Gay therapy (?)

Post by **Chloe_88** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 3:03 pm

O my god, I just read a story today that our (dutch) health insurance is legally required to pay for Gay Therapy.

This therapy helps gay people change their way of "thinking" and makes them straight.

But if you have bad back problems the first so many therapy sessions are free the rest you pay for your self.

If you need glasses and you don't have the top health insurance tough ****; pay for it yourself.

This is just SICK!

I thought we all knew nowadays that this cannot be so called 'cured'. It is sexual preference and not a disease!

Post by **spot** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 5:10 pm

Depending on how you define "gay" it can be acquired from environmental influences as a trait which therapy can reverse. Is gay a behaviour or is it a point of view as far as this report's concerned?

May we read the story? What makes you think it's true?

koan · Post by **koan** » Tue Jan 17, 2012 6:07 pm

This seems a good source for context.

Sometimes the law becomes too much about words and not enough about common sense.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:21 am

Well well. Demand-led psychotherapy.

I'm not sure I'd like the government to be defining who can be described as mentally unwell and who can't. If there's psychotherapy at all it might as well be defined by demand as by anything else. I'm by no means convinced that the majority of those defined from within the psychiatric industry are ill in any reasonable sense in the first place but there's a lot of money to be made from little boxes of go-away pills. I think the practitioners qualify as degree-holding confidence tricksters.

The fight against bigotry belongs within the community, defeat it there and "treatments" like these will have no congregations funding them. If you're going to ban insurance claims for changing the attitude of a patient then by all means do it but at least do it on a broader scale than just "gay's not a disease".

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:38 am

Do they offer straight therapy? I would think it might help some husbands who refuse to take their wives shopping.

Post by **Chloe_88** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:57 am

spot;1381459 wrote: Depending on how you define "gay" it can be acquired from environmental influences as a trait which therapy can reverse. Is gay a behaviour or is it a point of view as far as this report's concerned?

May we read the story? What makes you think it's true?

Uh well i had a quick browse on the internet. I can only find information in dutch. So if you can read the dutch language, be my guest: Minister: Geen vergoeding homotherapie - Gezondheid - TROUW

And how could it not be true? There is a big debate about it at the moment. Our Minister Schippers from Health, Welfare and Sports is trying to stop this treatment. She calles it: bizarre. This treatment tries tp suppress the 'gay' sexual preference. She also says: our health care is meant for illnesses and being gay is not an illness.

The " treatment " is as far as I can find setup by a groups of christians, who try and suppress any other sexual preference then the "straight sexual preference".

The ministers are also saying that if this is a support group so people can express their feelings and get some comfort it should be no different than "normal" therapy. They should then stick to the "rules" of "normal" therapy (the amount of sessions that are free, the amount of sessions a client pays for themselves). And being gay should not be stuffed under some "illness", because it is not.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:41 am

Accountable;1381488 wrote: Do they offer straight therapy? I would think it might help some husbands who refuse to take their wives shopping.

Traitor.

Post by **Chloe_88** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:24 am

Here you go.. with a little help, found an english website for you: http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archive...erapy_is_b.php

Post by **Chloe_88** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 10:33 am

spot;1381459 wrote: Depending on how you define "gay" it can be acquired from environmental influences as a trait which therapy can reverse.

Spot, I forgot to mention but can you please explain ? So if my brother is gay, his "gayness" can rub of on me? is that what you're saying? And then with this "therapy" it can be reversed?! Or am i missing something here?

Post by **spot** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:58 am

Chloe_88;1381536 wrote: Spot, I forgot to mention but can you please explain ? So if my brother is gay, his "gayness" can rub of on me? is that what you're saying? And then with this "therapy" it can be reversed?! Or am i missing something here?

It's why I asked how you define gay. If gay is a behaviour then I reckon more people are gay in a society which doesn't persecute gays, and fewer people are gay in societies where they're fined or imprisoned when detected. Like, for example, England in the 1950s or Saudi Arabia at the moment.

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:03 pm

spot;1381550 wrote: It's why I asked how you define gay. If gay is a behaviour then I reckon more people are gay in a society which doesn't persecute gays, and fewer people are gay in societies where they're fined or imprisoned when detected. Like, for example, England in the 1950s or Saudi Arabia at the moment.

You should probably just add one simple word to be correct: openly

Fewer people would be openly gay.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:06 pm

koan;1381551 wrote: You should probably just add one simple word to be correct: openly

Fewer people would be openly gay.

Are we using the same definition? I think there were fewer people with that behaviour in England in the 1950s and the chief reason was the attitude of society backed by legislation.

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:07 pm

This seems to not be a decision that the therapy is valuable but an issue of a family that put their child in "gay therapy" and the insurance company was forced to pay since the therapy was through a recognised company authorized by the insurance agencies to receive treatment. They didn't have to pay by merit of the treatment, only by merit of the company that offers it.

They have two choices under that circumstance; pay for the therapy or take the company off their list entirely.

The other option would be to change the wording of their policy agreements but their circumstances right now are bound to the agreement as it was at the time of signing.

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:11 pm

spot;1381553 wrote: Are we using the same definition? I think there were fewer people with that behaviour in England in the 1950s and the chief reason was the attitude of society backed by legislation.
You are assuming that the number of gay people in countries with anti-gay legislation is ascertainable. You can only find out how many gays there are if they are willing to stand up and be counted.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 12:19 pm

Surely that assumption would be common to both of our positions equally.

I wasn't applying statistics, I was applying logic. I may, of course, be wrong, but since I'm offering logic rather than a count I'm not sure your observation applies.

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:31 pm

There are two main branches of this topic:

The legal claim to benefit coverage of a controversial therapy when other more obvious medical needs are denied by the claims company. (The topic I felt compelled to discuss)

The questionable legitimacy of a therapy that assumes "gayness" to be a behaviour that can be unlearned. (That's a compelling discussion as well but it's secondary)

The legitimacy of the therapy is rightly called to question as there have been no scientific conclusions about what makes a person homosexual.

It may be entertaining to philosophize about which are the right questions to ask to get to a reasonable, personal decision but that doesn't change the newsworthy fact that it currently should not be considered a legitimate therapy.

Are we communicating? I agree that a definition of gay would be useful for the second aspect of discussion. I've looked and I don't see one in the thread yet.

Post by **Chloe_88** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:02 pm

spot;1381550 wrote: It's why I asked how you define gay. If gay is a behaviour then I reckon more people are gay in a society which doesn't persecute gays, and fewer people are gay in societies where they're fined or imprisoned when detected. Like, for example, England in the 1950s or Saudi Arabia at the moment.

a behaviour like smoking can be "unlearned" as is biting your nails etc. etc. Your sexual attraction cannot be "unleared".

"While sexual behaviour may be chosen, the preponderance of researchers say attraction is dictated by biology, with no demonstrated contribution from social factors such as parenting or other factors after birth." US researchers find evidence that homosexuality linked to genetics | World news | guardian.co.uk

Or have a look at this one: What the Gay Brain Looks Like - TIME

Spot, I hope this answers your question on if i think being gay is a behaviour.

@ Koan: your last post: :yh_clap very well said..

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:25 pm

I think there are different reasons a person can be homosexual. There is, I think, most predominantly, the case of a person being born with an innate attraction to the same sex. I have encountered a few people who switched preference after a traumatic experience or chose a preference because of a sheer, obnoxious hatred for the opposite sex sometimes caused by issues with their parents. Like the way the news gives preference to stories of death and destruction that make more appealing headlines, so do those eager to think gayness is preventable gravitate to examples of outside influence to prove that it's a choice. What we don't know is, if that event had not happened, would the person still have discovered they are gay? Because we can't know that, the better example is of a person who had no outside traumas or influences yet still found themselves attracted to the same sex. There are no removable components in the possible influences there so they make for the better analysis subject.

I, myself, either love both sexes equally or disdain them both to the same degree. I haven't yet decided.

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:36 pm

I want to add that I found it difficult to address whether or not gayness is a behaviour because it seemed like a loaded term. Anything a person does is a behaviour. Learned behaviours can be unlearned. Innate behaviours can be punished but I highly doubt it will erase the urge to the behaviour, it will just eliminate the possibility of expression.

Do we wish to help people live according to what fulfils their needs, provided they harm no others, or do we wish to make people conform to current dictated social expectations?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:51 pm

YZGI;1381516 wrote: Traitor.:wah:

:yh_giggle

koan · Post by **koan** » Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:55 pm

I suppose my input isn't that helpful because I'm bi but... because I'm bi I sympathize.

Therapy suggestion: think of it as a task that must be accomplished in the most efficient way. Ask the wife what articles she needs to acquire in advance and if she can't decide what she wants threaten to try them on simultaneously to figure out who it looks better on.

Post by **Chloe_88** » Thu Jan 19, 2012 3:23 am

I guess there are many different reasons why somebody is or is not gay.

For some, yes a traumatic event could be one of the reasons. But I wonder if these people have always had a slight interest in same sex and the traumatic event has just enhanced these feelings or made these feelings come to light (with the 2nd i'm aiming at those who find these feelings a lot later in life).

Some have had wonderful lives and are what they are.

Some are yet to decide.

And for some (I guess it might apply to some people who are BI) it might just be about the person they meet, if this is same sex or opposite. They might just love the other person whatever the other persons gender is.

I know alot of gay and BI people and from what they've told me each one has there own reasons. Some have been gay since the day they were born so to speak and some have found out later in life (some with a very traumatic past some with a very happy past).

But being gay or BI should not be ticked as being an illness. It is not a mental disorder or some other 'treatable' illness.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jan 19, 2012 5:31 am

You didn't carry your thought through to a logical conclusion.

Some people with what you're describing as gay tendencies, and some people who've engaged in gay activities, may at a subsequent stage in their life become Christian converts within a bible literalist congregation. It's those people, I expect, who are volunteering for this aversion therapy or hypnotic suggestion or behaviour modification psychology package and if it changes their tendency or their behaviour to one which engages positively with their new lifestyle then that's what it's for.

Nobody appears to be offering the treatment to anyone other than people who actively want to try to modify that aspect of their historical self. Why would you deny them that opportunity?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Jan 19, 2012 6:22 am

I think the problem I have with this is the fact that funding for the insurance, which is from all walks of human life in the community, is supporting the philosophical goals of a particular subgroup, but as I'm sitting here thinking about that I realize that's exactly what all psychotherapy is in reality.

The question then morphs into whether or not this modification therapy is in fact benefiting the community as a whole, similar to what AA treatment or smokers/overweight anonymous classes might achieve.

The presumption then is that homosexuality is detrimental to the group as a whole.

That's an interesting debate and one which I think could be knocking on the door where you come from, Chioe_88.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jan 19, 2012 6:54 am

You're writing as though the treatment's being forced on people by the community as a whole, and it isn't. It's elective. The question is whether being gay is detrimental to the one specific individual, not to any group as a whole, from the perspective of that individual, not the group as a whole, since it's that one individual who's electing to take the treatment.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Jan 19, 2012 7:03 am

I'm referring to the offering of the treatment. The insurance industry must have been convinced somewhere along the line that homosexual behavior will cost both them and the community money, which is how I believe an industry might measure the health of a community.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jan 19, 2012 7:13 am

Ahso!;1381660 wrote: I'm referring to the offering of the treatment. The insurance industry must have been convinced somewhere along the line that homosexual behavior will cost both them and the community money, which is how I believe an industry might measure the health of a community.

That's not what the article says. The article says "Health insurance companies are obliged to pay for the therapy because the organisation providing it, Different, is an officially recognised institution for mental healthcare".

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Jan 19, 2012 7:26 am

You're right, it does. So the insurance covers anything and everything a qualifying entity might offer and doesn't distinguish between treatments? That's odd.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jan 19, 2012 7:34 am

It would be odder still if an insurance company were allowed to discriminate between diagnoses and refuse to provide cover for specific problems, surely. The problem is that the medical industry has been allowed by the government to open a treatment centre which recognizes homosexuality as a treatable disability. Once that's been allowed, monotheist groups have a route down which they can process gay members by imposing pressure on them to conform.

The wider problem is that the medical industry, and not just in the Netherlands, can invent practically any diagnosis and call it a treatable disease, at which point a new income stream opens.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Jan 19, 2012 7:42 am

That's how it is here with what insurers cover. Not only is it necessary for a qualifying entity to diagnose and treat the ailment, but the ailment itself must be recognized as a covered one or the patient must find other insurance to purchase or provide payment for the treatment him or herself.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:03 am

So what we're focusing in on is why this wretched treatment centre was licensed in the first place. To answer that we need to know who the licensing body is. Is it a government department in the Netherlands, or is it devolved to a self-regulating professional psychiatric body. In either event, did they make the right call.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:23 am

Services and institutions

Medicines Evaluation Board (CBG)

The Medicines Evaluation Board (College ter Beoordeling van Geneesmiddelen or CBG) is an independent board that makes decisions about what medicines will be admitted to the market. The CBG thus promotes the proper and safe use of medicines in the Netherlands.

CIBG

The CIBG agency is an executive organisation within the Ministry of VWS which, based on legislation or established policy, makes decisions, registers data, issues permits and permissions, and provides support to committees and boards that have an oversight function in health care.

Services and institutions | Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport | Government.nl

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu Jan 19, 2012 10:17 am

I went ahead and sent an inquiry to the government asking for information on how an medical entity becomes qualified to administer medical or health care services in their country. I'll post the reply (should there be one) here upon arrival to my inbox.

Post by **Chloe_88** » Thu Jan 19, 2012 11:56 am

Spot if I may explain why I have a problem with this:

In our healthcare system you have a basicpackage. This costs you aprox. 90-100 euro's per month. You can add extras onto that like dentalcare and extra coverage. I have extra and dentalcare, mine comes out at 127 euro's per month. (and this is per person). So my OH and I pay 254 euro's per month for health care. And not to mention that the first 220 euro's of medical assistance you also pay for yourself (some things i must say are excluded from this_

The Basicpackage is put together by "the government" (or to be correct, like Ahso mentioned; Het College ter Beoordeling van Geneesmiddelen). If you could only afford the basicpackage, this is what it would look like:

My brother is at the moment being diagnosed with possible asperger syndroom.

He must pay 20 euros for each of the first 5 psych consultations. After that well or you pay the full amount and if you cannot then tough ****.

Physiotherapy: the first 20 consultations you pay for yourself after that only if you have a chronic ailment that is on the governments list then you might get some consultations paid for.

Glasses and contact lenses must be paid for by yourself.

If you're over 18 you must pay for dental care yourself.

What is pissing me of is the fact that my brother who is mentally ill cannot get treatment unless most of it is paid for by himself, and "gay therapy" is free.

Therapy is therapy and it should be classed as just psychotherapy.

We have been through 3 suicides in the family, maybe if psychotherapy for the mentally ill patients would be taken more seriously and would be compensated just like the "gay therapy" it would attract more people to come in and talk instead of taking the "easy way out" in the end.

** just to add on to that again: I do not believe being gay to be an illness but if they need some support and need a chat whit a psychiatrist it should fall under the physciatric help just like all the other problems/conditions/people who need to talk things through with a pro.

koan · Post by **koan** » Thu Jan 19, 2012 12:14 pm

There's no evidence that the "gay therapy" is being sought by the individual or whether it is the parent/guardian admitting their child without their consent.

Post by **spot** » Thu Jan 19, 2012 2:43 pm

koan;1381688 wrote: There's no evidence that the "gay therapy" is being sought by the individual or whether it is the parent/guardian admitting their child without their consent.

I'm absolutely certain that no psychiatric unit in the 21st century would accept an under-age patient on such terms. It would require a court order to treat even a violent child, much less one exhibiting gay tendencies.

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 12:34 am

spot;1381704 wrote: I'm absolutely certain that no psychiatric unit in the 21st century would accept an under-age patient on such terms. It would require a court order to treat even a violent child, much less one exhibiting gay tendencies.

That's why I call you to task on your assumptions.

Kenneth Zucker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Post by **spot** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 6:00 am

Just reading the criticism section indicates how rare the chap is and how unconventional his views. Taking extreme examples isn't a helpful way of discussing societal attitudes or behaviour and yet time and again it's the extremes which intrude into these attempts to analyse what's happening.

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:02 am

rare? hmmm. some more search results:

Aversion Therapy

Ex-gay Movement

Falwell endorsing teens being forced into ex-gay camps

Refuge Camp

Not just parents forcing kids to go... sometimes it's the Serve And Protect

Post by **spot** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:19 am

Rare in rational societies. Did you notice that every single example in your cited articles and the Wikipedia sections is to US actions?

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:48 am

I am aware, sir, that I have come up with a number of examples of what you claim isn't happening in a very short time. I have no intention of making an essay out of this just to prove you wrong. I've got another project afoot that requires more effort. I think my job here is done.

Post by **spot** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 11:57 am

Don't move, stay as you are while I archive the moment in Wictionary, under "flounce".

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 12:11 pm

No, seriously... I'm trying to assemble a project that convinces people their very culture is a form of religion. That you've sat there without any contradictory evidence of an obviously occurring event and insisted I bring more proof is not, comparatively, a good use of my time. It's also not a good sign that I'll be able to persuade less capable people than you of anything more obscure. So I'd better start focusing.

Also, since I only speak English, it's easier for me to find examples in the predominant English speaking countries who provide large amounts of material in a searchable online format.

koan · Post by **koan** » Fri Jan 20, 2012 12:24 pm

here's a proposal:

I've presented sufficient evidence to show that gay therapy is being forced on unwilling children. Now you have to show that it's helping more adults than the number of children being harmed by it.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:05 am

Perhaps I flounce because I have an uncanny way of knowing I can find proof I'm right when I make certain statements.

And yes, I'm impatient because I hear a clock ticking on our chance to get this thing called "society" redirected rightly in my lifetime. The clock will tick to it's time limit and then it won't happen again until I'm long gone. I'm shocked that it's ticking now and don't want to miss the opportunity to race to the finish line.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 6:06 am

I'm not ignoring you, I've not been near a keyboard much over the last day or two.

I think psychiatric diagnosis and treatment is pervaded with abuse by practitioners and I agree entirely that what you're describing happens - rarely, and mostly in the christian-fundamentalist US - and that psychiatry on occasion and in some places could best be described as a weapon of mass destruction and its deployment a crime against humanity. Reconstructing dissidents in the USSR in the 70s and 80s is no different to what you're describing here.

Psychiatry as a profession would seem to be incapable of adequately constraining all of its practitioners to ethical behaviour. The world would be, on balance, a better place if their medications were made illegal and their practices banned by law. Let people's minds stray where their brains take them, who knows what they might find. And by all means break off core illnesses of the brain and bring them into the sphere of genuine medical practice if anyone ever comes up with adequate medication to improve the lives of those sufferers, though I've little faith that magic tablets exist yet.

Post by **jones jones** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 6:17 am

" .... fewer people are gay in societies where they're fined or imprisoned when detected. Like, for example, England in the 1950s or Saudi Arabia at the moment."

To use a favorite word of yours ... Twaddle!!!

There were as many gays in England in the 1950s as there are now and I have no doubt that there are many gay people in all muslim states. Difference is that in most civilised countries today gay people are accepted.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 6:49 am

"There were as many gays in England in the 1950s as there are now"?

How would you set about validating that statement?

And is "gay" a behaviour or a state of mind, in this (or any other) context?

Post by **jones jones** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 7:03 am

spot;1381804 wrote: "There were as many gays in England in the 1950s as there are now"?

How would you set about validating that statement?

And is "gay" a behaviour or a state of mind, in this (or any other) context?

I cannot validate the statement just as surely as you cannot validate your own, for the simple reason that gay men and women were forced to "stay in the closet" at this time.

I am not a medical man or a psychiatrist but in my work environment (antique & fine art), I do come in contact with many gay people every day. Personally, if you twisted my arm I would have to say that it is neither.

I think men and women are born gay. Just as you and I would look at a member of the opposite sex with desire, or at least with interest, the gay person looks at a member of their own sex with desire.

I doubt anyone can explain something which the gay person finds perfectly normal. Can anyone explain why straight people are straight?

Post by **spot** » Sat Jan 21, 2012 8:54 am

jones jones;1381806 wrote: I cannot validate the statement just as surely as you cannot validate your own, for the simple reason that gay men and women were forced to "stay in the closet" at this time.I think you're quite likely correct. I think it means neither of us should be insistent that their pronouncements on the proportion of gays in society over time are statements of fact. All I've been doing is expressing my recollection.

The question of whether gay is a behaviour or a trait matters, because the only thing illegal in England before the sixties reform was a defined range of acts which were either performed or not performed. Traits were irrelevant, which is why (for example) Round The Horne was never prosecuted despite its unutterably camp credentials. Given that traits, unlike acts,could be exposed to public scrutiny, I'd have thought traits could be (and were) expressed without fear both before and after the legalization of much gay behaviour.