No Counseling for You!

I’ve written quite a bit about Minnesota nutcase and member of the State House of Representatives Glenn Gruenhagen.  Mr. Gruenhagen, who has opposed LGBT rights and equality since being elected in 2010, has recently introduced a bill which misuses and misinterprets the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA’s) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-V) to draft a law referring to LGBT people as “mentally ill” and “in need of treatment.”

Today I read an article originally run in the Associated Press and picked up by LGBTQNation about a Tennessee bill giving counselors and therapeutic care givers the right to refuse service to LGBT individuals based on the provider’s religious beliefs.  The bill is on its way to the governor’s desk as we speak. 

You would think that the Republicans could be on the same page with their regressive tactics.  Are LGBT people “sick” and in need of “healing?”  Or should we just deny their humanity and hope they all succumb to depression and anxiety by refusing them treatment?

But, then again, logic isn’t really a character trait most people associate with fear mongering and Republican political tactics.

This is what I can tell you about this Tennessee bill that should encourage you.

First off, if you are a licensed professional counselor in the United States, you must abide by the American Counseling Association’s  (ACA’s) Code of Ethics.  This ethical code adopts that old medical mantra to do no harm.  This paper from 2012 summarizes this ethical mandate:

The ACA Code of Ethics clearly states that counselors encourage client growth and development in ways that foster the interest and welfare of clients, and that the primary responsibility of counselors is to respect the dignity and to promote the welfare of clients (ACA, 2005, p. 4). In fact, it is a fundamental assumption of the ACA Code of

Ethics, as well as other ethical codes within the mental health profession, to “avoid harm to clients . . .and to minimize or to remedy unavoidable or unanticipated harm” (p. 4). In other words, the needs of clients, not counselors, are the priority. Ethical codes and practice regulations exist to assure the welfare of clients, not accommodate the personal beliefs of providers. “Convictions of conscience” clauses imply that self-interest rather than devotion to client welfare can be the counselor’s priority.

The idea behind this, of course, is that simply refusing a client or patient based on an “ookiness” factor (the client is gay, the client is homeless and smells, the client drools when he talks, etc.) completely undermines the client’s dignity and more often than not compounds the very reason the client is seeking therapeutic services (addressing anxiety, identity, self-worth and self-concept, etc.). 

That being said, in order to appropriately treat a client or patient while understanding that a single individual cannot be all things to all people, the ACA Code of Ethics does provide a way out for providers who aren’t comfortable treating a client or patient for whatever reason.  Usually it’s invoked when the provider understands that the client’s needs lie outside of the provider’s capabilities.  In the scope of the current conversation it would amount to the provider doing the referral not because they find the LGBT client morally or religiously repugnant but rather because the provider does not feel competent to provide treatment.  The referral is always done respectfully, pointing to the fact that the current provider is not equipped to meet the client’s needs.  The responsibility, though, is for the current provider to facilitate the connection to the next, more qualified provider, so that the client is not left without care.

Leaving a client or patient without care, whether it’s a medical issue or a psychological issue, is not ethical no matter what your governing body is or what your professional organization’s code of ethics are.  “Do no harm” undergirds nearly all care giving vocations.

And, really, if you were an LGBT person, wouldn’t you want to be referred on to someone who’s more equipped to help you than to sit in an office with a closet homophobe who sees you as condemned because their interpretation of religious text declares you as “abomination?”  The point I’m driving at, however, is that the care provider has a professional responsibility to refer a client without any form of evaluative judgment on the client’s needs or condition that might affect the client’s well-being.

This Tennessee law defies this professional responsibility and gives homophobic individuals the power to do just that.  Imagine being the teenage child of a parent who has dragged you into counseling because you’re gay or lesbian.  You’ve (rightfully) dug in your heals and declared that this is who you are and there is no “cure” for it.  However your parent has brought you to the one therapist in town and, upon the initial consultation, the therapist pulls your parent into the room and says, “I can’t treat your child.  My religious convictions do not accept your child’s choice.” 

How many things can you count as wrong in that statement?  And yet you know it will happen because it does happen and has probably happened to you. 

We need to do better.

But here’s the thing.

For a party of “smaller government,” the Republicans have a habit of shoving their noses in where they don’t belong and then creating a bureaucracy to enforce their opinions.  As I’ve reminded you for the past few weeks it’s common for the Republicans to do this in an election year, to make something out of nothing in order to motivate their base.  There is no actual need for a law like this but what it does is gives the Republicans a talking point that can easily sidestep reason and abandon logic.  And, remember, this isn’t about the truth.  This is about creating truth by repeating a story often enough that people believe it’s truth. 

Though there isn’t an actual need for a law like this we can clearly see why the Republicans would endorse a law like this.  Or a law like the heinous bathroom laws.  Or any law that legalizes discrimination.  Such laws dehumanize people and, when it comes down to it, the Republicans work best when they have a group of people whose rights have been denied but continue to struggle for equality.  The Republicans have always and will always point to that struggle for equality and play on people’s fears with it.

The ACA’s Code of Ethics underscores the dignity and welfare of the individual.  This law and others like it, like one passed in Mississippi not too long ago, completely ignores and even reverses what years of professional research and observation have accomplished.  It’s another case of law makers, who don’t have a clue about what it is they’re actually talking about, pretending that they are doctors or teachers or scientists and know more than the entire profession they are trying to micromanage through the implementation of laws.  Laws, by the way, that are underwritten by special interest groups and financed by lobbyists.  It would be interesting to see what groups are backing this Tennessee law because, I guarantee, it’s not the ACA or any other credible professional organization. 

One last thing.  If you’re an LGBT teen in Tennessee or Mississippi or any of these other states in which politicians are literally playing games with people’s lives, including yours, and you’re not getting the help you need, please talk to someone safe.  I’ll leave contact info for The Trevor Project below.  I worry about all LGBT people facing such hateful resistance to common sense and decency, but I think LGBT teens are at a much higher risk and the world needs you.  Without you, how are we going to change the world?

www.thetrevorproject.org

866-488-7386

TrevorText -  Available on Thursdays and Fridays (4:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. ET / 1:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. PT). Text the word “Trevor” to 1-202-304-1200. Standard text messaging rates apply.

TrevorChat—Here is a link to chat online with someone from The Trevor Project:  

The North Carolina Temper Tantrum

I’ve somewhat reached a turning point in my opinion about North Carolina’s trans-panic induced hate bill. 

No, I’m by no means coming out in support of such ignorant and juvenile political tactics.  I’m certainly not swayed by any pseudo-religious arguments about “men dressing as women being an abomination” or any fake science put forward by people like Glenn Gruenhagen   I still solidly believe this hate bill, like the ones passed in Mississippi and Tennessee and like the ones being proposed in other states for election year publicity, are significant attacks on the progress we’ve made as a civilized people in the recognition of the humanity of a minority of our population. 

Where I think I’ve turned a corner is in the understanding how the ripple effect of these hate bills is going to play out. 

If you’ve ever watched a child, you’ll understand this analogy.  Suppose the child you’re supervising insists on going into a room you have declared as off limits.  The child totally understands that they do not belong in that room.  BUT…if you watch the child they are going to do everything sneaky to test that boundary.  It might start as a toe casually crossing the threshold or maybe a hand stuck in the room to make sure laser beams won’t slice the child’s body to bits.  The child will push back against the adults’ decision that the space in question is a space not to be disrupted by childish play.

This is exactly what’s going on with these hate bills.  The majority has spoken.  The US Supreme Court has ruled.  Marriage equality is the law of the land.  But as I’ve written before, Republican lawmakers always need to make something out of nothing in order to rally their base during an election year.  They can’t rail against “gay marriage” anymore.  The “repeal Obamacare” mantra has lost its punch.  Heck, even abortion rights seem to have fizzled among the voting public.  But “perverts wanting to use the women’s room so they can rape your daughter” sounds like a solid fantastical claim to get people interested in what you have to say.  And, again like I’ve written, facts no longer mean anything in situations like this.  It’s all about controlling the story. 

It’s children testing a boundary, trying to get into that space that the adults have declared a zone free of childish play. 

But here’s what I see happening. 

·        Paypal has pulled out of a plan to construct a “$20 million research and manufacturing plant in the state, which would include 50 new positions paying an average $76,000 annual salary.”

·        Braeburn Pharmaceuticals has canceled plans to build a research facility in the state.

·        Lionsgate Films and A&E network will no longer be filming in the state until the hate bill is repealed.

·        The NBA is looking at moving the NBA All-Star Game in 2017 to Atlanta, costing the state an estimated $100 million in revenue.

·        20^th Century Fox is not planning to do anymore filming in North Carolina.

·        State Governors are banning state employees from traveling to North Carolina for any reason.  My homestate governor, Mark Dayton of Minnesota, issued his orders affected Metro Transit employees from attending a conference coming up in North Carolina.  Dayton isn’t alone.  New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin and Washington, D.C. mayor Muriel Bowser have also issued bans on non-essential employee travel to North Carolina.

·        Bruce Springstein canceled his Friday concert in opposition to the hate bill. 

Those are just the notables and just in North Carolina.  Mississippi and Tennessee are facing the same kind of boycotting.  For example, today Bryan Adams canceled his concert in Mississippi because of their discriminatory law.

Of course, Pat McCrory, the governor of North Carolina, has called this a media smear campaign and referred to “The Boss” as a bully.  Like a child not able to take responsibility for his actions, McCrory is lashing out at others who are calling him out on his behavior.

But, see, this is what I find so encouraging about this horrible situation.  Everyone knows what the Republican party has become.  We all knew that sooner or later someone would try something to target the LGBT community again and attempt to force everyone to conform to extreme Republican political understanding of religious views.  They’ve shown us who they are for decades and everyone understood it wasn’t a matter of if but a matter of when.

But the adults in the room aren’t having it.  And like a tantrum-throwing child demanding everything be done their way, North Carolina politicians are getting put in the biggest time out imaginable.  Plans to hang out with the cool kids like Paypal and Braeburn and Lionsgate—all canceled.  Allowance—revoked to the tune of millions of dollars.  Even going out to a concert is out of the question until these people—these children—improve their behavior and fix what they broke.

And this is what has me so relieved and so excited!  The adults in the room are putting their feet down and declaring, “This behavior is not acceptable.”

We knew they would pull something, try to undo all the progress hard won.  In the back of my mind I always stressed about what the response would be.  Is it going to be another protracted battle?  Are people even going to notice or care?  Are people experiencing “compassion fatigue” when it comes to the saga of LGBT rights?  But what I’m seeing is quite the opposite—people do care and they aren’t going to put up with it.  In fact, the NAACP announced two days ago its plans to orchestrate a massive sit in at the North Carolina legislature if the hate bill isn’t repealed. 

This encourages me on so many levels but fundamentally it encourages me because it validates my belief that people are, when it gets down to it, fundamentally good.  When we have the likes of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz and Pat Robertson and Franklin Graham saying all this hateful nonsense it’s a relief to see reasonable reactions to capricious activities.  I mean, in an election year in which we seem to be experiencing the death of common sense, it’s good to know not everyone has abandoned morality and good judgement. 

Share it forward!
Follow me on Twitter @TroyComets 

Do LGBT YouTubers Have a Special Responsibility?

Before I begin I want to make a few things clear.

1.     I’m not picking a fight or manufacturing drama.  I’m simply sharing my opinion on this topic.

2.     I am not speaking for Jack Merridew (@OfficialJackM) nor am I trying to put words in his mouth.  I’m simply writing my impressions.  Jack can speak (and clearly has spoken) for himself. 

3.     I am not attacking DaveyWavey (@TheDaveyWavey).  Again, just writing my impressions.   

4.     And I am certainly not speaking ill of Gayety (@gayety), who help to raise so much awareness of the LGBT community. 

A couple of weeks ago I wrote about role models and how some people you absolutely don’t agree with are actually very good role models because of the way they connect with ages and cultures others can’t connect with.  In that post I talked a little about Jack Merridew and a video he had recently shared on gay sex-ed.  Though it wasn’t the kind of video I would be comfortable making, I applauded it for its frankness and honesty and providing necessary information to young LGBT people who may not get the same reliable information elsewhere. 

This morning the online news resource, Gayety, shared an article/video produced by YouTuber DaveyWavey.  It was Davey Wavey’s explanation on how to safely have gay sex.

I’ll be honest.  My initial reaction was, “Jack just did this and did a better job of it.”  But the more I thought about it the more I realized that that really wasn’t the problem I was having with DaveyWavey’s video.  It wasn’t about who did what first.  Here’s where I was struggling. 

I’ve been watching Jack’s videos for a while.  The more I watch them the more I appreciate the ongoing narrative behind them.  Jack speaks candidly.  He is open and honest about things.  Heck, this week he shared a video in which he was completely upfront about losing his virginity as well as his views on sex.  In listening to this narrative you actually get the picture of someone who is almost shy, very humble, but very much wanting to get good information out to people who need it.  Jack seems to recognize what it takes to be an effective communicator for his growing audience.  He’s meeting an important need in the LGBT community.  He’s a role model.  I know for a fact from interacting with folks through social media people look up to Jack.

I’ve followed DaveyWavey for a while.  At first I thought I was missing something.  I know his reputation and how famous he’s become but, to be honest, something just wasn’t clicking for me.  I think I figured it out this morning.  To me, when I watch DaveyWavey, the narrative I see is the narrative of someone pushing an envelope for the sake of pushing the envelope and not so much about improving the LGBT community and, by extension, the world.  I’m not so sure how helpful that is right now.

Let me explain.

Over the past few videos on DaveyWavey’s YouTube channel, not only have we seen the “do it for the chuckles” comedic videos about “bro jobs” and “It’s only gay if our balls touch” and watched him interview people while have battery operated sex toys attached to their penises but we’ve also seen DaveyWavey talk a straight guy into having sex with him and another straight guy into douching.  I worry that pushing the envelope for entertainment purposes when it comes to LGBT themes might actually work against the LGBT community.

Right now we are seeing a frenzied movement of hate bills being passed in conservative leaning states and being introduced in many moderate states.  The momentum behind these bills is that there is a “perversion” about LGBT people and to “give in” to their demands for equal protection and rights will only lead to corruption of young people or even sexual assault in our public restrooms.  We can sit here and provide all the facts we want.  We can point out to these political and religious leaders that in fact there have been more Republican politicians arrested for lewdness in public restrooms than transgender people and that states who have adopted laws providing for equal protection have had none of the incidents that the supporters of these hate bills claim are coming.  None of that matters.   Reality doesn’t matter.  Facts do not matter.  In situations like this what matters is who controls the narrative. 

And as we all know conservative politicians and religious leaders are very good at controlling the narrative.  Why?  Because when you disregard facts and ignore the existence of nuance, it’s simple to cram your message onto a bumper sticker.  Once you’ve stripped reality out of the equation and have a catchy slogan, it’s easy to get that slogan repeated by the masses.  When it’s repeated enough times, it becomes “truth.”

When members of the LGBT community push the envelope solely for entertainment purposes or to dance on the edge of daring so as to increase their audience, I think they do the greater community a disservice.  DaveyWavey’s content is a good example of this.  Apart from the innuendo and explicit videos, there are these two recent additions that you know anti-LGBT people can pull out and say, “Look, sexuality is a choice!  Look how this gay YouTube star has influenced these straight guys into gay sexual activity.”

It’s not a conspiracy theory.  I know enough about people to know this kind of thing happens.

And when we have people like Minnesota nutcase and member of the state legislature Glenn Gruenhagen taking control of the narrative by pretending to understand mental illness and the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, I think we need to be very careful about how we portray ourselves. 

This morning I commented on Twitter about Gayety’s article.  I said that Jack Merridew was able to cover the “how to” of gay sex more effectively and less provocatively.  I don’t think I chose the right word there.  In fact, if you read my post on role models you’ll probably remember me talking about Jack being provocative and me being okay with that.

The word “provocative” picked up a sexual connotation in the seventeenth century.  The word actually comes from a Latin word that means “to call forth.”  Think of it as elicit, draw forth, bring out, or evoke.  The idea was to call forth conversation. 

Jack’s videos always call forth conversation.  Again, some of the content might be a little more risqué than some might think is necessary, but that’s the beauty of what Jack does.  That daring dance Jack does earns him respect for being honest and open.  After all, how many of us would be able to sit there and make a video about how we lost our virginity or even talking about struggles with body image?

It seems the only struggle with body image DaveyWavey has ever dealt with is whether he should wear a shirt or not.

And I’m not saying that all LGBT YouTubers need to do the same thing.  I think a plurality of voices is necessary because not no one can be all things to all people.  The LGBT community is made up of a wide variety of people with a wider variety of experiences and backgrounds.  We need all of these voices to speak to our community. 

I just don’t think we need to do things, say things, produce things that others intent on the destruction of our community can use against us.  That might mean that YouTubers in our community are going to be held to a higher standard.  Should that be surprising?  Our community has always been held to a higher standard.  Most minority groups are.  But I think the celebrities of our community, the ones who have developed a name for themselves from within the community and out into the greater world, have a responsibility to attend to how what they do and say might impact the community. 

I’m not trying to pick on DaveyWavey or impart sainthood on Jack Merridew.  I’ve seen far worse than what DaveyWavey has put out and I’ve seen better than what Jack has put out—all from members of the community.  But those “better” and “worse” evaluative terms?  Those are mine and I completely recognize they are my opinion. 

Once again:  I am grateful for the diversity of voices within the celebrity circles of the LGBT community.  I just think that right now, with the political climate the way it is, we need to be fighting good fights to improve the community and secure our rights and not just be doing things to increase our own individual notoriety and publicity.  

Share it forward!
Follow me on Twitter @TroyComets

Anti-LGBT Rhetoric in Politics

Repeat after me:  Correlation is not causation. 

This is a fact the people who do not understand how to interpret research and statistics often ignore as they attempt to legitimize their bigotry, prejudice, and hate by citing intelligent sounding and reasonably conducted research.

And I’m tired of it.

Here’s the classic example in the LGBT community.  I’ve talked about this before.  It’s no secret that the prevalence of depression and rates of suicide and suicidal ideation is higher in the LGBT community than the non-LGBT community.  Law makers and religious leaders are quick to draw attention to this.  They capitalize on this correlation (relationship or connection between two or more things) and make the heinously inaccurate statement that this means that depression and suicide are caused by an LGBT identity.  Legitimate research (that is, research that does not enter into a study with a preconceived notion of what the outcome will be based on things like religious convictions) has found that the majority of incidents of depression/suicide within the LGBT community are not due to the LGBT identity.  These feelings and tragedies are environmentally based due to fear of rejection or reprisal by people in the environment as well as fear of judgment by divine forces and family members.  What this legitimate research tells us is that, upon coming out (or transitioning in the case of trans individuals), and the establishment of a solid support system based on authentic ownership of the individual’s identity, suicide and depression rate plummet dramatically.

But, of course, politicians and religious leaders don’t go into all of that.  They simply pull out numbers from studies and run with them in order to frighten people or to appear educated.  I mean, look at what’s going on in North Carolina, Mississippi, and Tennessee.   Look at Minnesota’s Glenn Gruenhagen who continues to introduce hate-based legislation by pretending he’s actually informed and compassionate. 

And it’s not just in the United States.  Conservatives the world over play this game—a game in which they win political standing and the truth loses relevance. 

Today I learned of a German politician by the name of Katrin Ebner-Steiner who is a member of one of Germany’s conservative political parties.  Ms Ebner-Steiner believes that children with same-sex parents are more likely to be criminals and that teaching children about LGBT rights will set Germany back 60 years.  She states:

“The traditional family image offers children the most protection against ideological confusion, against drugs and criminality,…Only the traditional family image guarantees healthy interpersonal bonds, is meaningful and encourages entrenchment with the home land….Only the traditional family image can reunite our partially splintered society.”

Despite the fact that this is a German politician promoting her vision of German politics, the announcement of her beliefs made me very angry.  This article may be about Germany but politicians in the United States do the exact same thing every day. 

Would you like to know the truth behind the statistics?  They are troubling.  The problem is that because marriage equality is a new thing and same-sex couples with children tended to cover their relationship in fear of potential consequences, particularly in more conservative regions of the country, a lot of data are not available on the subject.  Heck, it wasn’t until this past month that same-sex couples were finally able to adopt in all fifty states.

So, without significant research at hand, this is what I can share with you and then I will draw some pretty solid conclusions based on the data.

A 2010 study done at Queen Mary University in London, using data from Sweden, found that, in their data, there was no predictive relationship between the criminality of adoptive parents and adopted children.  The children of parents demonstrated a criminal tendency that could not be recognized or grounded in the adoptive family.  What this means is that the adoptive parents had no criminal records, were often middle to upper class professionals, and yet their adoptive children developed anti-social tendencies that led them to criminal activity.

What’s the alternative to same-sex parenting of adopted children?  The foster care system.  It’s not like non-LGBT couples are stepping up to take in these kids. 

This article from the online journal STIR draws attention to the following statistics:

·        200,000 children are currently in stranger (non-relative) foster homes

·        On average a foster child will spend 23 months in foster care.

·        During that 23 months, 20% of children will experience 10 or more placements, dramatically affecting their ability to attach to caregivers and trust adults.

·        In 2012, nearly 36,000 foster children had been waiting more than three years to return home or to be adopted, and 24,000 had been waiting more than five years.

·        Kids in foster care are 12% more likely to be prescribed psychotropic meds (This number surprises me and deserves further investigation at another time—it’s easier to medicate a child than help the child work through the trust and anger issues the system has produced in the child.)

·        Foster children experience PTSD at twice the rate as Iraq War Veterans.

·        As the children age out of foster care

o   Despite an increased need for health services, particularly mental health services, 33% of adults out of the foster system lacked insurance

o   By the age of 25, 81 percent of all male foster care alumni had been arrested once, and 35 percent had been incarcerated.

And from the same study, here’s some of the most shocking information.  Adults who had been in foster care as children suffered worse prognoses than their peers in almost all domains (foster care/general population):

·        PTSD: 25% / 4.5%

·        Depression: 24.3% / 10.6%

·        Anxiety: 43% / 5.1%

·        Addiction/alcoholism: 11.1% / 2.5%

·        Males convicted of a crime: 60% / 10%

·        Homeless for more than one day: 22% / 2%.

Every expert agrees that the foster care system in the United States is in crisis.  This recent study offered by the ACLU observes:

Right now there is a critical shortage of adoptive and foster parents in the United States. As a result, many children have no permanent homes, while others are forced to survive in an endless series of substandard foster homes. It is estimated that there are 500,000 children in foster care nationally, and 100,000 need to be adopted.  But last year there were qualified adoptive parents available for only 20,000 of these children. Many of these children have historically been viewed as "unadoptable" because they are not healthy white infants. Instead, they are often minority children and/or adolescents, many with significant health problems.

But here’s the thing.  Adoption doesn’t magically make these issues disappear.  Grief, anger, trauma, multiple placements, multiple schools, trust issues….all of these things combine in even the youngest of adoptive children and continue to build during certain periods of development, particularly the teenage years when identity is such a crucial area of exploration for children.  Common sense tells us that if you start with a shaky foundation, no matter what you build, it’s not going to be solid.   With late-placed adoptions, of which same-sex couple adoptions count as highest in available data, these early experiences, both in the birth home and in the system, continue to be worked out in the adoptive family.  The adoptive family mitigates some of the earlier damage but trauma doesn’t just go away with love and hugs.  It often takes a lifetime to recover. 

By the way, that ACLU study offers some very good facts about same-sex adoptive parents.

Doctor Benjamin Siegel, a school of pediatrics professor, co-authored a report in the American Academy of Pediatrics, in which he:

·        Argues convincingly against the notion that children/adoptive children of same-sex couples are disadvantaged

·        Cites a national longitudinal study of Lesbian led families (a longitudinal study being a study that is done over an extended period of time).  This study began in 1986.  When researches recently “checked in” with the families they found: 

their children indicated that they had high levels of social, school/academic, and total competence and fewer social problems, rule-breaking, and aggressive and externalizing behavior compared with their age-matched counterparts,…The self-reported quality of life of the adolescents in this sample was similar to that reported by a comparable sample of adolescents with heterosexual parents.

·        Soundly confronts the work of sociologist Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas, of whom I’ve previously written.  Dr. Siegel easily discredits Regnerus’ findings.  Regnerus is often cited as an authority by conservative activist groups like the Family Research Council, which is famously anti-LGBT.

So, here’s the bottomline.  We don’t have conclusive research.  If certain politicians and religious leaders would stop frightening the LGBT community with their attempts at legalizing discrimination and systematic oppression of LGBT people, perhaps we could engage in more detailed research without adding to the fear and anxiety of the same-sex couples we need to interview.  People aren’t going to volunteer for studies like this and be honest in their self-reporting if they’re constantly afraid of undue scrutiny and retribution. 

But what this data does tell us?  The system is failing.  So, politicians and religious leaders who want to take away a child’s opportunity to be loved in a stable environment?  If you really want to make a difference, do it before the child experiences trauma and disruption.  I’m talking about addressing things like poverty, health care, mental healthcare, and addiction before a child can be affected by these things and victimized by a system that claims it cares for their welfare but clearly didn’t care enough to give their hurting parents what they needed.  There is no scapegoating this out to the LGBT community, politicians.  This is on you.  If you weren’t so busy defunding programs and attacking the poor and the victimized, study after study (some of which I’ve cited here) tell us that children would never have to be taken from their homes in the first place.

The other thing we know?  The thing that anyone who has ever taken a class in psychology or sociology can tell  you?  There are far too many variables involved in these studies for anyone to ever make a statement about correlation and causation.  

Stop treating people like they’re too stupid to know what you’re doing with your numbers. 

Stop pretending we don’t know how you’re twisting (if not simply inventing) facts.

Are you listening Glenn Gruenhagen? 

How about you Governor McCrory?

Share it forward!
Follow me on Twitter @TroyComets

The Truth Behind Anti-LGBT Research

Last week I was introduced to MN State Representative Glenn Gruenhagen.  I immediately shared what I learned about Mr. Gruenhagen with all of you, paying particular attention to his anti-LGBT stance and his attempts at legalizing discrimination by pretending to care for the mental health of LGBT people through a misrepresentation of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). 

I have spent considerable time since researching Mr. Gruenhagen and his colleagues.  I’ve reviewed his website and have been in contact with a few media outlets who shared with me their experiences and findings with regard to Mr. Gruenhagen. 

Before I continue I want to point out the obvious.  I know the vast majority of my readers don’t live in Minnesota.  Heck, I know a lot of you don’t even live in the United States.  The reason why I’ve decided to devote attention to Mr. Gruenhagen’s attempts is because his tactics are universal.  Face it, a fear-monger only has one play:  Be afraid of those people.  The only thing that ever changes from fear-monger to fear-monger is who the those people are.   Mr. Gruenhagen has a few different those peoples to choose from; I’m simply going to focus on the LGBT community because of his recently introduced bill and the heinous actions of politicians in North Carolina.  This is becoming a theme again for this election cycle:  Be afraid of the gays because they’re going to corrupt you with their illness!

You would think that we could start moving past this considering recently court rulings but some people simply cannot abide progress or inevitable judgments that permit that progress. 

So according to Mr. Gruenhagen’s website, designed to get him elected every two years, there exist…

over 2500 studies in the social sciences that confirm the economic and social benefits of traditional marriage, for both men and women. Studies also confirm that children especially benefit in numerous ways when raised by a mom and dad.

It was a bibliography of these studies I had requested from Mr. Gruenhagen.  My request was ignored.  So, though I can’t speak directly to these individual studies, their methodologies and institutions of origin, I can speak to what I know and what I know is this:  Absolutely no legitimate institution of research or higher learning within the educated, academic psychological and psychiatric community within the United States (and perhaps the greater western world) would have published such a study within the past two decades for the simple reason that it defies the science behind identity and sexuality.  What this means is that, if these 2500+ studies Mr. Gruenhagen is talking about actually exist they were authored by pseudo-scientific organizations that are more religion than science, institutions like the Family Research Council.

The interesting thing about the Family Research Council, however, is that they actually don’t do any research.  If you review their list of so called experts you won’t find a single psychiatrist or psychologist in the bunch.  What you will find, however, is a bunch of marketing gurus and lawyers.  If you review their literature on topics like “marriage” and “sexuality,” you’ll find a few briefs that support their political position some policy publications promoting that position, and a number of op-eds advocating for that position.  There’s a gaping hole in the area of actually providing research that support their position and here’s why:

It doesn’t exist.

At least authentic, scientific research conducted morally, ethically, and appropriately away from underlying bias does exist.  It hasn’t existed since the 1970’s when the scientific community, namely the American Psychiatric Association (APA), removed homosexuality from the DSM in 1973.  In their determination the APA indicated that support for the traditional mentality that an LGBT sexuality was reflective of disorder, disturbance, or any similar pathology.  In short there is nothing to be addressed here; take your medieval ideas of prayer and healing elsewhere.  Science does not support it.

But as anyone with a Republican uncle knows after the topic of global climate change comes up at Thanksgiving Dinner, some people just can’t integrate actual science into their belief system.  Typically in such cases we see one of two reactions: 

1.     That’s just liberal nonsense trying to figure out how to run people’s lives and tax the bejesus out of them by using made up facts that happen to support the views of their campaign donors.

2.     But I read on the Family Research Council’s website and heard on Focus on the Family or saw on The Seven Hundred Club that that’s not even true.  It’s just part of the liberal gay agenda to let perverts near our children.

Reaction number one ignores scientific evidence.  Reaction number two counter scientific evidence with religious based pseudo-science. 

Why do you I say it’s religious based pseudo-science?  Look at the institutions that produce these so called studies.  How many of them are connected to current or former televangelists?  How many of them are connected to institutional denominations running ad campaigns in neighboring states to beat marriage equality? 

Here’s the other source for anti-LGBT propaganda:  Other scientific disciplines.   For example, two sociologists who have become champions of the conservative anti-LGBT campaign are Dr. Mark Regnerus, a sociologist from the University of Texas, Austin, and Father Donald Sullins, a Roman Catholic Priest and Sociology Professor at Catholic University of America in Washington, DC.

Just to be clear, let me offer simple definitions of the disciplines we’re discussing here.

Sociology is the study of social behavior or society, including its origins, development, organization, networks, and institutions. It is a social science that uses various methods of empirical investigation and critical analysis to develop a body of knowledge about social order, disorder, and change.

Psychology is the study of behavior and mind, embracing all aspects of human experience. It is an academic discipline and an applied science which seeks to understand individuals and groups by establishing general principles and researching specific cases.

Psychiatry is devoted to the diagnosis, prevention, study and treatment of mental disorders. These include various abnormalities that are affective, behavioral, cognitive and perceptual.

Do you see the difference here?  Whereas psychology and psychiatry focus on the inward processes of health and well-being and the behaviors that may stem from the internal, sociology focuses on the outward behaviors of society.  So when an individual looks at a sociology study that may seem to indicate that children in the home of two non-LGBT parents are more successful than children in the home of two LGBT parents, the factors that contribute to this success lie outside of the individual and within society itself.  We are no longer talking about mental health and identity.  We are now talking about the ability of an individual to matriculate into society without prejudice.  Contrary to the opinions of Dr. Regnerus and Father Sullins, there are far too many variables in such research to make conclusive arguments.  Which, of course, they should know since they are sociologists whose job is to remark on the behavior of society and not identify the development of individual identity and how to influence it. 

If sociology discovers that social behavior and society struggle with the integration of LGBT individuals with regard to respect and equality and even fundamental human rights, their discovery does not indicate something faulty or defective with the LGBT mind and/or development.  That is not their area of expertise.  If the psychiatric community, in 1973, determined there is nothing detrimental to the quality of life of an LGBT person when that LGBT person embraces their identity, a sociologist cannot come back, fifty years later, and declare that the whole field of psychiatry is wrong because our study of society shows society can’t deal with LGBT people.

It should be noted as well that these two scholars along with their work have been soundly criticized by their colleagues. 

So why am I sharing this with you?  I mean, it’s not like you’re ever going to have a conversation with that uncle at Thanksgiving Dinner and convince him that science is real and that there is a right way and a wrong way to do it.  Ours is not a society in which we have conversations that lead to change anymore.  Ours is a society in which we don’t have conversations, we no longer seek to learn as much as to teach, to be changed as much as to change. 

The first reason I share this with you is so that you know that when someone like Glenn Gruenhagen, an elected official of the State of Minnesota, stands up and tries to convince you of certain facts based on 2500+ studies that he’s apparently unwilling to share—you need to know where those facts came from and how they are interpreted.  People like Mr. Gruenhagen have anchored their arguments in a body of work but the body of work is as accurate and appropriate as the user’s manual from an old VHS player.  I could make a sound argument for forcing women into subservient roles, too, but it would mean taking the Bible out of context and relying on archaic research and cherry picked contemporary studies.  Not unlike Mr. Gruenhagen and his colleagues have done with LGBT equality. 

The second reason is more difficult than the first.  Armed with the knowledge that homophobes like Glenn Gruenhagen use bad science and no science to bolster their argument means that the people who fight for LGBT equality need to be equipped with actual facts and research for when they find themselves in a position to have legitimate conversation.  Google advocacy and support groups and learn truth to combat misinformation and ignorance.

The third reason is:  I don’t want you to feel bullied by law makers, teachers, or parents when they throw this pseudo-science at you while you struggle with your identify.  Do not let anyone ever tell you that because you identify as LGBT or question whether you identify as LGBT that you are somehow inferior or sick or that you need to change to integrate better with society.  You are a gift to this world—absolutely everything about you.  Don’t let others zero in on one thing that in the grand scheme of things is just one part of who you are and let them destroy you because of it. Again, the problem isn’t within you.  The problem is with how society might see you and that never going to change until society gets to know you.

Share it forward!

Follow me on Twitter @TroyComets

The Anti-LGBT Bill of Glenn Gruenhagen

On March 30, 2016, Raw Story ran this article on a MN State Representative by the name of Glenn Gruenhagen.  Mr. Gruenhagen has introduced a piece of legislation into the MN House of Representatives to identify LGBT people as “mentally ill” and “in need of treatment.”  The basis of his argument?  The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Fifth Edition (DSM-V).

The DSM-V is the guidebook produced by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) as a tool to help identify mental health issues and deviations.  I will admit that I’m not well versed on the DSM-V; it was in the process of final approval and publication when I made career changes.  But I know the DSM-IV and I know how to use the Manual in general.  I also know that Mr. Gruenhagen’s interpretation of this admittedly problematic diagnostic criteria for an identity disorder is neither in keeping with the science nor the ethics behind the DSM-V.

I’m not going to get into the ins and the outs of the actual diagnostic criteria for Gender Dysphoria because sometimes nitpicking psychological terms completely misses the point.  Besides, it’s not like Mr. Gruenhagen has released the actual reference or any literature in support of his position so that the academic community can respond to specific misinterpretations and misrepresentations.   I guarantee it’s not a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist that brought this to his attention. 

The American public in general often misunderstands what the DSM actually is.  We’re so accustomed to going to our doctors, laying out our symptoms, and having the doctor run through the rolodex in his mind or his little pocket book or an app to help identify our symptoms.  Psychology is different.  We look at the symptoms but we also consider how those symptoms may or may not affect one’s quality of life or day to day functioning.  We also consider environmental influences which could trigger symptoms.

The whole point to the DSM is to give a framework for treatment and not diagnosis.  When you look at a list of diagnostic criteria in the DSM, it may list five or seven areas of behavior that are negatively influenced because a disruption or disturbance in development or the environment or coping with the environment.  Depending on the diagnostic category, to appropriately apply the diagnosis the patient/client must meet a certain number of the criteria listed.  In short, it’s like a “check all that apply” list of maladaptive behaviors and/or maladaptive coping.  If the patient/client falls short, the diagnosis doesn’t apply.  The trick is, when doing this, is to look at the right criteria for the right problem.  For example, “depression” is a diagnosis of its own but it’s also a symptom in a variety of other diagnoses. 

But again the idea with the DSM isn’t to find the right label or labels for the patient/client.  The insurance companies like these labels because a lot of insurance companies will look in their Big Books of Money Saving Policies and say, “Oh.  Depression.  We’ll pay for six visits to a therapist for treatment because, on average, it takes six therapeutic sessions to treat depression.”  Which is a bunch of hogwash.  But that’s our healthcare system.

Once the provider has determined what the struggle is, however, an approach to treatment can begin. 

One of the MANY things Mr. Gruenhagen fails to realize in his hate-bill is that “disorder” is not “disease.”  A disorder is not an illness.  A disorder is what it says it is:  Not order.  Something is out of whack, either in the person’s thought processes, coping strategies, acceptance of reality, or environmental.  Yes, environmental.  A person can be diagnosed as 995.82 (Adult psychological abuse by nonspouse or nonpartner, Suspected, Subsequent encounter).  The damage caused by the abuse will need to be dealt with, but the disorder is caused externally, environmentally.  The disruption in the normal ordered thinking/feeling/behaving pattern is DISordered because of the environment.

When the DSM-V was being developed, I remember quite a bit of discussion among my peers about the gender and sexuality criteria and the diagnostic labels.  It’s problematic.  Our understanding is constantly changing.  Science, particularly our understanding of human psychology, is developing almost as quickly as computer technology.  The moment you buy a computer it’s outdated.  The moment the DSM-V was finally approved by the APA and printed it was outdated in a lot of respects.  Mr. Gruenhagen is treating the DSM-V like he treats his Bible—it says it, black and white, so that must be what it means now and forever.  And just like his approach to the Bible, Mr. Gruenhagen is too ignorant and too lazy to actually educate himself on what it is he’s reading.  (I’d be willing to have a conversation about Mr. Gruenhagen’s theology another time.)

I think a lot of psychiatrists and psychologists would agree with me when I say:  With Gender Identity Disorder, there is a disruption in the order of thinking/feeling/behaving but most of that disruption is aggravated by factors outside the person’s internal struggle for identification.  Namely:  Fear of judgment, fear of rejection, fear of politicians who want to label them abnormal and force them into behavioral conditioning camps where, perhaps, they can “pray the trans away.”  It doesn’t work that way.

I’ve posted recently two entries on my blog listing specific statistics identified by scientists describing mental health and the LGBT community.  The crux of the problem is not an internal one.  It is external.  It’s about how individuals and systems around the LGBT individual complicate coping and development.  (You can read these posts here and here.)

So, fine, if Mr. Gruenhagen wants to draw attention to the disordering of LGBT people, I hope he’s ready to pass legislation to ease that disordering.  Equal protection, equal access, anti-discrimination….basically all the things Mr. Gruenhagen has stood against in his tenure in the Minnesota House of Representatives.  Since his first key vote on January 27, 2011, Mr. Gruenhagen has voted:

• To prohibit same sex marriage  [SF1308]
• Increase requirements for Abortion Providers [SF1921]
• Voted against an authorization for same sex marriage [HF1054]
• Voted against requiring schools to establish antibullying policies (HF826]
• Voted against approving the MN HHS Biennium Budget [HF1233]
• Voted against the MN Health Insurance Exchange [HF5]
• Voted against expanding Medicaid [HF9]
• Voted against increasing equal pay and establishing workplace protections foe employees [HF2536]

It’s quite clear that, despite how he’s trying to portray himself with this anti-LGBT bill, he’s not interested in mental health care, health care, or services and policies that would change the environment and people’s perceptions in order to mitigate the symptomology which is disrupting the order of LGBT people’s lives. 

Mr. Gruehagen’s agenda is clear and it’s one of barbaric, religiously superstitious regression.  I mean, this is the guy who stood on the floor of the MN House and advocated that in order to end bullying we need to start beating our children. 

Honestly, though, we shouldn’t be surprised by Mr. Gruenhagen’s inability to understand how to interpret and apply the DSM-V.  He’s an insurance agent.  His professional reading is limited to an understanding of black and white.  I’m not disrespecting insurance agents; I have a number who I consider close friends.  But that is how their brains are wired.  Psychology is never black and white.  I hope he figures this out sooner rather than later.  Not that I care how badly he’s embarrassing himself; he’s making his bed and he can lie it.  My concern is how backwards he is making the State of Minnesota look by continuing to fight these old battles on which not only the citizens have spoken but science made its determination nearly fifty years ago.  And my BIGGEST concern is the continuing damage he is doing to LGBT individuals by prolonging a way of thinking that has been demonstrated to be grievously harmful to LGBT people time and time again. 

Or, I suppose, Mr. Gruenhagen’s bill might have absolutely nothing to do with actually helping people.  This might just be the Trump approach to politics:  Say whatever, do whatever, and soak up the attention.  After all, it’s clear from his anti-LGBT bill and his voting record he’s not about healing and wholeness.  To know what he’s really about, you can check out his entire voting record here. 

Share it forward!

Follow me on Twitter @TroyComets