The therapist who claims she can help gay men go straight

[Shana A]

The therapist who claims she can help gay men go straight
A psychotherapist who tried to convert a gay man to become heterosexual faces being struck off at a landmark disciplinary hearing this week.

By Robert Mendick, Chief reporter 7:55AM GMT 16 Jan 2011

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8261705/The-therapist-who-claims-she-can-help-gay-men-go-straight.html

The case will expose the growing use of hugely controversial therapies, from the United States, which attempt to make homosexual men heterosexual.

The therapy has been described by the leading professional psychotherapy body as "absurd", while the Royal College of Psychiatrists said "so-called treatments of homosexuality" allow prejudice to flourish.

[rejennyrated]

Interesting article.

I have to say that though it may surprise some to hear me say it I do have some sympathy for the therapist in that this was clearly entrapment. I don't for one moment believe that people can have their orientation changed, and certainly don't believe they should be encouraged to try, but it is rather difficult to condemn a therapist for attempting to help someone who has ASKED for that treatment.

The thing is if you say, "Yes well it can't be done, and therefore people should be banned from trying," then some smart Alec will undoubtedly come up and say "Well in my opinion changing sex can't really be done either and so perhaps people should be banned from trying to do that as well," and then where would we be?

You and I may disagree with their analysis of possibilities but of course they can argue exactly the same point. I don't think sexual orientation therapy works, they do, meanwhile they maybe don't think sex change works, and I do. So it comes down to a judgement call as to what is reasonable.

So the bottom line is even when I agree with the underlying sentiment of the article, as I do in this case, I always find myself somewhat uncomfortable when a journalist practices a deception to obtain a story, because in my view the ends do not always justify the means.

[VeryGnawty]

If a gay man really wants to go straight, more power to him.

However, this article talks of therapists who think that all men are heterosexual, and some of them just have a "problem" by choosing homosexuality.  There is no scientific evidence to support that homosexuality actually is a problem.  This lady's confidence that she can remove homosexuality from her son is not evidence.  Even if that did happen, it would just be a single case.  Case studies have tended to be not very promising when it comes to altering homosexuals or transsexuals.  Few people change, and many people revert.  Yet the moralists would have us believe that because a few people can become heterosexual (or at least appear to) that this somehow means that homosexuality is bad and that ALL homosexuals should become heterosexual, despite the fact that there's no evidence that homosexuality is causing a problem with anything other than these people's sense of judgment.

[rejennyrated]

If a gay man really wants to go straight, more power to him.

Yeah - and that is my point. To get the story the man in question went into her and claimed exactly that.

That is an outright deception and thus although I think her views are pretty reprehensible I feel that two wrongs don't make a right.

[VeryGnawty]

That is an outright deception and thus although I think her views are pretty reprehensible I feel that two wrongs don't make a right.

I agree.  Two wrongs don't make a right.  If she is to be guilty of anything, it needs to be of brainwashing a homosexual who did NOT want to try to change.   What she should NOT be charged with is inflicting her viewpoint on someone who claimed that they wanted exactly that.  Entrapment itself should be illegal, as it is complete garbage.  If Strudwick can't accuse someone on real charges, and he has to fabricate lies to get imaginary charges, then IMHO he doesn't have a case.  If I were a judge, I would toss that case right out of the courtroom.

[Miniar]

I find it a little bit offensive that there's even a theoretical support for the idea that a human being can change his or her sexuality.

There's no research that suggest that the therapies actually work.

Supporting these practices is equally offensive to me as supporting therapies that revolve around telling the trans woman to be a man and the trans man to be a woman.

A gay man can't turn straight any more than I can turn into a woman. I could dress like a woman and keep my name and pretend to be a woman, but it won't make me a woman. It'll make me a human being that is too afraid, too ashamed, or too repressed to be itself.

The very existence of these therapies supports the idea that there's a choice in sexuality just like the existence of the anti-trans therapies supports the idea that there's a choice in gender identity.

If a gay man wants to go straight it means that there's something wrong with society, not that there's something wrong with them.

And on the issue of deception.
A gay man that goes to an anti-gay rally with a tape recorder is running the same deception.
An underage person with a hidden camera that tries to buy alcohol/cigarettes for sake of journalistic research is running the same deception.
An FBI agent that poses as a child on the internet in order to entrap a child-molester is running the same deception.

You can't get the truth on these practices, not any of them, if they know who they are addressing.

[spacial]

On the basis of that report, I have to agree, it was entrapment

Mrs Pilkington told The Sunday Telegraph: "He told me he was looking for a treatment for being gay. He said he was depressed and unhappy and would I give him some therapy.

"I told him I only work using a Christian biblical framework and he said that was exactly what he wanted."

However much some may dislike the biblical reference, the man claimed being gay was making him depressed. He asked for treatment.

He added: "If a black person goes to a GP and says I want skin bleaching treatment, that does not put the onus on the practitioner to deliver the demands of the patient. It puts the onus on the health care practitioner to behave responsibly."

This argument is specious at best and prepostrus at worst. There is no proper evidence linking homosexuality with genetics. However much some may wish there were.

Homosexuality has nothing to do with appearance. Being black has nothing to do with behaviour.

Philip Hodson, a fellow of the BACP, said: "[BACP] is dedicated to social diversity, equality and inclusivity of treatment without sexual discrimination or judgmentalism of any kind, and it would be absurd to attempt to alter such fundamental aspects of personal identity as sexual orientation by counselling.

Politically motivated nonsense. The man asked for treatment for an issue that he claimed was making him depressed.

However much some may dislike religiously motovated people, we can only deal with them by persuasion. This sort of silly, provokative and frankly childish behaviour will only further alienate this significant group.

Here in the EU, we have the luxury of a largely secular society, where religious people of any persuasion have little power or influence. Our brothers and sisters in other societies are less fortunate. The US, the Middle East, Africa. No doubt this stupid idiot will be having a chuckly to himself and his chums. I wonder if he really cares about the effect on other societies?

[Dawn D.]

"[My son] is still gay ... we are developing a relationship that was quite difficult for many years but is now coming back in a very nice way. I am confident he will come through this and he will resolve his issues and that he will change

(emphasis mine)

Exactly! He is gay and always will be gay!.

Does anyone other than myself find it disturbing that she is experimenting with her own son's well being? What are the ramifications when she and he realize that the cure does/did not work?

No, this person is completely out of touch with rational and accepted procedures. My opinion is that regardless of the method employed by the activist, she should be investigated and if found to be as I described; she should lose the privileged to practice in this field.


Dawn

[VeryGnawty]

Does anyone other than myself find it disturbing that she is experimenting with her own son's well being? What are the ramifications when she and he realize that the cure does/did not work?

The ramifications tend to be harsh in these cases.  Usually, the entire family structure is destroyed, as well as the reputation of the person promoting the "nurture over nature" theories.  Pilkington could easily lose her career if her "confidence" in the change in her son turns out to be a figment of her imagination.

Personally, I find her to be quite foolish to risk her career on what is essentially a moral opinion.  The idea that all men are inherently heterosexual is not established in the scientific literature, which is the only literature that one should be basing a psychological practice on.

[cynthialee]

She treats maybe one person a year for being gay. They come to her she doesn't look for them.
The guy came to her, asked for help and secretly recorded the sessions.

The only badguy here is the dude with the recording device. What a d**k.
I hope he gets tossed out of the court on his ear.

Now granted reparative therapies have a dismal sucess rate and they are just plain wrong but it should be available to those who feel they can be healed this way.

[VeryGnawty]

She treats maybe one person a year for being gay. They come to her she doesn't look for them.

What about her son?  Did he also request such treatments?

The only badguy here is the dude with the recording device. What a d**k.

Assuming that all the people she has treated requested such treatment, I agree.  If someone really wants to try to change their orientation, they should be allowed to pursue that course, even if they do choose the aid of someone making unfounded assumptions about their condition.

Now granted reparative therapies have a dismal sucess rate and they are just plain wrong but it should be available to those who feel they can be healed this way.

Agreed.  I don't doubt that SOME people might have a true desire to change their orientation.  But given the pathetic success rates of such treatments, most of these desires seem to be motivated more out of fear than any inherent desire for change.

However much some may dislike religiously motovated people, we can only deal with them by persuasion. This sort of silly, provokative and frankly childish behaviour will only further alienate this significant group.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.  Say what you will about entrapment and collecting evidence.  But from a philosophical standpoint, you never want to use entrapment.  If Strudwick has to lie to prove his position, it only shows that his position was very weak to begin with.  He may think he's championing homosexual rights, but he's actually hurting them.  When you lie to make an argument, you actually make your opponent stronger.  If Pilkington is convicted based on evidence gained from entrapment, it will only make the moralists stronger.  They will use that as proof that homosexuals must lie and cheat in order to further their agenda.

Many people here may think Pilkington is a monster, but she is only a monster if she is convicted on real charges.  If she is convicted on a fabricated lie, she becomes a martyr which will only empower the moralists further.

[cynthialee]

None of that changes anything.

[spacial]

I get the impression that she treats people who are expereincing anxiety and depression because of their orientation.

Her methods and objectives may be controversial. They may even be unprofessional. I confess, I'm not qualified to say. But the behaviour of the young man was ridiculous, deceitful and underhanded.

What about her son?  Did he also request such treatments?

That's a good point. I can't see any psychotherapy having any positive effect, without the cooperation of the client.

At worst, her son is in the same position as a number of the members here, with hostile, religioisly motivated parents.

[Miniar]

I decided to look up the story from his perspective.

The purpose of this investigation was to find out how conversion therapists operate. What I didn't expect was that I would learn how their patients feel: confused and damaged.

I began to constantly analyse why I found particular men attractive. Does that man represent something that's lacking in me? Do I want him because he looks strong which must mean I feel weak? Did something happen in my childhood? The therapists planted doubt and worry where there was none.

My experiences, I learn, are typical. I speak to Daniel Gonzalez, one of Nicolosi's former clients. "Conversion therapy is a very complicated form of repression," he says. "It's a way of convincing yourself that your same sex attractions have some alternate meaning. It continued to haunt me for years."

I also speak to Peterson Toscano, who spent 17 years in Britain and the US trying every different reorientation treatment available. He says simply: "It's psychological torture."

I have to ask, in regards to the repeated references to "deceit";
Do you guys object to all undercover journalism?

[CaitJ]

Unfortunately the guilt and shame attached to 'reparitive therapy', as practiced by this woman, is extremely damaging and can cause deep seated psychological problems later on in life.
It's dangerous to practice these methods on people. It can screw them up for life and invariably causes other issues.
It's the equivalent of cutting off someone's hands to stop them from scratching their ass.
The other issue of course is the fact that children might fall into her clutches - children who cannot consent to her screwed up 'treatment' because their parents have already consented on their behalf. THAT is SUPER dangerous and WILL f**k the child up for years to come.
I'm glad this quack is getting stripped of her license.

[cynthialee]

I'll go you that is is 100% wrong to subject a child to any form of reparative therapy. That is not at issue.

But there are ALOT of people who believe in this crap.

Is it not their right as religious loons to go try and cure themselves of this non disease?

This just seems like a dangerous route to travel. This will just serve to rile our enemies and give them a chance to rail against those who they see as stifeling their rights.

[CaitJ]

But there are ALOT of people who believe in this crap.
Is it not their right as religious loons to go try and cure themselves of this non disease?

That's what churches are for. People can do whatever crazy ->-bleeped-<- they like in Church, but they shouldn't be given an accredited practicing license if they're pushing their crazy ->-bleeped-<- under that license.

[Miniar]

Is it not their right as religious loons to go try and cure themselves of this non disease?

Aside from Vexing's fine point, one has to also counter with wondering which other forms of serious psychological (if not also physical) damage people should be allowed to cause to themselves (and those they are allowed to provide consent for).

[E]

Aside from Vexing's fine point, one has to also counter with wondering which other forms of serious psychological (if not also physical) damage people should be allowed to cause to themselves (and those they are allowed to provide consent for).

For oneself, I'd say "unlimited". For those they are allowed to provide consent for... as little as possible, but exactly how closely that should be regulated isn't an easy question.

[CaitJ]

The issue here is that the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy gets to decide who gets accredited by them and who loses that accreditation if they involve themselves in practices that the BACP doesn't agree with.
There's not really much to argue with there.
They think her practices are shoddy, so they're stripping her of her accreditation.