Vigilance

What, Me Worry?

noreply@blogger.com (JimK) — Mon, 28 May 2012 14:59:00 +0000

This is different from most of the stuff on this blog, but I just followed a Twitter link to an article at the University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory web site that deserves a little notice.

Maybe you have been following these developments more than I have. I am a bit of a geek, I once worked out public key encryption with pencil and paper to understand how it worked but I am no expert on security nor do I follow the news or freak out over every little thing.

But I did not like the sound of this paragraph in the middle of the page:

Claims were made by the intelligence agencies around the world, from MI5, NSA and IARPA, that silicon chips could be infected. We developed breakthrough silicon chip scanning technology to investigate these claims. We chose an American military chip that is highly secure with sophisticated encryption standard, manufactured in China. Our aim was to perform advanced code breaking and to see if there were any unexpected features on the chip. We scanned the silicon chip in an affordable time and found a previously unknown backdoor inserted by the manufacturer. This backdoor has a key, which we were able to extract. If you use this key you can disable the chip or reprogram it at will, even if locked by the user with their own key. This particular chip is prevalent in many systems from weapons, nuclear power plants to public transport. In other words, this backdoor access could be turned into an advanced Stuxnet weapon to attack potentially millions of systems. The scale and range of possible attacks has huge implications for National Security and public infrastructure.

So the US bought microchips from China to use in our most sensitive military and industrial applications, and China put a feature on the chip that will allow them to disable or reprogram our weapons, nuclear power plants, and public transportation systems.

Aw, probably no big deal.

Black Americans Shifting on Marriage For Gays

noreply@blogger.com (JimK) — Thu, 24 May 2012 13:40:00 +0000

Many observers thought that Obama's endorsement of marriage equality this month was unnecessarily risky in an election year. Analysts looked at public opinion in important swing states and worried that he would alienate the voters he needed the most.

But the public in not an inert lump. The public is fully able to change its opinion in response to leadership. And it is presently appearing that the consequences of Obama's bold statement are positive. Here's Huffington Post:

The expected backlash among blacks to President Obama’s endorsement of same-sex marriage has yet to materialize. And a new Washington Post-ABC survey suggests that black opinion is very quickly moving the other way, with a majority of African Americans now saying they support same-sex marriage.

Fifty-nine percent of blacks now say they support same-sex marriage, an 18-point jump since the president's announcement of his own support two weeks ago. Fifty-three percent of Americans now believe that same-sex marriage should be legalized, which also marks a substantial spike since 2006, when just 39 percent of those polled thought it should be legalized. Poll: Majority Of Blacks Support Gay Marriage After Obama's Endorsement

There is an interesting dynamic regarding black Americans' position on this issue. It is controversial to compare the struggle for gay rights to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, though the similarities are inescapable (and check this out). Black pastors have a tendency to promote the straight-and-narrow and have been at times a powerful force against gay rights. Groups like NOM have intentionally stirred up anti-gay animosity in the black community.

On the other hand, 96 percent of black voters favored Barack Obama in the last election. And when he takes a position on something like this, they will take him seriously and reconsider their own attitudes. His statement was risky but in the long run it was the right thing to do on several levels.

Spitzer in the NYT

noreply@blogger.com (JimK) — Mon, 21 May 2012 15:15:00 +0000

The New York Times had an article this weekend that was unprecedented. It was a long article about how a shabby piece of research was published, and an apology by the researcher for the consequences of it.

If you go to PFOX's web site you will see, on the right-hand side of their screen a little video of Robert Spitzer suggesting that people can change their sexual orientation. His 2003 study, published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, has been the one and only shred of justification for "ex-gays" to claim scientific support for their dangerous and nutty view that people can stop being gay through prayer, therapy, and/or willpower.

Of course there was controversy, and Spitzer endured it with a stiff upper lip, but as this NYT piece demonstrates, he has finally decided to honestly admit that the research was not well done, should not have been published in the scientific literature, and that there is no evidence that people can actually change their sexual orientation. And he's sorry.

It is a long article. I will quote the lede first, then skip through to the good parts:

PRINCETON, N.J. — The simple fact was that he had done something wrong, and at the end of a long and revolutionary career it didn’t matter how often he’d been right, how powerful he once was, or what it would mean for his legacy.

Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, considered by some to be the father of modern psychiatry, lay awake at 4 o’clock on a recent morning knowing he had to do the one thing that comes least naturally to him.

He pushed himself up and staggered into the dark. His desk seemed impossibly far away; Dr. Spitzer, who turns 80 next week, suffers from Parkinson’s disease and has trouble walking, sitting, even holding his head upright.

The word he sometimes uses to describe these limitations — pathetic — is the same one that for decades he wielded like an ax to strike down dumb ideas, empty theorizing and junk studies.

Now here he was at his computer, ready to recant a study he had done himself, a poorly conceived 2003 investigation that supported the use of so-called reparative therapy to “cure” homosexuality for people strongly motivated to change.

What to say? The issue of gay marriage was rocking national politics yet again. The California State Legislature was debating a bill to ban the therapy outright as being dangerous. A magazine writer who had been through the therapy as a teenager recently visited his house, to explain how miserably disorienting the experience was.

And he would later learn that a World Health Organization report, released on Thursday, calls the therapy “a serious threat to the health and well-being — even the lives — of affected people.”

Dr. Spitzer’s fingers jerked over the keys, unreliably, as if choking on the words. And then it was done: a short letter to be published this month, in the same journal where the original study appeared.

“I believe,” it concludes, “I owe the gay community an apology.”

Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay ‘Cure’

The article describes why and how the study was conducted -- phone interviews with people who said they had changed. It also explains how this study, which is obviously methodologically substandard, came to be published.

The study had serious problems. It was based on what people remembered feeling years before — an often fuzzy record. It included some ex-gay advocates, who were politically active. And it did not test any particular therapy; only half of the participants engaged with a therapist at all, while the others worked with pastoral counselors, or in independent Bible study.

Several colleagues tried to stop the study in its tracks, and urged him not to publish it, Dr. Spitzer said.

Yet, heavily invested after all the work, he turned to a friend and former collaborator, Dr. Kenneth J. Zucker, psychologist in chief at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto and editor of the Archives of Sexual Behavior, another influential journal.

“I knew Bob and the quality of his work, and I agreed to publish it,” Dr. Zucker said in an interview last week. The paper did not go through the usual peer-review process, in which unnamed experts critique a manuscript before publication. “But I told him I would do it only if I also published commentaries” of response from other scientists to accompany the study, Dr. Zucker said.

Those commentaries, with a few exceptions, were merciless. One cited the Nuremberg Code of ethics to denounce the study as not only flawed but morally wrong. “We fear the repercussions of this study, including an increase in suffering, prejudice, and discrimination,” concluded a group of 15 researchers at the New York State Psychiatric Institute, where Dr. Spitzer was affiliated.

This is an indictment of the journal as much as anything. Why did they publish the paper without peer review? Of course the researcher's reputation is important but it should never allow them to short-circuit the review process of a scientific journal.

But Dr. Spitzer could not control how his study was interpreted by everyone, and he could not erase the biggest scientific flaw of them all, roundly attacked in many of the commentaries: Simply asking people whether they have changed is no evidence at all of real change. People lie, to themselves and others. They continually change their stories, to suit their needs and moods.

By almost any measure, in short, the study failed the test of scientific rigor that Dr. Spitzer himself was so instrumental in enforcing for so many years.

“As I read these commentaries, I knew this was a problem, a big problem, and one I couldn’t answer,” Dr. Spitzer said. “How do you know someone has really changed?”

It is one thing to persuade yourself that your sexual orientation has changed. People are sometimes able to maintain the belief for years. They may show every outward sign of having changed, and how are you going to prove it one way or the other? There are very many more ex-ex-gays than ex-gays, as the self-deception evaporates over time.

The study that seemed at the time a mere footnote to a large life was growing into a chapter. And it needed a proper ending — a strong correction, directly from its author, not a journalist or colleague.

A draft of the letter has already leaked online and has been reported.

“You know, it’s the only regret I have; the only professional one,” Dr. Spitzer said of the study, near the end of a long interview. “And I think, in the history of psychiatry, I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a scientist write a letter saying that the data were all there but were totally misinterpreted. Who admitted that and who apologized to his readers.”

The letter to the editor of the Archives of Sexual Behavior has been posted at Truth Wins Out. It says:

Several months ago I told you that because of my revised view of my 2001 study of reparative therapy changing sexual orientation, I was considering writing something that would acknowledge that I now judged the major critiques of the study as largely correct. After discussing my revised view of the study with Gabriel Arana, a reporter for American Prospect, and with Malcolm Ritter, an Associated Press science writer, I decided that I had to make public my current thinking about the study. Here it is.

Basic Research Question. From the beginning it was: “can some version of reparative therapy enable individuals to change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual?” Realizing that the study design made it impossible to answer this question, I suggested that the study could be viewed as answering the question, “how do individuals undergoing reparative therapy describe changes in sexual orientation?” – a not very interesting question.

The Fatal Flaw in the Study – There was no way to judge the credibility of subject reports of change in sexual orientation. I offered several (unconvincing) reasons why it was reasonable to assume that the subject’s reports of change were credible and not self-deception or outright lying. But the simple fact is that there was no way to determine if the subject’s accounts of change were valid.

I believe I owe the gay community an apology for my study making unproven claims of the efficacy of reparative therapy. I also apologize to any gay person who wasted time and energy undergoing some form of reparative therapy because they believed that I had proven that reparative therapy works with some “highly motivated” individuals.

Robert Spitzer. M.D.
Emeritus Professor of Psychiatry,
Columbia University

This is a remarkable statement. Unfortunately it will not put Humpty Dumpty back together again. Even though the author has renounced it, PFOX and other anti-gay groups will continue to point to the published research as evidence that people can stop being gay if they choose.

That Transgender 5-Year-Old

noreply@blogger.com (JimK) — Mon, 21 May 2012 01:24:00 +0000

The band played a gig down in Southern Maryland last night, at Solomons Island; the crowd liked us and we had a great time. My wife and I stayed overnight and had a leisurely drive back today, checking out the beaches and scenery along the way.

When we got home this afternoon the Washington Post was in the driveway, and wow ... the big story on Page One is "TRANSGENDER AT FIVE," yes, all in caps, with a picture of a kid getting a haircut, looking at the camera. The story takes up approximately two thirds of the real estate on the front page.

As I carried the paper up to the house, I checked out the subhead: "She first declared she was a boy when she was 2 years old. Her parents brushed it off but slowly concluded this wasn't just a phase."

That secondary headline had three "she's" in the first sentence about a transgender boy.

Jumping through this long article (which you should read in its entirety):

Jean [the mother] tried to put her daughter’s behavior to rest. She sat down with a toddler-version of an anatomy book and showed Kathryn, by then 3, the cartoonish drawings of a naked boy and girl.

“See? You’re a girl. You have girl parts,” Jean told her big-eyed daughter. “You’ve always been a girl.”

Kathryn looked up at her mom, incomprehension clouding her round face.

“When did you change me?” the child asked.

Transgender at five

Pretty good question. If this is what boys are supposed to look like, then this little guy is wondering what happened to make him look like a girl.

She went back online and watched videos of parents talking about their realization that their child was transgender. They all described a variation of the conversation she’d had with Kathryn: “Why did you change me?” “God made a mistake with me.” “Something went wrong when I was in your belly.”

Many talked about their painful decision to allow their children to publicly transition to the opposite gender — a much tougher process for boys who wanted to be girls.

Some of what Jean heard was reassuring: Parents who took the plunge said their children’s behavior problems largely disappeared, schoolwork improved, happy kid smiles returned.

But some of what she heard was scary: children taking puberty blockers in elementary school and teens embarking on hormone therapy before they’d even finished high school.

All of it is a new and controversial phenomenon.

In the United States, children have been openly transitioning genders for probably less than a decade, said Jack Drescher, a New York psychiatrist who is a leader in the field of gender orientation. There is very little to go on, scientifically, to support that approach, and the very idea of labeling young children as transgender is shocking to many people.

But to others, it makes perfect sense.

There is something scary in the idea of giving children hormones before they reach puberty. You might be making a wrong decision, the child may have matured and become comfortable with the sex that was assigned at birth, after all. On the other hand, transition is very much more difficult after the body has acquired the sex characteristics of an adult. The woman with a deep voice and broad shoulders, the man with a narrow waist and breasts, may very well wish that responsible adults had at least delayed those changes until they had become adults and were responsible to make such a decision.

To make my view clear: I am not saying it is right or it is wrong to administer hormones or postpone puberty in young transgender people. It is a difficult decision and one that will require a lot of judgments to be made, and a lot of assumptions about what the future will bring if the young person goes down one fork in the road or the other, and the factors are different in every unique case. Either choice will require unwavering love and trust from the family.

“In children, gender solidifies at about 3 to 6,” explained Patrick Kelly, a psychiatrist with the division of child and adolescent psychiatry at Johns Hopkins Children’s Center.

That’s about the age when girls gravitate to girl things and boys to boy things. It’s when the parents who ban baby dolls or toy guns see their little girl swaddle and cradle a stuffed animal or watch in awe as their boy makes guttural, spitting Mack truck sounds while four-wheeling his toast over his eggs, then uses his string cheese as a sword.

And it’s the age when a child whose gender orientation is at odds with his or her biology begins expressing that disconnect — in Kathryn’s case, loudly.

The American Psychiatric Association has an official diagnosis for this: gender identity disorder in children.

Those who have it, according to the association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, experience “a persistent and intense distress about assigned sex, together with a desire to be (or insistence that one is) of the other sex. There is a persistent preoccupation with the dress and activities of the opposite sex and repudiation of the individual’s own sex.”

And, it adds, “mere tomboyishness in girls or girlish behavior in boys is not sufficient” to warrant the diagnosis. It requires “a profound disturbance of the normal gender identity.”

The manual is being updated this year, and a task force that Drescher sits on is studying whether to remove the word “disorder” from the diagnosis and instead call the condition “gender incongruence.”

One of my kids had a friend in kindergarten and first grade who was a girl but dressed and acted like a boy -- this was not a transgender kid, she was definitely a girl but boyish. In fact, my kid thought she was a boy, and seemed kind of confused when told she was a girl. And then there was a shrug and it was time to go back outside and play. Because, really, why does it matter at that age?

I am skipping though the article, but Kathryn has changed her name and is going to school now as Tyler, a boy. The article discusses some of the issues that came up, you will find it interesting but I am not going to quote it all here.

Tyler doesn’t really like to talk about Kathryn or even acknowledge she existed.

“I’m not transgender,” he fumes when he hears the word, often spoken by his mom as she explains things. “I. Am. A. Boy.”

During one of my visits a few months ago, he showed me their family picture wall, full of pictures of two girls in lovely dresses.

“No Tyler,” he pouted.

Those are issues that are easy for Tyler’s parents to fix.

But in about five years, they will have to decide whether to put Tyler on puberty blockers to keep his body from maturing and menstruating. Using those drugs represents a leap of faith, psychiatrists said, though the effects are reversible if the puberty blockers are halted.

The much tougher call comes when kids are about 15 or 16. At that age, they can begin hormone injections that will make them grow the characteristics of the opposite biological sex.

That’s a method being pioneered by Norman Spack, the director of one of the nation’s first gender identity medical clinics at Children’s Hospital Boston and an advocate of early gender transitions. Those hormone treatments essentially create a nearly gender-neutral being, making sex-change surgery far less painful and expensive for young adults. But the hormones also make people infertile — a daunting and irreversible decision for parents to make when a child is 15 or 16. Only a handful have opted to do so, Spack said.

Jean e-mailed me an article about the drug controversy late one night, the time that many parents stay up and fret about their kids. “See what we’re facing?!” she wrote.

She acknowledges anxieties about what lies ahead. But Jean and Stephen aren’t harboring doubts about what they are doing now.

“If Tyler wants to be Kathryn again, that’s fine,” she said. “But right now, this works. He’s happy. I just want my child to be happy.”

As for Tyler, he is reveling in his new identity. The constant nagging, fighting, obsessing about being a boy is gone. Tyler is just Tyler, a high-energy kid with a Spider-Man-themed bedroom.

On my last visit, he took a brief break from playing with my boys and their endless supply of space cruisers to show me a new addition to the family picture wall. It now features a prominent photo of Tyler in short hair and a red polo shirt. He is smiling.

There are two interesting things about this article, to me. The first is, as I mentioned above, the awkward and insulting misuse of pronouns. Tyler and his family and his friends agree he is a boy, so why is the Washington Post saying "she" did this and "she" did that? They are editorially stating that Tyler and the rest of them are wrong and that Tyler is "really" a girl, as if some journalist knows better.

The second interesting thing is the fact that The Post published this article at all, and so prominently displayed. I am seeing this as political mischief; now that President Obama has made a statement about marriage equality and nominee-to-be Romney has come out on the other side, we can expect increased polarization along political lines regarding intensely personal issues such as who Americans can marry and what gender they should be.

But this is a more complicated and sensitive issue than marriage, I think. I expect it will be difficult for some liberals to adjust to ideas about transgender children, ideas of postponing puberty and administering hormones, it will be a kind of test of faith for them. If you believe in live-and-let-live then you will grant a blessing to the young person who has the courage to follow the path that destiny has laid out for them, and you will trust families to make the difficult decisions that directly affect their lives.

Chuck Brown Has Died

noreply@blogger.com (JimK) — Wed, 16 May 2012 21:49:00 +0000

DC icon, the Godfather of Go-Go, Chuck Brown, has just died. There have been rumors and not many facts for about a month as he recuperated in the hospital, but now an era ends.

The Post:

Chuck Brown, who styled a unique brand of funk music as a singer, guitarist and songwriter known as the “godfather of go-go,” has died after suffering from pneumonia. He was 75.

Brown died Wednesday at Johns Hopkins University Hospital in Baltimore. Hospital spokesman Gary Stephenson confirmed he had died after a hospital stay that began April 18.

Thanks to Brown, go-go music was uniquely identified with Washington.

Musician Chuck Brown, who styled go-go music from the nation’s capital dead at 75

The Post also has a nice series of photographs HERE

Saw him at the Strathmore a year or so ago, amazing show, go-go is relentless -- there is no pause between songs -- and Chuck was timeless up there, rocking that one foot back and forth, smiling out at the people, singing with a resonant growl while he stood off to one side of the stage popping that Gibson semi-hollowbody, letting the younger performers take their turn but always dominating with poise and charisma. Chuck Brown's death changes the landscape of Washington-area music significantly.

Tell you what, let's not argue about politics and gay people in the comments, if you want to talk about music let's do that today.

PFOX Complains to School Board

noreply@blogger.com (JimK) — Wed, 16 May 2012 13:26:00 +0000

The Montgomery County, Maryland, Public School District has been distributing flyers for Parents and Freinds of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX), an anti-gay group, for several years, saying they were legally required to. Now the district is considering a policy that does not allow distribution of any flyers by nonprofit groups, including PFOX. In the debate, the Superintendent of Schools made some statements of his opinions on the subject.

Now PFOX has filed a complaint with the school board.

Keep in mind that PFOX is essentially a one-person organization. It is made up of Regina Griggs, the mother of a gay man, who strongly wishes that gay people would just stop being so gay, and several spokespersons, a couple of whom claim to have stopped being gay.

Press release posted at ChristianNewsWire:

ROCKVILLE, Md., May 16, 2012 /Christian Newswire/ -- Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) has filed a sexual orientation discrimination complaint http://pfox.org/complaint.html with the Montgomery County (Maryland) Board of Education against its School Superintendent Joshua Starr.

After PFOX distributed ex-gay flyers to high school students as part of the schools' flyer distribution program for non-profit organizations, Superintendent Starr publicly denigrated PFOX and former homosexuals by calling the actions of PFOX "reprehensible and deplorable" and labeling the flyer's sexual orientation content as "a really, really disgusting message."

"PFOX's flyers provided information on unwanted same-sex attractions, discouraged student name calling and labeling, and urged tolerance for former homosexuals," said Regina Griggs of PFOX.

"Starr does not respect diversity and is creating an unsafe school environment. As School Superintendent, Starr's actions make it impossible for Montgomery County public schools to provide an atmosphere where differences are understood and appreciated, or where everyone is treated fairly and with respect free of discrimination and abuse, as mandated by its Nondiscrimination Policy ACB."

"The School Superintendent is a vital role model. When the School Superintendent promotes intolerance of former homosexuals and organizations that support them, students and teachers will follow his example and learn to also disrespect sexual minorities like the ex-gay community."

"Superintendent Starr cannot be allowed to use his official position to display hate against any group of people because he disagrees with their sexual orientation. Starr's flagrant violation of the Nondiscrimination Policy demonstrates that he is a prime candidate to receive ex-gay tolerance training and diversity education."

"I am sad that Superintendent Starr has called me and other ex-gays names like 'deplorable' and 'disgusting,' said Grace Harley, a former lesbian who testified before the School Board. "What saddens me more is that the Board of Education has not reprimanded Superintendent Starr. If he had said the same things about gays, they would have fired him by now. But because he hates people like me, they support him."

"I have suffered more discrimination and intolerance as an ex-gay than I ever did when I was gay. Please stop hating us. Follow your own Non-Discrimination Policy. If you stop hating former homosexuals, our students will not learn to hate either. Starr's behavior proves that our schools need diversity training on tolerance for the ex-gay community."

PFOX supports the ex-gay community.

Ex-Gays File Complaint Against School Superintendent for Sexual Orientation Discrimination

I will guarantee one thing. No matter how badly PFOX loses in this, they will claim victory in the end.

Contrasting Viewpoints

noreply@blogger.com (JimK) — Sun, 13 May 2012 22:06:00 +0000

Lincoln, Nebraska is considering passage of an ordinance that would extend legal anti-discrimination protection to gay and transgender people in housing, employment and public accommodations. The city council was taking public comments. I thought you would find a couple of them interesting.

Here is someone opposed to the ordinance. This is classic, it's like the whole Citizens for Responsible Whatever rolled into one:

And here is a PFLAG mom. She was sitting behind the lady in the first video.

Obama Endorses Marriage Equality

noreply@blogger.com (JimK) — Wed, 09 May 2012 20:25:00 +0000

As had been anticipated, President Obama today made a statement supporting the right of same-sex couples to marry. From MSNBC:

President Barack Obama endorsed the right of same-sex couples to marry on Wednesday, a landmark pronouncement made in light of mounting pressure from gay rights advocates.

Obama became the first U.S. president to back the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry, a reversal from views expressed during the 2008 campaign, when he said he opposed same-sex marriage but favored civil unions as an alternative.

Obama told ABC News that, after reflection, he had "concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married."

In making his announcement, Obama completes what he had described as an “evolution” in his views on this issue, hastened by growing fervor this week involving gay rights. The growing pressure was capped Tuesday by North Carolina voters’ approval of a constitutional amendment banning not only same-sex marriages, but civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, as well.

Obama’s shift not only speaks to a broad swath of the electorate, which has exhibited increasing acceptance of same-sex marriage in opinion polls, but also gay and lesbian voters who compose a core part of Obama’s base, and have been major fundraisers for his re-election. Obama: 'I think same sex couples should be able to get married'

Some observers, for instance Chris Matthews, have suggested that perhaps supporting marriage equality is too risky a political move, that the President might end up alienating key voters that he will need in the upcoming election. On the other hand, his statements about "evolving" were transparently ingratiating, it was too clearly a case of a politician avoiding discussion of a controversial topic that he obviously had an opinion about. Only time will tell whether this declaration works for him or against him in the long run -- and let's not forget that he is the master of eleven-dimensional chess. If I were a Republican I would not feel too smug right now.

Marriage Loses in NC

noreply@blogger.com (JimK) — Wed, 09 May 2012 13:10:00 +0000

From the Charlotte Observer:

Riding a Bible-influenced coalition that cut across political and racial lines, the marriage amendment stormed to approval Tuesday, making North Carolina the latest state to put stronger legal barricades before same-sex unions.

With 90 percent of the counties reporting, the constitutional amendment to make marriage between a man and a woman the “only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized” won resoundingly, 61 percent to 39 percent.

It goes into effect Jan. 1. North Carolina has had a law banning same-sex marriages for 16 years.

Turnout, fueled largely by the marriage debate, was the largest for a primary in decades, election officials said.

“This was an issue of standing on the principle of God’s word that marriage is between one man and one woman, and I believe that message has gotten across,” said the Rev. Mark Harris, pastor of First Baptist Church of Charlotte and a leader in the state campaign for passage.

North Carolina becomes the last Southern state – and the 31st overall – to pass a “defense of marriage” amendment. Such measures have yet to lose. Eight states, plus the District of Columbia, have passed laws allowing same-sex marriage.

Opponents of the N.C. amendment called it a threat on a variety of fronts, from domestic-violence protection and health benefits for unmarried families, to industrial recruitment and job retention.

But for most voters, Tuesday’s decision appeared to be a referendum on gay marriage.

“The pro side could have not spent a single dollar, and they would have still won by double digits,” said Tom Jensen of Public Policy Polling in Raleigh.

Duke law professor Mike Munger said the amendment’s real impact might not be known for months.

“The screaming, excruciating paradox of all this is that supporters wanted to take this out of the judges’ hands. Clearly it will have the opposite effect,” Munger said. “…There will be litigation, and judges will have to decide what the darn thing means.”

The amendment lost in the state’s largest areas, including Charlotte, Greensboro, Asheville, Raleigh and Durham. But it ran strongly almost everywhere else.

Amendment One: N.C. voters approve measure to block same-sex marriage

There isn't much to add. The city folk were against it, but North Carolina has a large rural population, they are church-going people who believe what they are told, and are slow to change. It's going to take some time.

Is This a Change or the Same Old?

noreply@blogger.com (JimK) — Mon, 07 May 2012 13:09:00 +0000

Yesterday Joe Biden made a strong, surprising statement in support of marriage equality, and then the White House tried to make it sound like it was nothing new. While Biden's support for marriage is an attitudinal step in the right direction, it implied no policy advances.

Here's this morning's Washington Post:

Vice President Biden on Sunday appeared to go further than he has in the past in expressing support for same-sex marriage.

In an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Biden described himself as “absolutely comfortable” with gay couples having the same rights as heterosexual couples.

“Look. I am vice president of the United States of America,” Biden said. “The president sets the policy. I am absolutely comfortable with the fact that men marrying men, women marrying women and heterosexual men and women marrying are entitled to the same exact rights, all the civil rights, all the civil liberties. And quite frankly, I don’t see much of a distinction beyond that.” Biden ‘comfortable’ with same-sex marriage

The New York Times analyzed the situation a bit.

The vice president’s comments are likely to intensify pressure on Mr. Obama, who says he is still wrestling with his feelings about same-sex marriage, to take a clearer stance on it before the presidential election this fall, something the White House has shown reluctance to do.

Mr. Biden’s aides, in insisting that he was not deviating from White House policy, pointed to a 2010 statement by the vice president that the country was moving toward a “national consensus” on same-sex marriage. And in Sunday’s interview, Mr. Biden did not say explicitly that the federal government should recognize it.

But gay rights advocates, who spent Sunday morning parsing Mr. Biden’s words, said the president’s running mate had, in their analysis, conveyed new and unmistakable support for their biggest cause.

Mr. Biden called the debate surrounding the issue a simple question of “who do you love?” and “and will you be loyal to the person you love?”

“That’s what people are finding out is what, what all marriages, at their root, are about,” he said, “Whether they’re marriages of lesbians or gay men or heterosexuals.” A Scramble as Biden Backs Same-Sex Marriage

The question is what level of attention the issue of marriage equality will receive in the upcoming presidential campaigns. Obama may be afraid to take too bold a position, for instance advocating that Americans who love one another and want to marry and have a home and family together should be allowed to, but he also needs to be careful not to further alienate the liberal voters who supported him in the last election, hoping that he would implement some changes in social policy.

MCPS Moving Toward Ban On Nonprofit Flyers

noreply@blogger.com (JimK) — Wed, 02 May 2012 13:32:00 +0000

This was inevitable. The Montgomery County Public School District is on the road toward banning all flyers from nonprofit organizations in high schools and middle schools. They couldn't figure out a way to stop the bad ones and keep the good ones, so now they will block them all. From The Gazette:

Despite hearing concerns from Boy Scout volunteers Monday, the Montgomery County Board of Education voted unanimously to introduce a resolution that would ban nonprofit fliers from being distributed to students.

Government agencies, such as the county’s recreation department and the school system, and PTAs, would be allowed to distribute pamphlets, and fliers could still be given to students in elementary schools. Fliers could be available to students on tables in all schools.
Residents can submit comments until the end of May. After discussion, the board will make a final decision in June. The policy will take effect next school year.

The fliers are crucial to ensuring diversity within Boy Scout recruitment, according to John C. Hanson of Gaithersburg, a Boy Scout volunteer.

The fliers reach students that are hard to reach otherwise, whether it be because there is a language barrier, they do not have a computer at home, they are new to the area, or they do not have stable housing, Hanson told board members Monday.

“I believe that the neediest children in the area will be the ones most hurt by the elimination of backpack fliers,” he said.

The Boy Scouts served more than 8,000 county students from first grade to age 21 in 2011.

Some school board members said that it is not the school system’s responsibility to provide a free outlet for nonprofits to get their message to students and families. Montgomery school board suggests banning nonprofit fliers from backpacks

A public school is two things. One, it is a government institution that implements programs administered by a central office and funded by taxes, just like any other government program. Two, the school is the focus of family and community activity for the neighborhood it serves. Education per se exists in the overlap. There is constant tension between these two roles of the school, on the one hand taxpayers expect efficiency and accountability and rigorous attention to formal requirements, and on the other hand kids like to play and make noise and jostle, their families love them and wish the very best for them, they get excited about learning and about activities, they worry and joke around and do all the things that kids do, teachers try to interface between the formal system and the spontaneity of youth and the diversity of families, and it not always easy to mesh real peoples' chaotic personal lives with the formal government framework.

Our community should be able to trust that the public school district will not be handing out false and dangerous misinformation to students. Our community should expect its leaders, including elected leaders on the school board, to be able to draw a line between acceptable messages to send home and unacceptable ones. Our county's school board and administration from top to bottom have been unable to make that distinction, and so they are moving toward a new policy that says nobody can send home flyers. Punishing the whole class for the misbehavior of one.

“I’m kind of torn with the question of whether or not the school system has a role in helping nonprofit organizations distribute their information,” said board member Phil Kauffman (At large) of Olney.

Alan Xie, a Richard Montgomery High School senior and the student member of the board, said fliers waste time and resources.

He said he often sees students discard fliers.

The policy is being reevaluated this year after a flier sent home by Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays provoked outrage of some school officials and gay advocates.

Under law, the school system is not able to pick which fliers are sent home.

No, this is under the school district's lawyers' interpretation of a court ruling.

Some board members said they are concerned that the change may result in a distribution shift of what some see as offensive fliers. Those fliers are now just sent to middle and high school students but the rule change could shift them to elementary students.

“We have tried to do our best in walking the legal tightrope, and realizing that there may be consequences,” said Patricia O’Neill (Dist. 3) of Bethesda.

If the change is enacted, after next year the school system will reevaluate its impact.

Residents can submit comments to the board at boe@mcpsmd.org.

Since the vote was unanimous, you can be sure the board's mind is made up. This will easily pass when the board decides next month.

NYT on That Study of Homophobes With Gay Feelings

noreply@blogger.com (JimK) — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 13:50:00 +0000

We talked recently about some current research indicating that those who are strongly anti-gay often have homosexual feelings themselves. The New York Times Sunday Review this week has an article by one of the researchers who conducted this study.

An interesting new psychological measurement technique was used in this study, and the author explains it fairly well. BTW, the paper was published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, which is the most prestigious journal in social psychology. I will skip the introduction -- Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, Young Republicans, etc. -- and get to the theoretical part.

One theory is that homosexual urges, when repressed out of shame or fear, can be expressed as homophobia. Freud famously called this process a “reaction formation” — the angry battle against the outward symbol of feelings that are inwardly being stifled. Even Mr. Haggard seemed to endorse this idea when, apologizing after his scandal for his anti-gay rhetoric, he said, “I think I was partially so vehement because of my own war.”

It’s a compelling theory — and now there is scientific reason to believe it. In this month’s issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, we and our fellow researchers provide empirical evidence that homophobia can result, at least in part, from the suppression of same-sex desire.

Our paper describes six studies conducted in the United States and Germany involving 784 university students. Participants rated their sexual orientation on a 10-point scale, ranging from gay to straight. Then they took a computer-administered test designed to measure their implicit sexual orientation. In the test, the participants were shown images and words indicative of hetero- and homosexuality (pictures of same-sex and straight couples, words like “homosexual” and “gay”) and were asked to sort them into the appropriate category, gay or straight, as quickly as possible. The computer measured their reaction times.

The twist was that before each word and image appeared, the word “me” or “other” was flashed on the screen for 35 milliseconds — long enough for participants to subliminally process the word but short enough that they could not consciously see it. The theory here, known as semantic association, is that when “me” precedes words or images that reflect your sexual orientation (for example, heterosexual images for a straight person), you will sort these images into the correct category faster than when “me” precedes words or images that are incongruent with your sexual orientation (for example, homosexual images for a straight person). This technique, adapted from similar tests used to assess attitudes like subconscious racial bias, reliably distinguishes between self-identified straight individuals and those who self-identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual.

Using this methodology we identified a subgroup of participants who, despite self-identifying as highly straight, indicated some level of same-sex attraction (that is, they associated “me” with gay-related words and pictures faster than they associated “me” with straight-related words and pictures). Over 20 percent of self-described highly straight individuals showed this discrepancy.

Notably, these “discrepant” individuals were also significantly more likely than other participants to favor anti-gay policies; to be willing to assign significantly harsher punishments to perpetrators of petty crimes if they were presumed to be homosexual; and to express greater implicit hostility toward gay subjects (also measured with the help of subliminal priming). Thus our research suggests that some who oppose homosexuality do tacitly harbor same-sex attraction. Homophobic? Maybe You’re Gay

The implicit association test is unique in that it does not ask subjects to report how they feel about something, it measures their reaction time. The idea is that familiar ideas are processed faster than unfamiliar ones, concepts that are grouped together that appear contradictory take longer to react to, and so forth. People are often unaware of their real feelings or hesitant to report them, and the IAT is able to provide data about the strength of associations which can lead to understanding of the individual's cognitive state.

It seems like a sad self-reinforcing negative feedback loop. A person experiences some homosexual feelings, realizes that his environment will punish him for it, and so rather than expressing his positive feelings he joins up with the side that seeks to punish him for having them. I think that a lot of people actually think that everybody struggles with these feelings, and that's why you have to constantly fight against the mythical "gay agenda" and all that it supposedly stands for. It is hard for them to understand that there are people who are inherently heterosexual who simply do not have homosexual feelings or don't worry about them if they do, and that there are homosexually-oriented people who do not feel shame.

What leads to this repression? We found that participants who reported having supportive and accepting parents were more in touch with their implicit sexual orientation and less susceptible to homophobia. Individuals whose sexual identity was at odds with their implicit sexual attraction were much more frequently raised by parents perceived to be controlling, less accepting and more prejudiced against homosexuals.

It’s important to stress the obvious: Not all those who campaign against gay men and lesbians secretly feel same-sex attractions. But at least some who oppose homosexuality are likely to be individuals struggling against parts of themselves, having themselves been victims of oppression and lack of acceptance. The costs are great, not only for the targets of anti-gay efforts but also often for the perpetrators. We would do well to remember that all involved deserve our compassion.

So our assignment is to feel compassion for hateful people and oppose them.

Lesbian Pack Leader Kicked Out of Boy Scouts

noreply@blogger.com (JimK) — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:49:00 +0000

Recently the Girl Scouts dealt gracefully with the issue of a transgender girl joining a troop. While they said they will determine membership on a case by case basis, the default position is that they will be inclusive and give all girls the opportunity to take part in scouting. They allowed the girl to remain and they stood by their decision against the expected whirlwind of faux controversy.

The Boy Scouts, on the other hand, just kicked a lesbian den mother out solely because of her sexual orientation.

The other parents are not happy about it.

The first-graders in Ohio Pack 109's Tiger Scouts didn't know or care their den mother was a lesbian - at least not until the Boy Scouts of America threw her out over the organization's ban on gays.

Now, parents who were aware of Jennifer Tyrrell's sexual orientation well before she took the boys on campouts and helped them carve race cars for the annual Pinewood Derby have rallied to her defense in a case that has re-ignited the debate over the Scouts' policy.

The Boy Scouts of America, whose oath calls for members to be "morally straight," maintains that as a private organization it has the right to exclude gays and atheists from its ranks.
That stance was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 but has led many state and local governments to deny support for the Scouts.

Male scout leaders who are gay have long been barred, but instances of women being excluded are not well-documented.

Tyrrell said she only reluctantly allowed her 7-year-old son Cruz Burns to join the Scouts in Bridgeport, where she lives with her partner and their four children. Told by the local cub master that it didn't matter that she is a lesbian, she was drafted to lead the pack in September.

Tyrrell told parents at their first meeting about her sexual orientation. Some already knew her because she had coached youth baseball and volunteered at school, organizing class parties and reading to children.

"She wasn't trying to hide anything," said Rob Dunn, whose son is among the dozen or so members of the boys-only pack. "Nobody I know of has ever made a single complaint against her." Scout parents rally around ousted pack leader

There are two questions here. One is whether the Boy Scouts should be allowed to do this, and the other is whether it is the right thing to do. It appears that the courts have ruled that anti-gay discrimination is permissible, I suppose someone could take it to court but at this time it is a legal thing to do. But what in the world do the Boy Scouts gain by being jerks about this? What message does this send to the boys in the pack? It doesn't make anything better in any way. It appears that these kinds of decisions will only make the Boy Scouts a thing of the past.

Improvements, I'm Sure

noreply@blogger.com (JimK) — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:37:00 +0000

Just FYI, the Blogger service that we use to post this blog has been undergoing major changes for the past few weeks. You might have noticed inconsistent fonts, double-spacing between paragraphs -- the user interface for posting has changed drastically, too, it's even worse from this side!

I see that the most recent post is in a tiny font. I don't know why that is, apparently they have decided that is our "new look." I can't say I'm happy with Google products' recent hard-to-see scroll bars, wordy screens with too many options, and other so-called improvements, but that's what you get for free. I will try to work on our template and see if we can maker it readable again. Bear with us.

Big Ruling for Transgender Rights

noreply@blogger.com (JimK) — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:20:00 +0000

This will be a big deal, a breakthrough for transgender Americans. HuffPo (among others) has it:

In what has been hailed as a "landmark" move, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled Monday that employers which discriminates against an employee or potential employee based on their gender identity is in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on sex. Transgender Employees Now Protected By Anti-Discrimination Law After 'Landmark' EEOC Ruling

You can read the EEOC ruling HERE.

The Transgender Law Center had filed the complaint on behalf of a California woman who was denied employment by the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF). The TLC issued a statement that said in part:

Ms. Macy, a veteran and former police detective, initially applied for the position as male and was told that she virtually was guaranteed the job. Ms. Macy was exceptionally qualified for the position, having a military and law enforcement background and being one of the few people in the country who had already been trained on ATF’s ballistics computer system. After disclosing her gender transition mid-way through the hiring process, Ms. Macy was told that funding for that position had been suddenly cut. She later learned that someone else had been hired for the job.
In response to the EEOC’s decision, Ms. Macy stated, “As a veteran and a police officer, I’ve worked my whole career to uphold the values of fairness and equality. Although the discrimination I experienced was painful both personally and financially, and led to the loss of my family’s home to foreclosure, I’m proud to be a part of this groundbreaking decision confirming that our nation’s employment discrimination laws protect all Americans, including transgender people. I’m grateful for the help of Transgender Law Center, which believed in me from the start and helped guide me through this process. No one should be denied a job just for being who they are.”

The decision today follows a clear trend by federal courts in recent years holding that transgender people are protected by Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination. But it has even broader implications than a court decision, because the EEOC is the agency charged with interpreting and enforcing federal discrimination laws throughout the nation. The EEOC’s decision will impact every employer, public and private, throughout the nation. The decision is entitled to significant deference by the courts, and will be binding on all federal agencies.

Transgender Law Center’s Legal Director Ilona Turner explained, “It’s incredibly significant that the Commission has finally put its stamp of approval on the common-sense understanding that discrimination against transgender people is a form of sex discrimination. That’s true whether it’s understood as discrimination because of the person’s gender identity, or because they have changed their sex, or because they don’t conform to other people’s stereotypes of how men and women ought to be.” Groundbreaking! Federal Agency Rules Transgender Employees Protected by Sex Discrimination Law

2.6 million Maryland residents are currently covered by some kind of gender-identity nondiscrimination law, but our brave leaders in Annapolis failed to bring a statewide bill up to a vote in this year's legislative session, even though it had widespread support. I'm no lawyer, but to me it appears that while this ruling applies to employment specifically, the principle generalizes to other situations.

Levon

noreply@blogger.com (JimK) — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 21:29:00 +0000

Levon Helm has died

Levon Helm came to fame in a rootsy rock group that featured three extraordinary voices. But you could always tell which was his: It was the sound of the lusty wildcat, the stern Southern preacher, the depleted Confederate soldier, the dirt farmer at the end of his day.

Helm, 71, who as a drummer backed a pair of legendary musicians and then became a star himself with The Band and as a solo artist, died today from throat cancer at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

"Thank you, fans and music lovers, who have made his life so filled with joy and celebration," said his daughter, Amy, and wife, Sandy, in a statement released Tuesday before he died. "He has loved nothing more than to play, to fill the room up with music, lay down the backbeat and make the people dance! He did it every time he took the stage." The Band's Levon Helm dies at age 71

Saw him at Wolf Trap last year, a beautiful concert. The man lived for his music.

This song has been on my mind the last few days, since his family announced he was in the end stage of cancer.

Levon has been released.

Schools Consider Flyer Ban

noreply@blogger.com (JimK) — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 01:51:00 +0000

There is something I have always called schoolteacher logic: "If I let you do it, I'd have to let everyone do it."

This kind of reasoning is simply a way of refusing to be responsible for deciding between two things. On the playground it may be arbitrary and make life bearable, but in matters of policy it is a kind of intellectual cowardice. There is no case to be made for a policy that states that if good things are allowed, bad things need to be allowed, as well. There is a strong case to be made for the school district setting an example for students and the community by making a decision to oppose something that even the Superintendent says is "reprehensible and deplorable," and promoting the things that lead to good health and happiness, and are also consistent with the curriculum that is taught in the district.

For years, Montgomery County, Maryland, public schools have been passing out flyers promoting Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX). These flyers try to convince gay students that they can change their sexual orientation. It's a slick angle, if people complain then PFOX can claim that there is horrible discrimination against "ex-gays," they can frame their hatred of gay people in terms of supporting those fictional individuals who have chosen, against their inherent nature, to become straight. It is like if the KKK claimed they are not racists, they just want to prevent discrimination against white folks.

The school district says they have to hand out the PFOX flyers. If we let the Girl Scouts do it, we have to let everyone do it. This, they say, is what their lawyers told them. If you're going to promote the Girl Scouts and little league you have to promote hate groups, too.

So after years of the schools sending PFOX flyers home with students, Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), from whom PFOX stole their name, decided to blanket the school district with flyers. Last week they sent 50,000 flyers home with students in schools across the county.

Now the school district says they will consider not passing out flyers for nonprofits.

The Gazette:

Montgomery County Board of Education Policy Committee will recommend at its April 30 meeting that nonprofits no longer be allowed to distribute fliers to middle school and high school students, according to school board member Patricia B. O’Neill. There would be three exceptions, for government agencies, such as the recreation department, the school system and the PTA, she said.

...

The committee was tasked by the board with reevaluating the school system’s policy on fliers distributed by organizations after a flier sent home in February by Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays provoked outrage of some school officials and gay advocates.

The fliers stated that there is no “gay gene” and that sexual orientation is based on “feelings and is a matter of self-affirmation and public declaration.”

In response, the Washington, D.C., chapter of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) distributed 50,000 fliers to the county’s 25 high schools last week stating that there is nothing wrong with being gay, and sexual orientation is not something that can be changed. After distribution of ‘anti-gay’ fliers, Montgomery school board committee to recommend ban

As it is, the schools put a disclaimer on all flyers that says they are not responsible for the message, as if that undoes the message or actually dissociates the school district from the fact that it is their paid staff who are handing these things out, good and bad.

If the best they can do is to block all nonprofits' flyers, then that sets a pitiful example but at least they will stop supporting PFOX. Of course they will punish all the positive groups that provide services and activities for students and families, but if this is the best they can do it is better than nothing.

Spitzer Retracts Findings

noreply@blogger.com (JimK) — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 17:57:00 +0000

If you go to the PFOX web site right now, you will see prominently displayed on their home page a video of Dr. Robert Spitzer saying "I think that it's just not true" that homosexuals cannot change their sexual orientation. Spitzer's famous 2001 study was really the only peer-reviewed, published research they could point to that suggested that sexual orientation could be changed by therapy. Spitzer had used a kind of "unique" and controversial research technique where he asked around for names of people who had claimed to stop being gay, then he interviewed them on the phone and concluded that some of them had actually changed.

The individuals Spitzer interviewed had been recommended by anti-gay therapists and religious ministries. These were mostly people who had undergone "conversion therapy" in order to become straight, and a few of them were convinced at the time of their interviews that the therapy had been successful. Spitzer concluded that a small number of highly motivated individuals might be able to change their orientation.

Today American Prospect has a blockbuster article where Spitzer retracts his research. He says he contacted the journal that had originally published it, the Archives of Sexual Behavior, and they had not responded, so he asked a journalist to please publicize his disavowal of his previous research:

In 2001, the year I started college, the ex-gay movement’s claims received a significant boost. In 1973, Columbia professor and prominent psychiatrist Robert Spitzer had led the effort to declassify homosexuality as a mental illness. Four years after Stonewall, it was a landmark event for the gay-rights movement. But 28 years later, Spitzer released a study that asserted change in one’s sexual orientation was possible. Based on 200 interviews with ex-gay patients—the largest sample amassed—the study did not make any claims about the success rate of ex-gay therapy. But Spitzer concluded that, at least for a highly select group of motivated individuals, it worked. What translated into the larger culture was: The father of the 1973 revolution in the classification and treatment of homosexuality, who could not be seen as just another biased ex-gay crusader with an agenda, had validated ex-gay therapy.

An Associated Press story called it “explosive.” In the words of one of Spitzer’s gay colleagues, it was like “throwing a grenade into the gay community.” For the ex-gay movement, it was a godsend. Whereas previous accounts of success had appeared in non-peer-reviewed, vanity, pay-to-publish journals like Psychological Reports, Spitzer’s study was published in the prestigious Archives of Sexual Behavior.

Spitzer’s study is still cited by ex-gay organizations as evidence that ex-gay therapy works. The study infuriated gay-rights supporters and many psychiatrists, who condemned its methodology and design. Participants had been referred to Spitzer by ex-gay groups like NARTH and Exodus, which had an interest in recommending clients who would validate their work. The claims of change were self-reports, and Spitzer had not compared them with a control group that would help him judge their credibility.

This spring, I visited Spitzer at his home in Princeton. He ambled toward the door in a walker. Frail but sharp-witted, Spitzer suffers from Parkinson’s disease. “It’s a bummer,” he said. I told Spitzer that Nicolosi had asked me to participate in the 2001 study and recount my success in therapy, but that I never called him. “I actually had great difficulty finding participants,” Spitzer said. “In all the years of doing ex-gay therapy, you’d think Nicolosi would have been able to provide more success stories. He only sent me nine patients.”

“How’d it turn out for you?” he asked. I said that while I stayed in the closet for a few years more than I might have, I ended up accepting my sexuality. At the end of college, I began to have steady boyfriends, and in February of last year—ten years after my last session with Dr. Nicolosi—I married my partner.

Spitzer was drawn to the topic of ex-gay therapy because it was controversial—“I was always attracted to controversy”—but was troubled by how the study was received. He did not want to suggest that gay people should pursue ex-gay therapy. His goal was to determine whether the counterfactual—the claim that no one had ever changed his or her sexual orientation through therapy—was true.

I asked about the criticisms leveled at him. “In retrospect, I have to admit I think the critiques are largely correct,” he said. “The findings can be considered evidence for what those who have undergone ex-gay therapy say about it, but nothing more.” He said he spoke with the editor of the Archives of Sexual Behavior about writing a retraction, but the editor declined. (Repeated attempts to contact the journal went unanswered.)

Spitzer said that he was proud of having been instrumental in removing homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. Now 80 and retired, he was afraid that the 2001 study would tarnish his legacy and perhaps hurt others. He said that failed attempts to rid oneself of homosexual attractions “can be quite harmful.” He has, though, no doubts about the 1973 fight over the classification of homosexuality.

“Had there been no Bob Spitzer, homosexuality would still have eventually been removed from the list of psychiatric disorders,” he said. “But it wouldn’t have happened in 1973.”

Spitzer was growing tired and asked how many more questions I had. Nothing, I responded, unless you have something to add.

He did. Would I print a retraction of his 2001 study, “so I don’t have to worry about it anymore”? My So-Called Ex-Gay Life

After presenting his results in 2001, Spitzer told the Washington Post that the research "shows some people can change from gay to straight, and we ought to acknowledge that." The findings became the centerpiece of a particularly awkward branch of the anti-gay movement, the "ex-gay" movement, which claims that thousands, tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of gay people have become straight. Unfortunately, nobody can ever find one of those converted individuals, except for the leaders and spokespersons of the "ex-gay" movement itself.

I received an email saying that the editor of the Archives of Sexual Behavior is now waiting for a formal statement from Spitzer explaining the nature of his retraction. This is a big event in the war against bigotry.

Groups Hand Out Positive Flyers in MCPS

noreply@blogger.com (JimK) — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 01:50:00 +0000

The Montgomery County Public School District quarterly passes out PFOX flyers to students falsely suggesting they can overcome their homosexual feelings and learn to identify as straight people. The Superintendent of schools has said that the flyers are "disgusting and reprehensible," but the schools continue to distribute them to MoCo schoolchildren.

Starting today, a coalition of several prominent groups will be distributing positive flyers in MCPS schools with a message that is scientifically accurate and is in line with the school district's health curriculum.

From a press release issued this morning:

Beginning this morning, PFLAG, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and the Equality Maryland Foundation will distribute nearly 50,000 flyers in all 25 Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) high schools. The flyer addresses issues raised by dangerous anti-LGBT materials previously circulated to students, and will be distributed to all high school students within MCPS as part of the school system’s flyer distribution program.[1]

The flyers provide schools with resources for LGBT students, and also counter misinformation spread by a group known as Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX), which recently distributed flyers in some MCPS high schools asserting that gay people "can seek help and information on overcoming their feelings." The PFOX flyers also urge readers to go to the PFOX website, which directs readers to therapies that purportedly can change one's sexual orientation.[2]

“It is vital for young people in Montgomery County to have access to accurate information,” said Christine P. Sun, the director of SPLC’s LGBT rights project. “While spreading this kind of misinformation is dangerous to the well-being of LGBT youth, not having the facts is a threat to all students.”

The notion that sexual orientation can be changed has been rejected or highly criticized by every American mainstream medical and mental health professional association.[3]

For example, the American Medical Association "opposes the use of ‘reparative’ or ‘conversion’ therapy that is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon a prior assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation."[4]

The mainstream groups “have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be ‘cured.’” [5]

As the American Psychiatric Association explains, the “potential risks of reparative therapy are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior.”[6]

“There have been too many stories of suicide arising from such therapies for us to remain silent in the face of the PFOX flyers,” said Patrick Wojahn of the Equality Maryland Foundation.

MCPS Superintendent Joshua P. Starr has called the PFOX flyers "disgusting and reprehensible."[7]

“We applaud the superintendent’s position. But it is unfortunate that the MCPS health education curriculum does not address this issue, nor does it permit health teachers to convey to students the conclusions of the mainstream medical and mental health professional associations that being gay is not an illness – unless a student specifically asks,” said David S. Fishback, of Metro DC PFLAG. “Fortunately, the Board of Education's Citizens Advisory Committee on Family Life and Human Development and MCPS's health education advisors from the Maryland Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics have recommended the inclusion of this information in the health education curriculum, information that would counter the PFOX canards. We have urged MCPS to adopt these recommendations.”

The coalition formed by PFLAG, the SPLC and the Equality Maryland Foundation is distributing flyers with this information so that LGBT students will know they are being supported by the adults in the community, and to fill in the gaps currently existing in the health education curriculum. The absence of such knowledge contributes to bullying.

The coalition is working together to expose the dangers of conversion therapy and ensure that all LGBT youth are protected.

The two-sided flyer can be seen here and here.

10 Countries That Never Heard of Gay Marriage

noreply@blogger.com (JimK) — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:22:00 +0000

MoveOn has this.

Gay-Haters Are Secretly Gay, Do You Think?

noreply@blogger.com (JimK) — Mon, 09 Apr 2012 19:47:00 +0000

Science Daily has a review this week of a set of studies showing something that will surprise no one. It seems there is a lot of scientific evidence showing that those who are most anti-gay are themselves attracted to members of their own sex and come from authoritarian homes.

Who knew?

Homophobia is more pronounced in individuals with an unacknowledged attraction to the same sex and who grew up with authoritarian parents who forbade such desires, a series of psychology studies demonstrates.

The study is the first to document the role that both parenting and sexual orientation play in the formation of intense and visceral fear of homosexuals, including self-reported homophobic attitudes, discriminatory bias, implicit hostility towards gays, and endorsement of anti-gay policies. Conducted by a team from the University of Rochester, the University of Essex, England, and the University of California in Santa Barbara, the research will be published the April issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

"Individuals who identify as straight but in psychological tests show a strong attraction to the same sex may be threatened by gays and lesbians because homosexuals remind them of similar tendencies within themselves," explains Netta Weinstein, a lecturer at the University of Essex and the study's lead author.

"In many cases these are people who are at war with themselves and they are turning this internal conflict outward," adds co-author Richard Ryan, professor of psychology at the University of Rochester who helped direct the research. Is Some Homophobia Self-Phobia?

When I first got involved in the debate over the inclusion of sexual orientation in Montgomery County's sex-ed curriculum, I thought it was a low blow to accuse the opposition of having "issues" with their own sexuality. I believed them when they argued that their religion forced them to hold the attitudes they did, I thought there must be something un-obvious going on, maybe some obscure dogma that didn't make sense to me, and that the obvious explanation -- that they had personal issues -- was unkind.

But the obvious thing is just this: there is nothing about someone else's sexual orientation that should upset anybody. Unless you are considering dating a person, their sexual orientation is irrelevant. So there are gay people, maybe you can't imagine feeling like they do, so what? There really is nothing to get upset about. There is no rational way of looking at the world where one person's sexual orientation is another person's business, and that's all there is to it.

But we have been dealing since 2004 with people in our community who imagine grand conspiracies of gay people trying to recruit children into their "lifestyle," trying to take over the world and undermine democracy, not to mention Christianity.

And what motivates them -- love of God, faith in Jesus? I don't think so, no.

The paper includes four separate experiments, conducted in the United States and Germany, with each study involving an average of 160 college students. The findings provide new empirical evidence to support the psychoanalytic theory that the fear, anxiety, and aversion that some seemingly heterosexual people hold toward gays and lesbians can grow out of their own repressed same-sex desires, Ryan says. The results also support the more modern self-determination theory, developed by Ryan and Edward Deci at the University of Rochester, which links controlling parenting to poorer self-acceptance and difficulty valuing oneself unconditionally.

The findings may help to explain the personal dynamics behind some bullying and hate crimes directed at gays and lesbians, the authors argue. Media coverage of gay-related hate crimes suggests that attackers often perceive some level of threat from homosexuals. People in denial about their sexual orientation may lash out because gay targets threaten and bring this internal conflict to the forefront, the authors write.

The research also sheds light on high profile cases in which anti-gay public figures are caught engaging in same-sex sexual acts. The authors cite such examples as Ted Haggard, the evangelical preacher who opposed gay marriage but was exposed in a gay sex scandal in 2006, and Glenn Murphy, Jr., former chairman of the Young Republican National Federation and vocal opponent of gay marriage, who was accused of sexually assaulting a 22-year-old man in 2007, as potentially reflecting this dynamic.

"We laugh at or make fun of such blatant hypocrisy, but in a real way, these people may often themselves be victims of repression and experience exaggerated feelings of threat," says Ryan. "Homophobia is not a laughing matter. It can sometimes have tragic consequences," Ryan says, pointing to cases such as the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard or the 2011 shooting of Larry King.

Even if you are so big-hearted that you can think of these bigots and haters as victims of their own psychodynamics, I am not sure that is a safe way to look at them. In reality, they are responsible adults with an agenda and they must be stopped. Rather than feel sorry for them or sympathize with them in their confusion and self-conflict, I think it is still reasonable to see these rabid homophobes as dangerous elements of our society who campaign against decency, love, and goodness, and to oppose them at every opportunity.

But it's good to have this insight.

Fox: Neo-Nazis Are a Civil Rights Group

noreply@blogger.com (JimK) — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 22:11:00 +0000

You have probably heard that Nazis have been patrolling the streets of Sanford, Florida, where young Trayvon Martin was killed by the local neighborhood watch patrol. It is not surprising that they would be attracted to a spot where racial hostility has the potential to boil over, they are trouble looking for trouble. But I was not really prepared to see how sympathetically the local Fox News channel would play it.

[ Update 7PM: Now the same story, unedited, has been renamed: White rights group patrolling Sanford ].

Here is the embedded video. There is a good chance they will take this down, but in the meantime I am linking to it, with the transcription following. The reporter is an African-American woman, standing outside the community where Martin was murdered. The story includes quotes from Jeff Schoep, leader of the National Socialist Movement.

Announcer: Group says it's stepping in now because people in Sanford concerned for their safety have asked them to come in. Fox 35's Jennifer Bisram live in Sanford now, Jen, you spoke to a member of this group, what are they saying tonight?

JB: Keith they say they're not a violent group but they are willing to fight for their people should a race riot break out here in Sanford. They actually tell us tonight that they've been patrolling certain areas in the city of Sanford since last week, including this community here where seventeen-year-old Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by George Zimmerman.

Voice of Jeff Schoep: Now we're in the Seminole County area currently, doing patrol in the wake of the Trayvon, ah, shooting down there.

JB: There's another civil rights group in town, the National Socialist Movement.

JS: A lot of people in the community, in the white community down there have been contacting us out of concern for their safety, just because of racial tensions.

JB: Racial tensions after a seventeen-year-old Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by George Zimmerman [screen shows smiling face of Zimmerman in a coat and tie]. Zimmerman is claiming self-defense and has been in hiding now for weeks.

JS: We're a white civil rights organization and, you know, we go into areas where we're needed, where white citizens need our help.

JB: The white rights organization is based in Detroit and have been around since the seventies. They say they're concerned for Sanford's citizens should a race riot break out.

JS: If they're going to get racially charged incidents going, we have to be down there to represent white people.

JB: At least ten Florida-based members, armed and dressed in all black, will patrol the city of Sanford every every day, everywhere from the retreated Twin Lakes community to city hall.

JS: Blacks have Al Sharpton, you know, the whites have an actual socialist movement similar. White Americans don't seem to have very many spokespeople, and whenever they do have spokespeople it's quite often you see the media refers to them as racists or bigots or hate-mongers.

JB: They say they're just a civil rights group trying to protect people in case things get out of hand.

[ Camera shot of frowning JB, long pause, waiting for cue ]

JB: They say that they intend to follow all the Florida laws while patrolling and they, most of them will be dressed in black military style uniforms. Reporting to you live tonight in Sanford, I'm Jennifer Brisram, Fox thirty five News.

Civil rights group patrolling Sanford

It kind of takes your breath away. No mention that this is a neo-Nazi group, Fox News -- even a black reporter -- refers to them as a "civil rights group." American political rhetoric has drifted so far to the right that Barry Goldwater would now be a liberal and the neo-Nazi National Socialist Movement can be described in the media as a civil rights group.

The Next Generation Beatles?

noreply@blogger.com (JimK) — Wed, 04 Apr 2012 11:31:00 +0000

This is so crazy it just might work. Imagine if the four Beatles' sons started a band.

The Telegraph has it:

Sir Paul McCartney's son James said he would be willing to form a 'next generation' Beatles with the sons of the other band members.

The 34-year-old said he was "up for it" and John Lennon's son, Sean, and George Harrison's son, Dhani, had also shown support for the idea, although Ringo Starr's son, drummer Zak, was less keen.

James told the BBC: "I don't think it's something that Zak wants to do.

"Maybe Jason [another of Starr's sons and also a drummer] would want to do it.

"I'd be up for it. Sean seemed to be into it, Dhani seemed to be into it. I'd be happy to do it."

A little farther down in the story ...

James admitted that having the name McCartney was "a help" in the music business and it was "an honour" to be connected to his father.

He said that as a schoolboy he'd dreamt of "being better than The Beatles", adding: "I'm not sure if I can do that. If anything, I would love to be equal to The Beatles - but even that's quite tough."

Yes, I suppose a name like "McCartney" would basically mean that the guy will never know what it's like to play for the bartender and the furniture while a bar owner fumes in the corner, mad at the band for not drawing a crowd to his smelly dive.

I don't know about that last comment, though, do you really think it would be that tough to equal the Beatles? You just shake your hair and go "Yeah yeah yeah," don't you?

Women Voters Going Blue

noreply@blogger.com (JimK) — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 12:10:00 +0000

I usually trust that the national political strategists know what they're doing. They might alienate one group of voters but they know they'll win another. Of course it's risky, if you play to the South you might lose votes in the North and so on -- to win the election you need a majority of the votes, it all comes down to that. And both sides want to win.

Sometimes it is difficult to figure out what the angle is, why a politician would pick a certain fight, but in time the pieces come together and you see what they had in mind. Or sometimes it just fails, they pick a fight and get their butts kicked. In any case, whenever a candidate for office says something you've got to perceive it in light of their effort to win the election.

And so I have looked with a curious eye at this phenomenon that has come to be called "the Republican war on women," even though I don't like that term. They can't be so stupid that they would intentionally offend and drive away fully half of the voting public, but it can't be an accident; they have very specifically targeted issues involving women with the intent in every case of taking rights away and punishing women for attempting to be equal to men.

This week's USA Today/Gallup poll of swing states demonstrates how effective this approach has been:

President Obama has opened the first significant lead of the 2012 campaign in the nation's dozen top battleground states, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, boosted by a huge shift of women to his side.

In the fifth Swing States survey taken since last fall, Obama leads Republican front-runner Mitt Romney 51%-42% among registered voters just a month after the president had trailed him by two percentage points.

The biggest change came among women under 50. In mid-February, just under half of those voters supported Obama. Now more than six in 10 do while Romney's support among them has dropped by 14 points, to 30%. The president leads him 2-1 in this group.

Romney's main advantage is among men 50 and older, swamping Obama 56%-38%.

Republicans' traditional strength among men "won't be good enough if we're losing women by nine points or 10 points," says Sara Taylor Fagen, a Republican strategist and former political adviser to President George W. Bush. "The focus on contraception has not been a good one for us … and Republicans have unfairly taken on water on this issue." Swing States Poll: A shift by women puts Obama in lead

Interesting use of the word "unfairly" there. You try to make it harder for women to get their birth control pills, you propose laws requiring that women should be raped with medical devices when they seek an abortion, you run down Planned Parenthood, you hold a panel discussion on birth control and only invite men, and after a while you are going to "take on water," and it will be perfectly fair.

The Republicans have told women they don't like them, and women are saying, fine, we don't like you either.

This is only April, of course, we look forward to seven months of campaigning. And it is possible that the GOP has a comprehensive strategy that reaches that far into the future, that they are alienating women now to set up a smart move later where they will win them all back again in an irresistible wave of last-minute enthusiasm. I wouldn't rule it out.

On the other hand, it may turn out that their disregard for women is so pervasive that they just can't help themselves, they are doing what they think is right and they will continue to do it. It will be a fascinating year.

MD Gender Rights Bill Dies

noreply@blogger.com (JimK) — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 02:26:00 +0000

There was broad support for a bill to add gender identity to the state of Maryland's nondiscrimination law, but the bill couldn't get a vote in committee and has now died.

Here is Gender Rights Maryland's report on it, from their web site:

Laurel, MD – March 26, 2012 –– Today marks the crossover date in the Maryland General Assembly for bills to move from one house to the other. It is unfortunate that we cannot report that SB212 is among those in consideration for that process. Unlike efforts last year, SB212 was never put up for a vote in the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee. There are multiple reasons for why this is the case but for GRMD it comes down to one -- Senate President Miller does not want this bill. It is unfortunate that a single person, despite the will of the people of this state, can decide the fate of so many Marylanders on such life and death matters as the basic civil rights of employment, housing and public accommodation.

Since the end of the 2011 legislative session events in Maryland had clearly indicated that there was strong support for this bill. Governor Martin O’Malley had publicly endorsed the measure in response to the prosecution of a hate crime against Chrissy Lee Polis’ attackers in 2011. Polling results show that 63% of Marylanders support civil rights for trans people. And yet we cannot get forward movement in the Maryland Senate.

That climate did however bear fruit with those legislators that seem to be more closely in tune with their communities. Howard and Baltimore Counties were brave enough to put forward these civil rights for their residents. GRMD was an integral part of those efforts and we are proud of the addition of gender identity protections for over one million additional Marylanders in 2012. This brings the total coverage to 2.6 million Marylanders. This should be considered remarkable progress considering that momentum in this space has been dormant since 2007. GRMD is proud to have played a strong role along with PFLAG and other allies in moving this legislation to law. Gender Rights Maryland Statement on SB212 and the General Assembly Crossover Date

This is disappointing but not entirely a surprise. There was a great wave of energy supporting the state's marriage equality legislation earlier in the session, and that sort of eclipsed this unrelated measure and drained enthusiasm from it.

There is no reason for the two bills to compete. Democrat Thomas “Mike” Miller, the Maryland Senate president, reportedly said earlier in the year that he only had time “for one gay bill this session,” and so he let this one wither on the vine. I don't know where a principle like that comes from, but there you go, Maryland, the "One Gay Bill" State. Maryland's transgender community will gain their rights county by county in time, and our heroic state legislators will be satisfied to pass "one gay bill" per session.