Argue from the data

[drwex]

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/therapeutic-resp.html

This is not going to surprise anyone who read my LJ but it's good to have scientific backing for one's assertions. I quote from the summary:

[E]fforts to change sexual orientation are unlikely to be successful and involve some risk of harm

In other words, the enforcement of "ex-gay" ideology does not generally work and may well harm people.

The linked page above will give you the complete summary as well as the PDF of the full report.

Comments

[halleyscomet.livejournal.com]

Meh, facts! How dare you muddy a perfectly good bout of moral outrage with facts, data and information! Didn't you know the opposition is IMMUNE to facts???

Hard data is meaningless in the face of prejudice based upon the transcribed oral traditions of nomadic bronze age tribesmen!

[keyne.livejournal.com]

Hard data is meaningless in the face of prejudice based upon the transcribed oral traditions of nomadic bronze age tribesmen!

Oh, man, there's a quotable quote. I think it's going into my collection. :}

[halleyscomet.livejournal.com]

I'm afraid I can't take credit for the entirety of the quote. The "transcribed oral traditions of nomadic bronze age tribesmen" was lifted from a demotivational poster spoof I saw online a while back.

[dpolicar]

I agree with you that it's good to argue from data.

And I understand that it's harder to make the argument that forcibly changing (or suppressing) someone's sexual orientation is immoral or unethical than it is to argue that it's ineffectual; there isn't data I can point to to prove a moral/ethical point like that.

But, also, it's important to make the right argument. Otherwise, I'm the canonical drunk looking for his keys by the lamppost.

And I'm not sure that arguing the ineffectiveness of it, as opposed to its immorality, is the right argument in this case.

Then again, I come at this conversation as someone perfectly capable of living in a monogamous opposite-sex relationship, had events played out differently. It might skew my perspective.

I think of it as "and"

[drwex]

I take your point about making "the right" argument, but I think it's important to cover all bases. I can say a similar thing about the death penalty - I believe it's morally wrong to kill in order to teach people not to kill, and I can argue from that basis. I would like that basis to be convincing to all; however, I can also show studies demonstrating that it does not reduce crime, does not save money, etc.

Re: I think of it as "and"

[caulay.livejournal.com]

The "does not reduce crime" argument merely shows that we are not executing enough criminals.

If everyone found guilty of a crime were immediately executed, you can bet there would be a drop in crimes (in absolute numbers at the very least).

Re: I think of it as "and"

[drwex]

That contention is not supported by any data to hand.

Re: I think of it as "and"

[caulay.livejournal.com]

You clearly did not think through what I said to its inevitable conclusion.