unwanted same-sex attractions to seek therapy to overcome those attractions, while the other statements praise homosexuals as “successful parents” with children who “do just as well as those raised by heterosexuals,” and tell students that “homosexuals can live happy, successful lives.” Montgomery County, Maryland School Board Urged to Reject Hateful Statements about Former Homosexuals
You can scroll down this blog or CLICK HERE to read the five statements. If you do, you will notice that none of the statements advocated by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the citizens advisory committee say anything about "former homosexuals" or "ex-gays." So it will be interesting to see how PFOX turns this around to be about themselves.
The initiative for the statements appears to come from David Fishback, the Advocacy Chair of Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), which actively supports hate against the ex-gay community. Fishback is the discredited chairman of an earlier Committee which had drafted controversial lessons on homosexuality and condom use that the School Board threw out after a federal court ruling in a lawsuit brought by PFOX. The School Board’s attorneys at that time had reviewed and rejected the statements. Fishback’s illegal curriculum cost Montgomery County taxpayers over $36,000 in legal fees. Fishback has a long history of ex-gay bashing...
And then they link to two documents they and related organizations have produced, saying bad things about David Fishback.
First of all, PFLAG does not "actively support hate against the ex-gay community". PFLAG provides support for parents and friends of gays and lesbians. They don't have anything at all to do with ex-gays, and do not "support hate" for anybody.
Because really, if somebody used to be gay and now they aren't, they are straight, right? Isn't that what "ex-gay" means? And why do straight people need an advocacy group? I am pretty sure PFLAG has not taken up that cause! Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays and Straights ...? No, I don't think so.
Second, David Fishback is not a "discredited" anything. He chaired a citizens advisory committee that developed a comprehensive sex-ed curriculum for our county. The school district in the end decided not to adopt the curriculum as part of a legal deal to prevent a lawsuit, and also reformed the committee with all new members, including its chair, in accordance with the same settlement agreement. The curriculum was not "illegal" in any sense whatsoever. PFOX and other nutty groups won a temporary restraining order against implementation of the curriculum, and the school district bargained with them to prevent a lawsuit, so they could move forward improving the curriculum.
Third, it is ludicrous for PFOX to say that Fishback cost the county $36,000 in legal fees, when they themselves were the suers.
Fishback's groundbreaking work on the sex-ed curriculum allowed the school district to develop another new curriculum which was even more progressive and approached issues of sexual orientation and gender identity squarely and fairly -- and PFOX wasted the county's money trying to block that curriculum too!
The PFOX blog goes on to say:
Peter Sprigg, a PFOX Board member who has represented PFOX on the Committee since 2005, responded with peer-reviewed academic research confirming that some people have changed from homosexual to heterosexual, including a well-known study by Dr. Robert Spitzer, a pro-gay psychiatrist who was instrumental in removing homosexuality from the official list of mental disorders in 1973. Yet the Committee refused to retract the statement attacking the right of individuals with unwanted same-sex attractions to seek therapy, although it eliminated the implication that people can never change their sexual orientation.
Said Sprigg:“PFOX will continue to defend the rights and dignity of ex-gays and oppose efforts to mislead students into the false belief that sexual orientation is fixed and immutable. It is disgraceful for pediatricians to make bigoted statements against the ex-gay community. If Montgomery County Public Schools seek to protect the rights and interests of sexual minorities, those protections should be extended to ex-gays as well. This attack proves that ex-gays must be included in the schools’ tolerance curriculum and we urge the Board of Education to do so immediately.”
The current citizens committee does not have representatives of organizations on it. Peter Sprigg is there as an individual. Sprigg is actually a high-ranking official with the hate group Family Research Council, and it is not clear why the Montgomery County Public School District has put him on the committee at all.
Research has not found that people can change their sexual orientation through therapy, prayer, or choice, and the statements recommended by the citizens advisory committee reflect these findings, as they are expressed by official policy statements by the American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association, and other mainstream professional organizations. The research results contradict the perverse ideology of groups like PFOX and the Family Research Council, and so they oppose including it in school materials. I expect there will be more here.
posted by JimK at 4:22 PM
40 Comments:
Spitzer's committee was also instrumental in including "ego-dystonic homosexuality" in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual", enabling "reparative therapists" to charge insurance companies for their services, and permitting the "ex-gay" movement to claim that the APA endorsed their claims. Spitzer was not a "pro-homosexual" psychiatrist who became convinced of the legitimacy of ex-gay theory: he not only drank the koolaid early on, but helped to stir it up. Although groups such as PFOX quote Spitzer to the point that one would think that his was the only peer-reviewed study backing up their theories (it was), but also to the point that he himself has disowned them, and says they misuse his study.
Isn't Sprigg the guy who thinks we should be deported?
rrjr
"Research has not found that people can change their sexual orientation through therapy, prayer, or choice, and the statements recommended by the citizens advisory committee reflect these findings, as they are expressed by official policy statements by the American Medical Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Association, and other mainstream professional organizations."
nice piece of disinformation, Jim
those organizations don't say that deviant sexual preference can't be corrected
they simply haven't found a method that works reliably well in a clinical setting yet
no scientific reason to abandon hope that it will be cured someday
only political reasons
It's so simple and natural NOT to be gay...no therapy is even needed!
"as they are expressed by official policy statements"
policy statements are political
scientific papers are scientific
the latter is appropriate for education
Research has not found that people can change their sexual orientation through therapy, prayer, or choice,..
Since no is born gay, then there are a lot of heterosexuals who turned gay out there! Bisexuals change their sexual orientation all the time.
Spitzer even said that he doubts the findings of his original study. He couldn't find subjects and had to have subjects referred to him from an ex-gay group.
"Spitzer said that he now believes that some of those he interviewed for his study may have been either lying to him or themselves. - Ex-Gays Seek a Say in Schools, Los Angeles Times, May 28, 2006"
Some people are born gay but no one is born ignorant. I see Sprigg is busy trying to cause havoc here.
speaking of Sprigg, if he makes noise about the "dangers of homosexuality," I would suggest that you bring attention to his habit of creating anti-gay pamphlets by distorting pro-gay information like he did in this example - 'Top Ten Myths About Homosexuality' is a huge homophobic fraud - http://holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.com/2010/07/top-ten-myths-about-homosexuality-is.html
"Spitzer said that he now believes that some of those he interviewed for his study may have been either lying to him or themselves."
Oh, I see. They're gay but they don't know it. They're just deceiving themselves.
Isn't this the reason all this research, including that which supports the gay agenda, is not valid science. It relies on subjective reporting of individual subjects.
"WASHINGTON -- After 26 months in office, President Obama still has not forged a smoothly working national security team that can both nimbly pounce on military crises and deftly manage festering problems, say current and former U.S. officials.
The problem lies in the friction between civilians working in the White House and military officers and Defense Department civilians working across the Potomac River in the Pentagon. Senior officials describe the predicament as a "culture clash." The miscommunications and misunderstandings between the groups cause frustration and anger, which leads to policy paralysis, officials say.
One recent example of this dynamic at work is the Obama administration's tentative, half-assed intervention in the Libyan uprising.
"It's a mess," lamented a senior U.S. official. Washington took the bold step of committing military force, but not enough to win. The administration waited to apply very limited military force until it was almost too late, and now, the official says, it has painted the U.S. "into a corner." In the resulting stalemate, Libyan rebels and civilians are being ruthlessly pursued and killed while the United States, in effect, stands helplessly by."
Yes Robert.
Peter Sprigg has quite a track record of making hateful comments about LGBTs. Sometimes he even apologizes for making them.
On March 19, 2008, Peter Sprigg said:
“I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than to import them into the United States, because we believe that homosexuality is destructive to society.”
Hear him say it at 1:37 on the large top video here.
On March 27, 2008, Peter apologized because he:
"used language that trivialized the seriousness of the issue and did not communicate respect for the essential dignity of every human as a person created in the image of God.".
Read his apology yourself on FRC's blog here.
On February 2, 2010:
Peter Sprigg said Lawrence v. Texas was wrongly decided and that he' like to "criminalize homosexual behavior."
Watch and hear him say that on Hardball with Chris Matthews near the end of this video.
And for those Vigilance readers who are interested in Dr. Spitzer's own account about how the results of his study have been misused by right wing groups, how hard it was for him to find 200 people who claimed to be ex-gay, and how rare is it for anyone to be able to change their sexual orientation, you can hear him discuss all that himself at this video.
Try to stay on subject. The fact of the matter is that Spitzer's study was faulty and he admitted it. So to use it to justify the ex-gay cause is inaccurate.
the fault of Spitzer's study is only the fault of every study in the field of sexuality: it relies on subjective interviews with the studied individuals and treats them as fact
sexuality is fluid and people can change preferences as is attested to by the fact that many more people report being bi than gay
something gay advocates ignore by simply putting those people in a third category
and then there are the majority of those who call themselves exclusively gay but admit to had have heterosexual experiences
admit it, the associations have simply made political statements in service of the gay agenda
and Obama has made a mess of foreign policy
now go play your harmonica, Alvin
Bea -- Haven't you sold your computer yet -- the homeless children need the money.
Get back to work, Wyatt.
Sprigg's FRC would have contributed to needy children but they spent millions of dollars on politics, supporting Prop H8 instead.
FRC is a hate group and Peter Sprigg is a Vice President there.
Being ex-gay is like being ex-mafia. They won't let you leave.
"Because really, if somebody used to be gay and now they aren't, they are straight, right? Isn't that what "ex-gay" means? And why do straight people need an advocacy group?"
well, because these particular straight people are harassed and persecuted by lunatic fringe gay advocates because their story is inconvenient to the gay agenda
lots of straights have advocacy groups
depends on what else defines their particular circumstances
it's an inconvenient truth
Hilarious anonymous. You don't have a suitable answer so you deflect. Totally disrespectful to the subject of the blog and owners of the blog. But par for the course for you my friend ;p
BUT back to the subject - its a clear pathetic attempt by Sprigg and PFOX to undermine these statements. TRULY pathetic from a man who has less credibility than a corpse.
This particular case reveals the real mission of the so-called "ex-gay groups." They are employed to undermine pro-lgbt initiatives. If they are truly no longer gay, then this situation has nothing to do with them.
If the harassment is as you say, anonymous, where is the proof of this? Better yet, why don't a bunch of them get together and hold a march or a press conference detailing these things.
You and I both know that this will not happen because these folks are fakers - bought and paid for by religious right groups.
there are no "fakes", Alvin
the reason you say these people can't be found is because no define them too narrowly
the only proof you will accept is if an exclusive gay becomes and exclusive straight, defined in subjective terms of attraction
but things really aren't that simple, are they?
it's likely that once an individual has engaged in some type of sexuality, they will always have some level of temptation, not because Lady Gaga says they were born that way but because it's part of their experience
so even if such a person were to become comfortable with a heterosexual relationship, you'd say they were actually just bi
and then there are those who claim exclusive homosexual attraction but who say they have had heterosexual activity
they probably experience heterosexual attraction at times but won't admit it
who can say? it's all subjective
you know that but can't admit because that would destroy the whole gay agenda that treats homosexuality as a physical charactersistic
Anonymous, you are babbling. I'm disappointed that I was able to reduce you to that so quickly.
interesting argument, Alvin
guess this is just your way of conceding that your position makes no sense
to recap:
when polls show that the minority that calls themself bi is multiple times the minority who call themself gay and when polls show that most of the minority who say they are gay also say they have had heterosexual experiences, it's nonsense to say that no one could ever change
"studies" that "prove" this are based on subjective reporting by the person being studied
furthermore, anytime someone does change, lunatic fringe gay advocates simply say those people were bi all along
it's a non-verifiable hypothesis because the second a case proves it, the case doesn't qualify, by definition
this why these political statements by associations weren't included by MCPS before and why they shouldn't now
"A Virginia board late on Wednesday decided against a proposed gay-inclusive adoption policy.
The State Board of Social Services voted 7 to 2 in favor of keeping its current policy that only allows married couples and single folks to adopt a child. Gay and lesbian couples are excluded because they are unable to marry in the state. The new policy would have prohibited private adoption agencies from discrimination based on sexual orientation, disability or family status."
"policy statements are political
scientific papers are scientific"
FRC conducts no scientific research. Every paper Peter Sprigg has written for them is political. The only *science* Sprigg has studied and practices is *political* science.
""Spitzer said that he now believes that some of those he interviewed for his study may have been either lying to him or themselves."
Oh, I see. They're gay but they don't know it. They're just deceiving themselves."
Oh they know they're gay all right, but they also know they can't get guilt-tripping religious gays and their parents to pay them money to convert their gay self or child to straight unless these guilt ridden people believe such change is possible. That's why these therapists would be willing lie about having made the change themselves. The honest ones admit that inside they know they are still gay. They have simply decided to end their self-loathing guilt by living in the closet.
Dr. Spitzer reported it took him over two years to find 200 people who claimed they were ex-gay to be the research subjects in his study. Dr. Spitzer said most of his research subjects were "highly motivated" to be in this study and many were reparative therapists.
For those who want to read a scientific paper about reparative therapy, try Shidlo and Schroeder's 2002 paper Changing sexual orientation: A consumers' report, which nowadays costs $11.95 to read. The abstract reads in part:
"...In this study, 202 consumers of sexual orientation conversion interventions were interviewed to answer these questions. The results indicated that a majority failed to change sexual orientation, and many reported that they associated harm with conversion interventions. A minority reported feeling helped, although not necessarily with their original goal of changing sexual orientation..."
In 2007, I published the findings from Shidlo and Schroeder's paper on this thread, back before Blogger imposed a limit on the size of a comment. It's long and accessible at the above link, where you'll have to scroll approximately halfway down to find it.
Shidlo and Schroeder found various types of harm were experienced by those who attempted to change their sexual orientation including psychological harm, social and interpersonal harm, and spiritual harm. In 2005, the WashTimes reported "...researchers Ariel Shidlo and Michael Schroeder recruited 182 men and 20 women for a study on the negative effects of reparative therapy. They found that 176 subjects said reparative therapy was harmful, while 26 said it was successful."
PFOX is wrong to ask gays to risk suffering these harms for the "rare" chance that they will be able to successfully make a change in their sexual orientation. Just think of trying to change your sexual orientation right now, how likely does that seem to you?
MCPS is correct to not risk the well-being of our LGBT students by exposing them to this harmful therapy that, according to Shidlo and Schroeder's research, has the most likely outcome of causing psychological, social, interpersonal, and/or spiritual harm to those who attempt it.
"FRC conducts no scientific research. Every paper Peter Sprigg has written for them is political. The only *science* Sprigg has studied and practices is *political* science."
So what? They aren't recommending changes to the curriculum. Lunatic fringe gay advocates are.
"Oh they know they're gay all right, but they also know they can't get guilt-tripping religious gays and their parents to pay them money to convert their gay self or child to straight unless these guilt ridden people believe such change is possible. That's why these therapists would be willing lie about having made the change themselves."
And you developed the ability to read minds, when?
"Dr. Spitzer reported it took him over two years to find 200 people who claimed they were ex-gay to be the research subjects in his study."
Since ex-gay is being defined as never experiencing any level of same-sex attraction, that's not surprising.
But the fact that gay advovcates want to obscure is that people who think they are exclusively gay can develop the capacity for completely fulfilling heterosexual relationships.
Of course, then they'd be called bi by gay advocates but it's not really a significant distinction if they enter into a monogamous relationship with a life-long commitment.
And the statements made by these associations are disingenuous, not belonging in a curriculum.
"Dr. Spitzer said most of his research subjects were "highly motivated" to be in this study."
Most people would be motivated, if the "experts" said their life story is a lie, to prove the "experts" are wrong.
"PFOX is wrong to ask gays to risk suffering these harms for the "rare" chance that they will be able to successfully make a change in their sexual orientation."
PFOX doesn't ask them to do anything. It fights the misinformation that it is impossible to make any type of change.
"Just think of trying to change your sexual orientation right now, how likely does that seem to you?"
Those inflicted with deviant sexual attraction often think it is worth it. It's a free country.
"MCPS is correct to not risk the well-being of our LGBT students by exposing them to this harmful therapy"
MCPS needs to stop acting like Big Brother and allow people the right of self-determination.
"that, according to Shidlo and Schroeder's research, has the most likely outcome of causing psychological, social, interpersonal, and/or spiritual harm to those who attempt it"
Notable that the harm inflicted is not specified. Stress and feeling uncomfortable and being shunned by your gay friends is often a risk some are willing to take.
Calling things like that harm is really pushing it. Any self-help type of program has similar risks of "harm" associated with it.
Kids have a right to make their own decisions without MCPS trying to filter information to manipulate them.
The final word in subjective experiences is religion. That's what makes "creation science" so funny.
Right, Robert. You equate religion with gay. Just as we've always suspected....ho ho!
1. Why would gays who like who they are care about another gay who decides that he/she doesn't like who they are and then does something about it. No one has a right to tell another person what to think and do.Could it be they are jealous? Or misery loves company?
2. Why is it the gays try and talk about the fake harm of changing when the CDC talks about the real harm in MSM behavior?
3. Gays need to get a life. They can't fool the public for long. All their double-talk is wearing thin with the public.
"The final word in subjective experiences is religion."
yes, the core of the religious experience is subjective because you experience it on a personal level
but religious people only advocate teaching historical accounts from religious texts in school when there are facts to back it up, such as the big bang or the fossil record or the complexity of life forms
gays want their subjective experience validated by schools with no facts to back them up
Nonsense. Teaching religion in school doesn't come from a basis in science, but a basis in religious belief.
I'll admit that my support of schools teaching that queer people are alright comes not from a study of science, but from a belief that queer people are, in fact, alright. Doesn't your opposition from from a basically differing belief? Seems so from your comments.
Happy Earth Day Watch it full screen
"I'll admit that my support of schools teaching that queer people are alright comes not from a study of science, but from a belief that queer people are, in fact, alright. Doesn't your opposition from from a basically differing belief? Seems so from your comments."
thanks for admitting that, Robert
all we're saying is that public schools shouldn't make a value judgement about homosexuality
I disagree. Public schools should discourage the devaluement of lgbt people.
how about lgbt behavior, Robert?
if whether homosexual is wrong is a religious question, why should the public schools have a position?
we need to eliminate public schools and replace them with vouchers to prevent these types of conflicts
the founding fathers never meant to remove religion from schools
at the time, public schools weren't common
if we did this, gays wouldn't be teaching our kids and pushing the gay agenda and worldview on the next generation
Name a gay teacher who is teaching our kids and pushing a gay agenda in MCPS.
Every teacher who is teaching the MCPS health ed curriculum is promoting the gay agenda.
And whether the teacher is gay is irrelevant. If he or she is teaching the gay agenda, then they might as well be gay for all intents and purposes.
gay teachers and friends of gay teachers were responsible for pushing the MCPS gay curriculum
parents didn't intitiate it
"A bill that would prohibit teachers from discussing homosexuality in the classroom has advanced in Tennessee's Senate.
Sponsored by state Sen. Stacey Campfield (R), who unsuccessfully pushed the same measure for six years while serving in the House, the so-called "Don't Say Gay" bill would make it illegal for educators to discuss any sexual behavior apart from heterosexuality."
If I just close my eyes and hold my breath and wish real hard, it'll go away!
Post a Comment
<< Home