Forum Thread
Two views of the APA meeting

A most apposite and interesting contribution, to the practical, spiritual discussion. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/aug/15/gay-religion-acceptance-judaism

The G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob getting a look-in.

I am not sure what is the appropriate thread for this posting but I hope this will serve.

In a lecture I attended today, the issue of "self-identity" was discussed and the fact that there can be several layers or aspects to that identity. I am not sure whether we can say self-identity and identity are the same of if different in what way and so what follows may be confused.

However, the issue of self-identity is an interesting one. The speaker spoke of how he was a male and a father and these represented two aspects of his self-identity. Now these are different kinds of aspects and not just different aspects. One might call the kinds intrinsic and extrinsic. An intrinsic aspect relates to what something "is", what it is by virtue of itself. It is an ontological category. So I am a male because that is what I am. An extrinsic aspect would be defined by something outside the subject. Thus, I am a husband (I do not have children so I cannot claim to be a father) not by virtue of what I am but by virtue of with whom I am in a particular kind of relation. Those familiar with Paul Hiebert will recognise my source for this.

Relating this to the debate about homosexuality, it seems that there is possible confusion about what we mean. Perhaps the conservatives see the identity marker 'homosexual' as an extrinsic identity, dependent upon the relationships in which one finds oneself. As such it is open to change often at the will of the individual, although we all know how difficult it is to manage relationships. Those who are 'inclusive' may see the term as intrinsic. As such it is not open to change through the will but is an aspect of how one has been made.

I suspect that there are homosexuals on either side of this. I have a homosexual cousin who vehemently rejected the idea that there is intrinsic homosexuality but I assume others who would not. Indeed, for many the notion of intrinsic homosexuality is something of a 'no-brainer'.

I do not think that the notion of intrinsic homosexuality is a 'no-brainer'. Sex, as opposed to gender, should not be separated from the notion of relationship which suggests that there must be some possibility that homosexuality is relational and therefore extrinsic. But I do think that the plasticity of identity that might seem to be implied by extrinsic is very overdone. As I said earlier, we all know the problem of relationships and how they are not simply within our control. Clearly homosexual feelings are often especially difficult to change should one decide that one wanted to. I do not know if these idle thoughts are of any help in the debate, but I must sign off now as someone needs my help.

thanks for the clarification, carl. it's good to know where we stand. your scorn for current psychological and (i suppose) surgical terminology is plain -- and i clearly don't keep up with the pc language --, but that doesn't change the widespread opinion of psychiatrists and psychologists working in this field. what i was actually recalling was a comment, cited here i think, made by a UK psychiatrist to the effect that even if you could successfully shift someone's 'sexual orientation', why would you want to? (it's a rhetorical question.) i don't know how close to home any of this is for you. i am pretty sure that the kind of suppression recommended would be damaging to a great many homosexual people.

Tony

"neither i nor anyone else was talking about transsexual or transgendered people"

Well, of course you weren't talking about transsexuals.  If that had been the subject, you would have been using scientifically-approved terms like Gender Re-assignment Surgery instead of mutilation.   No, what you were talking about (and attempting to cloak in an aura of scientific authority) is the assertion that a man who decides his homosexual desire is morally wrong would commit self-mutilation if he acted on that decision.  You were saying that a man who on the basis of moral principle acts against his desire is acting against his own nature, is therefore psychologically disordered, and must be helped to accept his true nature.  Thus you would chain people to a life of sin.  It's unconscionable. 

The transsexual denies his nature and is applauded for his assertion of the will.  The homosexual repents of his homosexuality, and is told he has denied his true nature.  He is told his repentance is an illegitimate use of his will.  He is told his denial constitutes a psychological disorder induced by the "Other."  What is his true offense?  He is a homosexual who has dared to suggest that homosexuality is not morally neutral, and this cannot be allowed.  He must be made to accept who he is, lest he become an accusation by merely existing.  You allow a man to make any decision he desires so long as he doesn't make it as a result of moral imperative.  This is not science.  This is the deification of the autonomous will under the guise of science. 

carl

well done, carl. a classical piece of point-scoring. neither i nor anyone else was talking about transsexual or transgendered people. and i only know have one transgendered friend in a church context: how about you? i think the Church of England has some serving trans clergy though. Perhaps you'd like to start a new thread to explain your theological and pastoral approach to them? Tony

"Celibacy might be pursued for many reasons, but it might still seem a kind of self-mutilation to a psychologist working on a scientific basis."

Amazing.  A man may go to a doctor to have his genitals surgically removed,  and refashioned into an illusion of their compliment, so that thereafter he may live a life of make-believe that is systematically denied by every chromosome in his body, and none of this will be called self-mutilation.  But if a man repents of his homosexual lifestyle, and seeks to leave behind the behaviors associated with that lifestyle, he will be accused of self-mutilation.  And it is all quite scientific, of course.  Utterly amazing.

carl

L Roberts, I agree with you, but I can't tell if you read the two reports of that APA meeting. They both seemed to me to show that the APA was putting safeguards against what you fear.  The change was that instead of condemning all such therapy in toto, there was an attempt to understand and accommodate the other point of view provided certain guidelines were followed.  A real "listening process," it seems to me.  Did you have a chance to read the full accounts? 

 'If someone wants help in being celibate, and gets it'  (Celinda).

I too have no problem with this, if genuine. But if it is suggested or put to an individual helpee by a (of necessity) powerful porfessional, then that is plain unprofessional.  

How many of these professional's work is informed by their own long term and consistent practice of celibacy (however defined) ?

Or is it, "Do as I say , not as I do ?"  This would be very serious.

L. Roberts, your last two posts seem to contradict each other.  In any event, you see "pressure" where I do not.  If someone wants help in being celibate, and gets it (with all the caveats mentioned in the article), I don't see where there is any pressure. 

If patients wish to pursue celibacy (whatever is meant by that--hardly a clear term) then any reputable analyst, psychotherapist or counsellor would assist them in exploring this desire and its outworkings. As well as analyzing together its historic roots and unconscious motivations.

Most of the 'professional' celibates I have worked with have had their inablility to live it out successfully and their resulting sex lives as the presenting problem or a large factor.

Few people freely and voluntarily choose celibacy, in my experience, and even fewer are able to remain both celibate, happy and fulfilled. Though I have known some people adopt it for a time - say 6 months or a year, and it has helped clear their minds, and given space to get their life together, before seeking love and companionship -- or whatever.

The kind of pressure reported in this url is an interference and violation of a person's autonomy, integrity and agency.

Celinda, having read the item listed in the news section here (see below)  I regard this as professional abuse of patients.  It has nothing to do with difference or equality. In the UK such persons would be disciplined, and very likely struck off.

I write as a psychotherapist and a Christian minister.

http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/newswatch.cfm?year=2009&month=08&ref=6837#art6837