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 (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.
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.
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.
Quote from: VeryGnawty on January 17, 2011, 09:43:31 AM
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.
Quote from: rejennyrated on January 17, 2011, 09:49:07 AM
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.
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.
On the basis of that report, I have to agree, it was entrapment
QuoteMrs 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.
QuoteHe 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.
QuotePhilip 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?
Quote"[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
Quote from: Dawn D. on January 17, 2011, 10:42:29 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: cynthialee on January 17, 2011, 11:00:43 AM
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?
QuoteThe 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.
QuoteNow 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.
Quote from: SpacialHowever 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.
None of that changes anything.
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.
Quote from: VeryGnawty on January 17, 2011, 11:07:04 AM
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.
I decided to look up the story from his perspective (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/the-exgay-files-the-bizarre-world-of-gaytostraight-conversion-1884947.html).
QuoteThe 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?
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.
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.
Quote from: cynthialee on January 17, 2011, 03:52:34 PM
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.
Quote from: cynthialee on January 17, 2011, 03:52:34 PM
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).
Quote from: Miniar on January 17, 2011, 04:08:11 PM
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.
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.
I have a hard time comprehending how any of us think that she should be permitted to tell pateients that she can cure "the gay" and charge them money to administer some kind of unproven treatment that may, and likely is, harmful, just because they come to her. It's outright fraud. It's like a physician selling an herbal blend, including known poisons, that he concocted to cure cancer, stating that it is a proven cure because it worked on a relative.
I know there are some alternative cancer treatments that physicians administer, but there are specific laws passed to permit cettain ones that are known to at least not be harmful, and they can't just cook up new ones. Reparative therapy is a fraud that likely does long term harm to victims, and mental health professionals who offer it should be professionally disciplined.
Quote from: Miniar on January 17, 2011, 04:08:11 PM
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.
Infinite. It is not the government's job to protect people from themselves. That is the responsibility of the individual.
If I want to punch a wall until my fist bleeds, that should be my right to do so. I don't need the government telling me how much damage I can or cannot do to my own body or mind. Similarly, if one wants to try to change their sexual orientation (however ill-fated the endeavor may be) they should have the right to make the attempt.
Like I said, if Pilkington is to be convicted of anything, it needs to be real damage to a real person in a real case. If Strudwick went into the therapy based on a lie and suffered damage because he wasn't prepared for the result, that is his own fault. You don't walk into a lion's den and blame the lions when they attack. The only evidence that should be relevant is any evidence he uncovered about former patients who actually did want to change, who suffered damage from the treatments administered.
From the sounds of it, Pilkington is using what amounts to a form of hypnosis (brainwashing). This is a vile technique which can cause serious psychological problems which often take as long to correct as they take to put in place. Hypnosis is very well studied. It is already known how these types of mechanisms work in the brain. All that should be needed for a real conviction is testimony of someone (a real person, not an imaginary personage drummed up by Strudwick) who suffered psychological damage from the results of the therapy.
Even without any conviction, she could still have her license removed if those forms of hypnosis are not approved by the regulatory board which oversees those types of practices. Which, judging by the discussion, is exactly what is going on. It sounds like the regulatory agency is not convinced that homosexuality is a mental illness, nor a condition which can be changed by the types of therapies that Pilkington was employing.
Like I said, Pilkington is risking her career by making psychological assumptions which are not based on actual science. It is her job to treat people based on the best methods known to science, not the best methods known by The Good Book. If she wants to do that then she should be a preacher or a pastor, not a therapist. If her religion conflicts with her line of work, then she needs to choose which is more important to her.
Quote from: VeryGnawty on January 17, 2011, 10:59:12 PM
Infinite. It is not the government's job to protect people from themselves. That is the responsibility of the individual.
If I want to punch a wall until my fist bleeds, that should be my right to do so. I don't need the government telling me how much damage I can or cannot do to my own body or mind. Similarly, if one wants to try to change their sexual orientation (however ill-fated the endeavor may be) they should have the right to make the attempt.
Except the difference between you punching a wall and this situation is that there's a "qualified professional" involved.
It would be more like going to a doctor as a left-handed person and have him smash your left hand with a hammer to break it as if you had been punching a wall, and not for any medically, psychologically or scientifically sound reason what so ever, but because you've been made to believe by overwhelming pressure from society and everyone you love that being left-handed is "wrong" and that you really should be right-handed.
Quote from: VeryGnawtyLike I said, if Pilkington is to be convicted of anything, it needs to be real damage to a real person in a real case. If Strudwick went into the therapy based on a lie and suffered damage because he wasn't prepared for the result, that is his own fault. You don't walk into a lion's den and blame the lions when they attack. The only evidence that should be relevant is any evidence he uncovered about former patients who actually did want to change, who suffered damage from the treatments administered.
There's no mention of a criminal case anywhere in the piece of news.
Quote from: VeryGnawtyEven without any conviction, she could still have her license removed if those forms of hypnosis are not approved by the regulatory board which oversees those types of practices. Which, judging by the discussion, is exactly what is going on.
That is exactly what's going on.
Quote from: VeryGnawtyIt sounds like the regulatory agency is not convinced that homosexuality is a mental illness, nor a condition which can be changed by the types of therapies that Pilkington was employing.
... That would be because it's not a mental illness.
Quote from: Miniar on January 18, 2011, 06:46:20 AM
There's no mention of a criminal case anywhere in the piece of news.
Then perhaps you can explain to me why so much legal language is used. Maybe it's not a criminal case, but the article certainly sounds like legal precedent is being set:
Quote from: articleHer legal defence is being funded by the Christian Legal Centre (CLC), which has instructed Paul Diamond, a leading religious rights barrister, to fight the case.
She wants to keep her license, that's all.
People should have the right to cause whatever amount of psychological and/or physical damage they want to cause to themselves. They should be able to enlist the help of others within limits (that is, they shouldn't be able to enlist others to commit crimes against them, but any amount of talk therapy, biblethumping, crystal-waving, and the like is fair game).
However, accrediting and licensing bodies (whose entire purpose is to help people decide which practitioners can be trusted in a given field) are under no obligation to license or accredit people who do not practice in accordance with the accepted standards of the field.
People who wish to operate outside of accepted standards are free to do so (within limits - they can't do things like surgery that are illegal to do without a license for obvious reasons) but they aren't entitled to accreditation, or to the use of any professional titles that the accrediting bodies are responsible for regulating.
Undercover journalism is a perfectly acceptable way of revealing that a particular practitioner is operating outside of accepted standards.
There are no criminal charges in this case because no crimes are alleged to have occurred. There is apparently a legal defence fund because there has been (or will be) a civil action filed, in which the therapist is challenging the loss of her accreditation.
Quote from: kyril on January 18, 2011, 04:49:15 PM
There are no criminal charges in this case because no crimes are alleged to have occurred. There is apparently a legal defence fund because there has been (or will be) a civil action filed, in which the therapist is challenging the loss of her accreditation.
Thanks, that's what I needed to know. I was confused because the article used the word "accused" multiple times. It made it sound like there was a suit against Pilkington.
In the States, Dominatrix is a profession. You can get a business license and go to town on some hinys. If the dudes don't pay, thinking that you can't call the cops, you can have them arrested for theft of services.
I don't know for sure, but it might be possible for a licensed therapist to have a side business as a Dominatrix without losing her license. However, I doubt she would keep her license for long if she started administering "Dominance Therapy" as part of her mental health practice.