Roger Helmer Finally Says Something Pretty Clear On LGBT Stuff

Roger Helmer, a candidate for a party with the silliest policy on same-sex marriage, has finally stopped muddying the water on LGBT issues after the tweet below came back to haunt him...

Why is it OK for a surgeon to perform a sex-change operation, but not OK for a psychiatrist to try to "turn" a consenting homosexual?
— Roger Helmer (@RogerHelmerMEP) January 16, 2011

3 and a bit years later, he has finally decided that (instead of asking silly unclear questions) to be a bit clearer about his position after an interview with the Mail on Sunday went a bit wrong.  His response to that interview is, I will admit, the very first thing I've EVER seen from Ukip that actually 1) appears to be a libertarian position and 2) sets out clearly that he doesn't seek to intrude on people's personal lives. He's on the same page as me on this one.

Now that he's articulated a libertarian position on ex-gay therapy, perhaps he might want to help David Coburn come up with a libertarian response to the equal marriage debate rather than the codswallop that is currently masquerading as Ukip party policy.

And then he can move on to perhaps suggesting to his fellow Ukippers about respecting actual religious and individual liberty.

My Own Little Boxing Match: Conflicting Emotions On Evander Holyfield

Just yesterday I was ranting on Twitter about people who "suffer from same-sex attraction". Their odd beliefs that they or, in the minds of their allies, others "suffer" from something akin to a "disability" because they are attracted to people of the same-sex are worthy of strong bouts of derisory laughter.

Sadly yet another example of this appeared within hours when Evander Holyfield put forward the Christian perspective on same-sex attraction: Holyfield remarked that finding someone of the same-sex attractive was akin to having a birth defect that needed medical attention.

This is enough for anyone to recognise he hasn't a clue about the subject at hand. Sexuality is a complicated and fluid thing and the dangerous idea it needs to be policed when it harms none is one should be mocked and vigorously argued against. (And for those who would point out "Well it does harm people" I would ask them to explain in what way touching another member of the same-sex's genitals in a consensual setting could possibly harm another as a general rule [i.e. sexually transmitted diseases, not unique to same-sex couplings, don't quite cover it]).

All well and good so far, I'm fighting on the side of the "angels" (for which read the leftie, liberal progressive worldview).

But the reaction from Channel 5 and Ofcom, with dodgy wordings from Big Brother such as:

"While Big Brother understands these are the views you hold, they aren't the views that are held by a large section of society, and expressing these views will be extremely offensive to many people. 

Do you understand why?"

Exactly what point are they trying to get at? Homosexuality has, for a great deal of time, offended a large section of society. That didn't mean homosexuality was wrong. If I were to base my moral and ethical judgments on what a "large section of society" believes I think I would be far less moral and ethical than I currently am (for which see people who think boxing is a suitable sport to watch or participate in).

And Ofcom's suggestion that it might investigate Celebrity Big Brother over the remarks stinks of the sort moralistic mothering that crushed LGBT people's freedom of expression for years.

I hate to do this but I, for the most part, find myself agreeing with Brendan O'Neill (a man whose career is partially based on supporting every homophobic remark or campaign he comes across out of a sense of contrarianism) when he calls attitudes towards Holyfield "intolerant".

I wholeheartedly believe that Evander Holyfield is an idiot. I completely oppose his position that same-sex attraction is in any way worthy of shame or correction. But, just as when I've stated I'm not opposed to LGBT folk seeking ex-gay or ex-trans therapy regardless of its efficacy or lack thereof, I cannot see any reason (he makes no threat of violence nor demands action against others) to censure or censor his remarks officially.

Let the anti-LGBT folk hang themselves with their words. My office was filled with derisory laughter today over his remarks. They were hardly eloquent or thought-provoking enough to have engendered any other reaction from most reasonable people. We must argue forcefully against such people. But let's try to be the better people whilst doing it.

Ex-Gay Therapy And I

When it comes to how to deal with ex-gay therapy, I'm deeply conflicted.

On one hand:

- I'm pretty confident that it does not work. Suppressing your sexuality is not changing it. The evidence seems to back this up and even former ex-gay leaders are starting to admit this.
- As it doesn't work, giving "false hope" to those, often vulnerable, individuals who want to change their sexuality is dangerous. It serves only to make them feel even worse when they are told their sexuality can change but it doesn't.
- You don't go to a Doctor and expect to receive homeopathy (unless you're a little mad) so you don't go to a psychiatrist and expect to be offered ex-gay therapy. It seems to be deeply wrong for any professional psychiatrist or counsellor to offer this.
- I just don't really get it because I don't see why anyone would want to change their sexuality. But that's just my bias...

On the other hand:

- As long as there is no coercion, this seems like a straight-forward case of freedom both for the individual to pursue this sort of therapy and for people to offer it.
- I don't want people to be gay. I want them to be happy. If not being gay makes them happy, who am I to deny them the right to work on that? Although how finding one gender attractive and the other not can make you happy/unhappy I don't know. Oh bias again...
- Ex-gay therapy is often given a good kicking but when will we review all other sorts of dangerously unscientific therapies like "sex addiction" therapy or anti-masturbation counselling (trust me, the Mormons have this!)

So yes, I'm pretty conflicted on this subject but feel I should welcome Diana Johnson's proposal for Parliament to tackle the subject. Certainly the idea that NHS funds have been used for conversion therapy makes me feel a little sick. I just know that if this subject ever does make it to Parliament, the debates will be just awful to behold.

California's Ban On Ex-Gay Therapy For Teenagers

In September, California's Governor Jerry Brown signed into law SB 1172 which banned ex-gay therapy for minors within the state. A laudable goal indeed. Regardless of ones views on the success, legitimacy or rights to exist of reparative therapy, there is just something rather disturbing about parents sending their kids to such therapists just because of who their children find attractive.

Whilst I will happily support the rights (on libertarian grounds) of LGBT people who freely seek to "change" or "control" their sexuality, I am personally deeply opposed to parents sending their children to such programmes or pressuring their kids into "volunteering" for them. These places have a history of sexual abuse against clients and a very low "success" rate (I'd argue nearly zero but that is just based on my own bias).

However I find attempts to legislate against it bizarre, simply because of the inconsistency. There are plenty of other forms of "therapy" that aren't just useless but harmful. Homeopathy, for example, has zero effect beyond a placebo and can cause real treatment to be delayed. Of course this only manifests itself on the public stage in those truly severe cases where a child actually dies, but I'm sure that parents who use homoepathy on their children are extending (if not worsening) suffering for minor ailments quite unnecessarily.

Or take "sex addiction" therapy. Is sending your heterosexual son off to "sex addiction" therapy because he likes to look at porn, jerk off or some other minor teenage transgression really "effective"? I doubt it. But I suspect plenty of Christian parents do send their children off to such, often Christian led, therapy or prayer sessions.

Why are LGBT kids more worthy of protection from heartless (and often stupid) parents than any other? The inconsistency is not lost on ex-gay proponents. Joshua Johanson, poster child for the Mormon ex-gay community, makes the point on "sex addiction" in this podcast. By banning ex-gay therapy for minors but ignoring other harmful therapies, we end up making such people look like martyrs.

Now I'm sure many who have fought for this ban are also opposed to the other forms of "therapy" highlighted above (along with many others!). They'd probably happily agree this is only a partial success. But sadly it may also be an illusionary one. A court is currently considering a legal challenge to the ban and has temporarily overturned it for those "therapists" leading the challenge. It will be remarkably easy for them to fight this ban as there still hasn't been sufficient academic study highlighting the harms of this therapy and this LGBT only approach allows them to claim religious persecution.

The lesson here may be pursue a broader protection for kids from their parent's stupid healthcare decisions (a tricky subject all round of course!) and creating a stronger body of evidence showing exactly how harmful these therapies can be. I must make it clear, I really am opposed to ex-gay therapy for kids. I just do not see how legislating for it alone helps protect them from it forever.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

It Doesn't Matter Why I'm Gay

Nature or nuture? When I consider that ever present question regarding my sexuality, I regard it with the same interest as that other important question: what colours were the dinosaurs? In other words I find the subject fascinating but essentially it has no bearing on how I live my life or how I view the struggle for LGBT rights.

The reemergence of last year's "A stroke turned me gay" story, thanks to a documentary on BBC Three tonight, has spurred some debate. Thanks to such things as the recent "ads on a bus" scandal, the concept of one's sexuality being flexible (or, my preferred word, fluid) is a "No go" area for some LGBT folk. Paul Flynn in the Guardian, and even Chris Birch's own fiance, seem convinced that Birch was always gay but was just in denial. The idea some event, be it a stroke, therapy or a magic spell, might be able to change one's sexuality goes completely against their world view. It plays, by their way of looking at things, into the hands of those crazy Christians who spend their life trying to convert gay men, lesbians and bisexuals to the "correct" sexuality.

I sometimes wonder if they are suggesting sexuality is something mystical or holy. The idea that it is immutable is akin to believing one has a soul. It's as religious, and unscientific, a belief as those who think it can be changed by therapy.

Making the argument about whether it can be changed or not is the real danger here. What does one do if science proves one's sexuality can be changed? That's the danger you face if you sit there fighting the case for an eternal and unchangeable sexuality.

To me it doesn't matter if it's nature, nuture, magic, cultural, or a mixture of all or some of those and other factors. It doesn't matter if it's a choice or not. There is NOTHING wrong with being gay, bisexual, a lesbian, asexual, straight, pansexual, polyamorous or just about any other consensual sexual flavour one can imagine. That is the beginning and the end. Even accepting one side of the argument or the other is to tacitly agree there could be something wrong with it, that if it was a choice it'd somehow be a bad thing to choose.

Now, what do I believe? Based on no evidence whatsoever I suspect it's a mixture of nature, nurture and a significant splash of cultural construction. I also believe that our current distinction of LGB and straight will disappear, that our current "gay culture" is but a passing phase that will go the way of homophobia.

But that doesn't change the fact I might be very wrong indeed, and it doesn't change the fact it doesn't matter one iota.

So I'm perfectly content to accept that I didn't choose to be gay, that some might find "benefit" from ex-gay therapy and that Chris Birch could indeed turn gay because of a stroke. I'm not quite as happy to accept one must stop playing rugby, lose some weight and get a terrible hairstyle in for the bargain though.

Pink News managed a rather more thoughtful comment piece on this than the Guardian managed.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Reasons The Ex-Gay Bus Ads Were Stupid And Why They Shouldn't Be Banned

Yesterday a rather impressive Twitter storm raged after it was discovered Anglican Mainstream and the Core Issues Trust were going to mount a counter bus ad campaign to Stonewall's famous "Some people are gay. Get over it" ads. These have recently reappeared on buses thanks to Stonewall's new marriage equality campaign.

If they were aiming for massive exposure, they were successful even if the ads have now been refused by Transport for London thanks to Boris Johnson's (record time) intervention last night. But if they were aiming to enlighten the public, I feel they may have really missed an opportunity (thankfully for us LGBT rights enthusiasts!). So here's a few points on what is wrong with the advert (leaving out that ridiculous exclamation mark after Not Gay which is wrong on far too many levels).

1) The phrasing. "Ex-gay" and "Post-gay" are not really terms in common circulation. People like me (and probably you) know about ex-gays because of the harrowing stories we hear from organisations like Truth Wins Out. Christian fundamentalists know about ex-gays because they are good friends! Post-gay is a bit more confusing, as to me that means someone looking to a time when sexuality doesn't really matter. I don't think that was the intention of the advert, but I could be wrong! I really think this advert is far more likely to confuse than to enlighten it's target audience. On that front alone it was a bit of an own goal anyway.
2) The concept. The idea that one can change their sexuality is not one I'd argue against. I believe that is true, and that sexuality is far more fluid than we'd like to admit. And I'm certain that there are some people who have been successfully "helped" by ex-gay organisations. But their treatments are not scientific and are NOT likely to "cure" even a large minority of those who ask for their help. I'm all in favour of freedom so I think ex-gay organisations should be allowed to operate (with adults). However, it's not something one should brag about running. The treatments and tactics of these organisations are awful... Ex-Gay Watch has more on that.
3) It's possibly the least Christian response, to what they perceived as attack, that could be conceived! Whatever happened to turning the other cheek, offering a positive response or even a loving response?? Truly, truly bizarre from so-called Christians.

But saying that, I can nothing here to ban it. The advert is not offensive. I know, don't hate me, but it's not. If you find this offensive than I would ask you not read any more of the internet immediately. It's simply (alright not simply, I'm assume this is what it says given how unclear it is!) stating that straight people, ex-gays and gay folks who have moved beyond their sexuality exist and are proud too. And it makes no unscientific claims.

Recently I criticised Tim Farron for asking the ASA to give an exception to a Christian organisation that advertises that prayer heals. That is unscientific and is, 99% certainly, a false claim. No such false claim has been made in this case.

I think it should've been allowed to run on free speech grounds alone. It didn't incite violence, made no false claims (unless you deny the existence of people claiming to be ex-gay!) and isn't offensive. It was ridiculous, pointless and not very nice. But I really think all that a ban has done is kept the story, and exposure going (as proven by today's news the anti-gay organisations might attempt to sue).

People around the world want to silence LGBT people because they find what we say offensive, we must be better people than them.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Do I Support Ex-Gay Therapy? I Think I Do But Widdecombe's Still Wrong.

Feels like Twitter storm is brewing over Ann Widdecombe's latest comments on homosexuality. In the Express (better bedfellows you could not find!) she has voiced support for allowing "unhappy gays" to seek ex-gay therapy following the Patrick Strudwick's (one of my least favourite left-wingers) entrapment of a therapist offering this service upon request.

You know what? I agree with her.

First a few provisos:

1) I don't think ex-gay therapy works.
2) I think it can be very damaging especially to the self-esteem of young LGB people  (as can it's anti-trans equivalent)
3) I can't for the life of me understand why a grown adult would have a problem with being gay but that's my own bias I suppose.
4) No one should be forced to attend ex-gay therapy by anyone else (I'm looking at you parental types out there).

But... if someone is desperately unhappy being gay and believes ex-gay therapy will help them, who are we to stop them doing so of their own freewill? So there you go, case closed. Etc.

Except... where Widdecombe's argument stumbles is on the example she has used. For if one wishes to be accredited by the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy, then one should follow their requirements for that accreditation. Lesley Pilkington failed to do this, and thus hasn't really got a defense. There's nothing actually stopping ex-gay therapists operating nor stopping "unhappy gays" seek therapy.

So what was Ann Widdecombe's point again? Oh yes, we're all picking on Christians and not Muslims and that is simply not fair!

It's nice to know she never changes. Good ol' Ann, mad as a hatter as always.

 
If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

More Ex-Gay Nonsense

I've no problem with organisations and individuals attempting to "help" those who, voluntarily, wish to try and "change their sexuality". I'm a great believer in individual freedom.

But that doesn't mean I believe it is possible, that I think it is ethical and it doesn't mean I won't moan about "ex-gay therapy" whenever I have the opportunity. Today's video of two victims of an ex-gay therapist comes via Queerty.



If you want to know more about the weird practices and strange beliefs of ex gay therapists check out Ex-Gay Watch or Truth Wins Out.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Philippa Stroud And The "Lib Dem Hit Piece"

It's been a rather shocking 24 hours really. The story about Philippa Stroud wasn't all that shocking; "Evangelical Christian tries to cure gays" is not really going to knock you over with it's bizarreness.

No, what has shocked me is how quickly the Tories have accepted her statement of innocence without even the most cursory of cheks.

“I make no apology for being a committed Christian. However, it is categorically untrue that I believe homosexuality to be an illness and I am deeply offended that The Observer has suggested otherwise. I have spent 20 years working with disturbed people who society have turned their back on and are not often supported by state agencies; drug addicts, alcoholics, the mentally ill and the homeless that I and my charitable friends in the public sector have tried to help over the years. The idea that I am prejudiced against gay people is both false and insulting.”

No one suggested that she thought homosexuality was an illness. The article refers to the belief that homosexuality is caused by demonic possession.

When PinkNews.co.uk pointed out to her spokesman that The Observer's prime claim was not that she believed homosexuality to be an illness, rather that she appeared to believe it could be overcome through prayer and removing "demons", he said: "we will not be adding to or subtracting to the statement." - Pink News

Both On The Right Wing and Iain Dale seem to suggest this is all just a belated Lib Dem smear against Mrs Stroud.

Well I can show you IT ISN'T. Abi, the girl quoted in the article, has been making her claims for quite some time. Just check out here. That no more proves Stroud guilty than Stroud's statement proves her innocence. But neither statement should just be dismissed for political reasons.

Accusations of "gay conversion" are, in my opinion, some of the most serious accusations one can make against someone without the police getting involved (and they still could under certain circumstances). It's disturbing to see Tories just brush them off and paint this all as a witch hunt. Defend Stroud by all means, but don't just dismiss claims against her as so much fluff because she's "a nice person". Lots of people think the same about allsorts of folks but have no idea of what that person is really like.

A thorough investigation is needed, promptly, to ensure confidence that the Tory party really does believe in protecting vulnerable people.

For more information on the serious issues behind gay conversion please check out Ex Gay Watch and Truth Wins Out

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

The Tories, the General Election and LGBT Rights

The Tories have changed. I'm not going to argue that point. I sincerely believe David Cameron took a decision to move his party closer to the centre and as part of that project he finally dropped the official knee-dragging of the Tories over LGBT rights. That's great. But this official change has not led to changes in the grassroots (which I suppose no one would've expected) but it doesn't appear to have led to much change in the upper echelons either.

Firstly we had the Chris Grayling "B and B" gaffe, as Shadow Home Secretary you'd expect him to know the party line. Alas.

Then we had Julian Lewis and his comparison of the HIV risk to gay men to the risks faced in war, and that is why he supports an unequal age of consent.  *headdesk*

Then we had Philip Lardner, who has failed to understand the biological or psychological definitions of the word normal. He thinks things that are "common" are okay but those that are "rare" are not. On this basis "Tigers bad, domestic cats good!". Idiot. He promptly had Tory support withdrawn from his candidacy, again showing the deep divide between Tory policy and Tory reality. The support shown to him by lay Tory members on places like Conservative Home has shown how out of touch David Cameron is with his party's base. That doesn't matter whilst he's winning but, as Thatcher found out, they abandon you pretty quickly when you start to look like a loser.

Now we have Philippa Stroud. Obviously she already has her defenders (just check out some of the comments on that page). Religious freedom is a wonderful thing et al. BUT... these sort of ex-gay therapies are renowned for their psychologically harmful effects and for the abuse that often comes as part of the package. Thankfully I don't need to argue any of those points, as Ex Gay Watch documents all that pretty clearly.

The Tories have come a long way... but they've still got too far to go. LGBT folk who believe it's now safe to vote Tory must understand the change is only skin deep and only secure whilst "Cameronites" remain in charge. Be wary of pinning your hopes on them just yet.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist