Home / Thoughts / Deceptively harmless stuff
Deceptively harmless stuff
Written by Sean on Monday, October 22, 2007
Every once in a while, you encounter something that talks about BIID, or homosexuality, or physician assisted suicide, or other hot and controversial topic, that seems to be relatively harmless. You read it without paying too much attention, and you don’t see what the problems are with the writing. But upon closer inspection, you realise that the implied message, the things that are said by ommission, or the impression you are left with are in fact rather damaging to your cause.
That’s the feeling I got from reading an entry on NARTH (National Association of Research & Therapy of Homosexuality). The name of the association alone is heavy with meaning once you start considering. Put the word therapy and the word homosexuality and you’ve just defined what your values are. One might say everyone’s entitled to their values, but it doesn’t make life easy on the rest of us. That name says in loud flashing lights that you can “cure” homosexuality with therapy. Well, the majority of our readers here know that’s not true, that maybe there have been a few cases of people who were “turned”, but by and large, they are the exceptions confirming the rule!
Looking through the NARTH website, I see that they present themselves are particularly open, and say “hey, we just want the right to give treatment to those who want it”. On the surface, that position is fine. Nothing wrong with it, and in fact, I support the right of anyone to seek the support they need, in the way they think they need it. As such, NARTH fills a function that I would be hipocritical to dispute. But then, I read more of what they write, I read about their position statements, and I see the gaps.
In particular, an entry about BIID was made in July 2007. Comments about that entry have already been made on BIID-info.org, I won’t repeat them here. Entries and articles such as these are what makes it particularly hard for us, isn’t it? If people were open to a frank and honest discussion, and willing to actually reassess their positions based on new evidence, then, we could go forward. But these people are righteous, and will never listen to any argument we might put forward. To engage them is to have lost the fight before it’s even started. Yet, we must undo the damage they do. Perhaps we won’t convince *them*, but those undecided people who are just reading the exchanges.
I see from here that some of you might compare me to the zealots such as NARTH. I am after all rather passionate about my cause. And it takes a lot to convince me of something. But I do listen to people’s arguments, and if the argument is sound, and isn’t disproven by existing data, I’ll consider it, and might even accept it. Yet, at every stage, you’ll know exactly where you stand with me. I won’t be trying to hide my message by deceptively phrasing things in one way or the other, nor will I use quotes from someone out of context to make them say something they weren’t saying in the first place.
This entry appears in Sean's Thoughts, Thoughts. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You may have your say, or trackback from your own site.
Post your comments
© transabled.org - 1994-2008 - All Rights Reserved.