PATRICK HOLDEN writes:

One aspect of the Michele Bachman controversy over gay reparative therapy struck me as odd. Opponents of gay reparative therapy criticize it as cruel and inhumane. My understanding is that the therapy consists of reading the Bible, praying and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). In addition, celibacy was recommended as an alternative to engaging in homosexual behavior. I see nothing wrong with a competent adult deciding to attempt to live a life of celibacy based on the very traditional belief that homosexuality is wrong. I also don’t see anything wrong with obtaining psychological services in furtherance of this goal. 

Contrast this with the reaction to sex reassignment surgery, which is never condemned in leftist circles as cruel or inhumane. A young adult male approaches a physician with the remarkable claim that he is in fact not male, but female – on the inside. Rather than diagnosing this as a form of mental illness to be treated as such, the physician concludes that indeed the male is in fact female and surgically alters the patient in a most heinous manner. This is acceptable, but deciding not to pursue homosexual liaisons is pathological, and a psychologist’s attempt to assist the patient to achieve the most depraved of all lifestyles – celibacy – is akin to a crime against nature. This is madness.

                                — Comments —

A reader writes:

In a 2004 article in First Things, Paul McHugh, professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins, wrote:

Once again I concluded that to provide a surgical alteration to the body of these unfortunate people was to collaborate with a mental disorder rather than to treat it…. 

Quite clearly, then, we psychiatrists should work to discourage those adults who seek surgical sex reassignment. When Hopkins announced that it would stop doing these procedures in adults with sexual dysphoria, many other hospitals followed suit, but some medical centers still carry out this surgery. Thailand has several centers that do the surgery “no questions asked” for anyone with the money to pay for it and the means to travel to Thailand. I am disappointed but not surprised by this, given that some surgeons and medical centers can be persuaded to carry out almost any kind of surgery when pressed by patients with sexual deviations, especially if those patients find a psychiatrist to vouch for them. The most astonishing example is the surgeon in England who is prepared to amputate the legs of patients who claim to find sexual excitement in gazing at and exhibiting stumps of amputated legs. At any rate, we at Hopkins hold that official psychiatry has good evidence to argue against this kind of treatment and should begin to close down the practice everywhere… 

I think the issue of sex-change for males is no longer one in which much can be said for the other side. But I have learned from the experience that the toughest challenge is trying to gain agreement to seek empirical evidence for opinions about sex and sexual behavior, even when the opinions seem on their face unreasonable. One might expect that those who claim that sexual identity has no biological or physical basis would bring forth more evidence to persuade others. But as I’ve learned, there is a deep prejudice in favor of the idea that nature is totally malleable.

Without any fixed position on what is given in human nature, any manipulation of it can be defended as legitimate. A practice that appears to give people what they want-and what some of them are prepared to clamor for-turns out to be difficult to combat with ordinary professional experience and wisdom. Even controlled trials or careful follow-up studies to ensure that the practice itself is not damaging are often resisted and the results rejected.”

Please follow and like us: