Head of psychiatry panel favors ‘change’ therapy for some trans teens
LOU CHIBBARO JR Friday, May 30, 2008
Transgender activists have raised strong objections to a decision by the American Psychiatric Association to name a prominent Canadian child psychologist as head of a committee that will recommend changes in diagnosing persons with an ailment defined by the group as gender identity disorder.
In a flurry of blog postings and an online petition, trans activists and some gay rights supporters have called for the removal of University of Toronto psychiatry professor Kenneth J. Zucker as chair of the psychiatrist association’s Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders Work Group on grounds that Zucker supports therapy to discourage transgender children and adolescents from changing their biological gender.
The Work Group is charged, among other things, with making recommendations for changes in how transgender persons are classified under the APA’s internationally recognized Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which is being revised for publication in 2012.
“We believe being transgender is just as innate as being gay or lesbian,” said transgender advocate and blogger Mercedes Allen of Alberta, Canada.“Our concern is that Zucker favors a form of reparative therapy for trans youth that amounts to the suppression of their true gender identity,” said Allen. In a telephone interview Tuesday, Allen said Zucker’s treatment philosophy for trans youth appears to yield to societal norms about gender conformity rather than acting in the best interest of the transgender child or adolescent.
But a prominent gay psychiatrist and former chair of the APA’s gay advisory committee, Dr. Jack Drescher, said the fears by trans activists are unfounded and that Zucker, while favoring possible therapy for some trans teens, supports gender reassignment therapy in most cases — for both youth and adults.
Drescher said he was especially concerned about claims by some trans bloggers that Zucker and at least one other member of the APA’s Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders Work Group would push for reinstating homosexuality as a diagnostic disorder under the APA’s revised diagnostic manual in 2012.
Read more:
Friday, May 30, 2008
CBS News: New York Governor Faces Gay Marriage Fight
Conservatives Vow To Counter Paterson's Memo Ordering State To Recognize Gay Marriages
(CBS/AP) Religious and social conservatives vowed Thursday to fight the governor's directive requiring state agencies to recognize gay marriages performed legally elsewhere, saying it flouts traditional values and is a big step toward legalizing same-sex unions in New York.
"The definition of marriage predates recorded history," said New York State Catholic Conference Executive Director Richard E. Barnes. "No single politician or court or legislature should attempt to redefine the very building block of our society in a way that alters its entire meaning and purpose."
Gov. David Paterson issued a memo earlier this month saying that gay New Yorkers who marry where it is legal will have the right to share family health care plans, receive tax breaks by filing jointly, enjoy stronger adoption rights and inherit property. He cited a February ruling in a New York Appellate Division court in which the judges determined that there is no legal impediment in New York to the recognition of a same-sex marriage.
Earlier this month, the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage in the nation's most populous state is legal. The ruling overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage. At a Manhattan news conference on Thursday, Paterson, a Roman Catholic, defended the directive, saying failure to issue it would have left the state open to lawsuits claiming the state deprived gay couples of civil rights enjoyed in other states.
Read more:
(CBS/AP) Religious and social conservatives vowed Thursday to fight the governor's directive requiring state agencies to recognize gay marriages performed legally elsewhere, saying it flouts traditional values and is a big step toward legalizing same-sex unions in New York.
"The definition of marriage predates recorded history," said New York State Catholic Conference Executive Director Richard E. Barnes. "No single politician or court or legislature should attempt to redefine the very building block of our society in a way that alters its entire meaning and purpose."
Gov. David Paterson issued a memo earlier this month saying that gay New Yorkers who marry where it is legal will have the right to share family health care plans, receive tax breaks by filing jointly, enjoy stronger adoption rights and inherit property. He cited a February ruling in a New York Appellate Division court in which the judges determined that there is no legal impediment in New York to the recognition of a same-sex marriage.
Earlier this month, the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage in the nation's most populous state is legal. The ruling overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage. At a Manhattan news conference on Thursday, Paterson, a Roman Catholic, defended the directive, saying failure to issue it would have left the state open to lawsuits claiming the state deprived gay couples of civil rights enjoyed in other states.
Read more:
Thursday, May 29, 2008
CNN.com: New York to recognize gay marriages
NEW YORK (CNN) -- Gov. David Paterson of New York has told state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states and countries where they are legal, his spokeswoman said Wednesday.
The governor's legal counsel told state agencies in a May 14 memo to revise policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in California and Massachusetts as well as Canada and other countries that allow gays and lesbians to marry, said Erin Duggan, the governor's spokeswoman.
The memo informed state agencies that failing to recognize gay marriages would violate the New York's human rights law, Duggan said.
Read more:
The governor's legal counsel told state agencies in a May 14 memo to revise policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in California and Massachusetts as well as Canada and other countries that allow gays and lesbians to marry, said Erin Duggan, the governor's spokeswoman.
The memo informed state agencies that failing to recognize gay marriages would violate the New York's human rights law, Duggan said.
Read more:
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Our Community Has Suffered a Loss
I just received a phone call from Vernon Paulson to tell me that his partner Craig Kingsbury's father, Garold, passed away today at noon here in Rapid City. Vernon says that Craig will be flying back from Hawaii in the next couple of days. Oshiem Funeral Home in Rapid City will be handling the arrangements and the funeral will be on Monday or Tuesday at the Unity Church in Piedmont.
I'll report more details as I receive them.
I think I speak for the entire community in expressing our condolences to Craig and Vernon and all of Craig's family. They have all been an important and valuable part of this community. They have our deepest symapthy and regards.
I'll report more details as I receive them.
I think I speak for the entire community in expressing our condolences to Craig and Vernon and all of Craig's family. They have all been an important and valuable part of this community. They have our deepest symapthy and regards.
SLDN;Frontlines: MEMORIAL DAY -- Remembering Alan Rogers
Memorial Day is a special time for Americans who have lost loved ones to the service of our country. The families and friends of the more than 4,000 American service members killed in Iraq since 2003 share a special bond rooted equally in grief and pride, emotions we will share as we mark Memorial Day once again this year.
This Memorial Day is particularly salient for me this year as I remember the life of my friend and colleague, Major Alan Rogers. As many people now know, Alan was killed in Iraq by an IED on January 27, 2008. According to his commander, he shielded two others from the blast, who likely would have been killed were it not for Alan’s bravery. Alan was laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery on March 14th, 2008, in the presence of more than two hundred grieving but proud friends, fellow soldiers, and family members.
I knew Alan through my work here at Servicemembers Legal Defense Network and through our mutual activism in the DC Chapter of American Veterans for Equal Rights. He was a student at Georgetown University, pursuing a master’s degree through a prestigious Army fellowship program, when I first met him.
Because of my familiarity with the legal ins and outs of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, a bill that would repeal that law, Alan interviewed me for his final paper for school. I used to chide him for being so “out” to so many people, and worried that some day the fact that he was gay would get back to the military and spell the end of his career. I worried that his choice of topic for his final paper might raise eyebrows, and cause him to be discovered. But he seemed fearless, confident that he’d make it through his career without his sexual orientation getting in the way. In the end, I guess he was right.
When I first learned of Alan’s death through an email I received at work from a mutual friend, I was stunned. I walked dazed into the office of a good friend and colleague and cried bitterly. I cried because none of us would ever see Alan’s beautiful smile again, except in photographs and in our minds’ eyes. I cried because it was unbearable to think of this beautiful and gentle person being ripped apart by an IED in a foreign land. I cried because Alan was so good. He was one of the kindest, most generous, thoughtful, genuinely good people I have ever known. And he was gone, and nothing would ever change that.
Read more:
This Memorial Day is particularly salient for me this year as I remember the life of my friend and colleague, Major Alan Rogers. As many people now know, Alan was killed in Iraq by an IED on January 27, 2008. According to his commander, he shielded two others from the blast, who likely would have been killed were it not for Alan’s bravery. Alan was laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery on March 14th, 2008, in the presence of more than two hundred grieving but proud friends, fellow soldiers, and family members.
I knew Alan through my work here at Servicemembers Legal Defense Network and through our mutual activism in the DC Chapter of American Veterans for Equal Rights. He was a student at Georgetown University, pursuing a master’s degree through a prestigious Army fellowship program, when I first met him.
Because of my familiarity with the legal ins and outs of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, a bill that would repeal that law, Alan interviewed me for his final paper for school. I used to chide him for being so “out” to so many people, and worried that some day the fact that he was gay would get back to the military and spell the end of his career. I worried that his choice of topic for his final paper might raise eyebrows, and cause him to be discovered. But he seemed fearless, confident that he’d make it through his career without his sexual orientation getting in the way. In the end, I guess he was right.
When I first learned of Alan’s death through an email I received at work from a mutual friend, I was stunned. I walked dazed into the office of a good friend and colleague and cried bitterly. I cried because none of us would ever see Alan’s beautiful smile again, except in photographs and in our minds’ eyes. I cried because it was unbearable to think of this beautiful and gentle person being ripped apart by an IED in a foreign land. I cried because Alan was so good. He was one of the kindest, most generous, thoughtful, genuinely good people I have ever known. And he was gone, and nothing would ever change that.
Read more:
Wayne Besen: I'm Having Nunn Of It
When former Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA) endorsed Barack Obama in April and announced he would serve as a national security advisor, pundits naturally began speculating on his vice presidential prospects. The argument in favor of Nunn is that he is a former Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, which would help negate one of the McCain campaign's largest advantages.Nunn's position is strengthened because he appears to be on the same rhetorical page as Obama. Last year, for example, he helped lead a bipartisan conference at the University of Oklahoma with the goal of ending political squabbling in Washington. In April, the conservative southern Democrat articulated his reasons for backing Obama:
"Demonizing the opposition, oversimplifying the issues, and dumbing down the political debate prevent our country from coming together to make tough decisions and tackle our biggest challenges," said Nunn.This statement was curious, considering Nunn's crass conduct during the fierce 1993 "gays in the military" battle. Instead of leading in a contemplative manner, Nunn exploited his position of power to cheapen the national dialogue and dumb down the debate - the opposite of what he now says he stands for. This "statesman" brazenly exploited every last negative anti-gay stereotype for political gain and temporarily derailed Bill Clinton's nascent presidency in the process. Nunn's grandstanding was an unforgivable act of bigotry and betrayal and helped set back the GLBT movement for years.
Read more:
"Demonizing the opposition, oversimplifying the issues, and dumbing down the political debate prevent our country from coming together to make tough decisions and tackle our biggest challenges," said Nunn.This statement was curious, considering Nunn's crass conduct during the fierce 1993 "gays in the military" battle. Instead of leading in a contemplative manner, Nunn exploited his position of power to cheapen the national dialogue and dumb down the debate - the opposite of what he now says he stands for. This "statesman" brazenly exploited every last negative anti-gay stereotype for political gain and temporarily derailed Bill Clinton's nascent presidency in the process. Nunn's grandstanding was an unforgivable act of bigotry and betrayal and helped set back the GLBT movement for years.
Read more:
Sacbee.com: Field Poll: Majority of Californians now support gay marriage
Signaling a generational shift in attitudes, a new Field Poll on Tuesday said California voters now support legal marriage between same-sex couples and oppose a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
By 51 to 42 percent, state voters believe gay couples have the right to marry, according to a May 17-26 poll of 1,052 registered voters.
However, the same poll revealed a California electorate that remains sharply divided over gay marriage – split by age, political affiliation, religion and the regions where they live.
The poll was taken after the May 15 California Supreme Court decision overturning a state ban on same-sex marriages. The results marked the first time in more than 30 years of state polling that a majority of Field Poll respondents favored making gay marriage legal.
In 2000, more than 61 percent of voters approved Proposition 22, a statute declaring that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid in California.
The state Supreme Court ruling overturned Proposition 22. Opponents of gay marriage have circulated an initiative likely to appear on the Nov. 4 ballot that would amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage – negating the court decision.
Based on the Field Poll, the ultimate outcome of the gay marriage issue in California could hinge on the age of the electorate.
Reflecting stark differences in generational attitudes, 68 percent of voters between 18 and 29 years old said they favored allowing same-sex couples to marry. Fifty-eight percent of voters 30 to 39 and 51 percent of voters 40-49 favored gay marriage. That compared with 47 percent of voters 50-64 and 36 percent of those over 65 who supported the idea.
"As young people are replacing older people, voters are more supportive," said Mark DiCamillo, director of the California Field Poll. "The trend line itself is historic. The lines are crossing. This is a major sociological event in California."
Read more:
By 51 to 42 percent, state voters believe gay couples have the right to marry, according to a May 17-26 poll of 1,052 registered voters.
However, the same poll revealed a California electorate that remains sharply divided over gay marriage – split by age, political affiliation, religion and the regions where they live.
The poll was taken after the May 15 California Supreme Court decision overturning a state ban on same-sex marriages. The results marked the first time in more than 30 years of state polling that a majority of Field Poll respondents favored making gay marriage legal.
In 2000, more than 61 percent of voters approved Proposition 22, a statute declaring that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid in California.
The state Supreme Court ruling overturned Proposition 22. Opponents of gay marriage have circulated an initiative likely to appear on the Nov. 4 ballot that would amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage – negating the court decision.
Based on the Field Poll, the ultimate outcome of the gay marriage issue in California could hinge on the age of the electorate.
Reflecting stark differences in generational attitudes, 68 percent of voters between 18 and 29 years old said they favored allowing same-sex couples to marry. Fifty-eight percent of voters 30 to 39 and 51 percent of voters 40-49 favored gay marriage. That compared with 47 percent of voters 50-64 and 36 percent of those over 65 who supported the idea.
"As young people are replacing older people, voters are more supportive," said Mark DiCamillo, director of the California Field Poll. "The trend line itself is historic. The lines are crossing. This is a major sociological event in California."
Read more:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
