So, I'm a big fan of digg.com. It's the site I go to when I'm bored on the internet, and basically I let people all over the world do my surfing for me, and just tell me what to look at. It's great... I make my lazy time in itself lazier. But it also kind of gives you a decent gauge on what it is exactly that other people out there in the world are seeing and reading, and every so often something gay pops up. Those are always my favorites. Around the time of Prop 8, Digg was aglow with all kinds of pro-gay high-dig articles and links and editorials. It was amazing... it looked like the new generation was on our side. Even afterward, articles flew about the Mormon church and its tax-exempt status, or what kind of fantastic things the Pope had to say about homosexuals (No joke, he said gays were like the rainforest), but recently the LGBT movement on Digg has slowed, because as with all things on the internet, fads fade. Every so often though, some brave soul finds something digg-worthy, and it makes it to the front page... like a flare gun of civil rights telling people we're still here, we're still queer, and dammit we're not going away.

Today's gem for me was an article about a recent study done in the UK regarding therapists' treatments of homosexual patients. It's a small article, so go ahead and click that link to give it a read. Basically what we're seeing here is that even in the current climate for LGBT people, where things seem leaps and bounds beyond the days of Stonewall... things still aren't right. The people surveyed in this study are doctors. DOCTORS. That's a lot of time between hospitals and college campuses and in books... and yet still a significant minority "treat" homosexuality. Now, before I begin to sound like a rabid liberal left-wing pro-gay hippie, let's delve a little deeper.

You see, I'm a big fan of data. Raw, objective, no-way-you-can-spin-it data. So when I was reading this article the first thing that caught my eye was when it said "...who published his findings in the journal BMC Pyschiatry,..." Ooh, published? So I did a little sleuthing to get right down to the meat and potatoes, or perhaps in this case fish and chips, of the matter. Tada! Here's the journal. Now HERE'S where I get my hands dirty.

So first off, a little bit about myself. When I was on active duty, I was a "Mental Health Technician." I love psychology, it's my current major. I saw patients, did notes on them, kept up on studies, and basically absorbed books on psychotropic drugs and neurotransmitters and every other boring thing you wish I wasn't sharing right now. At any rate, I learned to love these little journals, and they kind of rekindle my passion for the science of the human mind, and how it works. But sometimes, it also shows how far behind our understanding of the brain goes, and how far from a science people can take psychology. Anyway, the first thing you do when reading a study is mentally validate it. The study was done by questionnaires mailed out to members of four different organizations for mental health professionals. That tells you right there that there is a mix of psychotherapists, counsellors, psychologists (Those are all varieties of "Sit on my couch and tell me your feelings" doctors/professionals), and psychiatrists (Those are the "Here, have some Ambien and Zoloft" guys). Also, they chose the professionals from all different areas of the UK, so that lets you know that the results are going to be representative of the entire area of the UK (They even weighted selections based on population density, which is bonus points for the authors). 2/3s of responders were women, which was surprising to me, but not necessarily weighting to the results... but still if you're a nerd for this stuff like I am, interesting seeing as how mental health is typically a male dominated position, or at least these fields in particular. So anyway long story short, this study is pretty well done, objective, and valid. Great! On to the results...

So, about 4% of responders from a decent-sized pool said they would attempt to change a patient's sexual orientation from homo- to hetero-. OK it sucks that anybody would do that, but 4% is a pretty slim minority, I can live with that. Here's the kicker though: of those therapists who had seen patients who presented with issues surrounding sexual orientation 17% had attempted to "cure" their patient of their homosexuality. Now that's a big jump. The worst part is that the vast majority of patients treated for homosexual concerns were seen between 1994 and 2003 (the time of the study). Now the number is skewed to the present because it's based on the professional's memory... but the results show that there is no decline in the number of patients receiving treatment for homosexuality. So to me, the end result shows that there is still very much a concern that men of science, not clergymen of ex-gay ministries or any other ideological vigilantes, have an ignorant view of what homosexuality is and what it entails.

But now the question is raised, is it wrong to treat homosexuality, if the patient wants it? A number of these patients did present as "confused", you're right. First off, if you're enjoying my little foray into research study analysis here, I'd suggest going to page 12 of the journal I linked way back when and reading the professionals' answers to the questions posed about why they would pursue treatment. A lot of them are eloquent, innocent, and sound fairly educated. However, it's also important to read the results and findings of the study, where they bring in other information to draw their conclusions. In particular I like the statement "Furthermore, the commonest reason for the referral was confusion about sexual orientation rather than an expressed desire to change it." The majority of patients treated for their homosexuality didn't even ask for it... they were simply confused. Were you confused when you were coming to terms with your sexual orientation? I know I was, and most of my heterosexual friends were confused by their sexuality too, I mean come on it's puberty. Puberty = confusion... and growth spurts, hair in weird places, embarrassing voice changes. Puberty basically sucks. But at any rate, even going back to the journal it states "It is well known that confusion is both a feature of a developmental trajectory, often part of the 'coming out' story, and a common reason for seeking help." Confusion is for many people a part of coming out. Should we treat that by changing the outcome, or should we be helping the patient adjust along the way? Well going back to puberty, if someone's having trouble dealing we don't just stop puberty do we? No, we help the person through the process that is naturally occurring in their life. So why is homosexuality different? The only evidence I've seen suggests that it is just as natural, and just as important to a person's life for them to accept and come to terms with.

Another thing that this study imparts, which to me is the nail in the coffin on the whole issue is this: "There is no evidence from the published literature to suggest that a person’s sexual orientation can be changed from homosexual to heterosexual. Earlier forms of both psychoanalytic and behavioural research showed no evidence of efficacy and many therapists later regretted their involvement in such treatments. Furthermore, recent research into the effectiveness of so-called reparative therapy to change sexual orientation in the United States has demonstrated little evidence of efficacy and considerable controversy about the quality of the methods used. All have been post hoc evaluations of volunteers, often some years after receipt of treatment. All fall well short of the quality guidelines for outcome research. Furthermore, the American Psychiatric Association is directly opposed to any psychiatric treatment, such as 'reparative' or conversion therapy, which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that a patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation." What does that mean? It means that there is no body of evidence to suggest that these treatments work, and in fact the only evidence that has been found is that these approaches are harmful... so why then is it that 17% of professionals would still "treat" someone for being a homosexual?