News Conversion therapist comes out.

[Muttly]

@EveHarrington I think you are conflating therapy that deals with sexual orientation and conversion/"reparative" therapy. Nothing prohibits someone from going to a therapist and talking about their sexuality and how they want to live their lives.

I don't know where you are getting that any therapy that helps someone "embrace their straight side" is banned in New York. I have read what's going on in New York.The key word in the New York bill is "change". Conversion therapy is not about exploring or understanding sexuality it is about *changing* a person's sexuality. No, his isn't about someone who was being molested as a child sorting out their sexuality. I mean, that's a lot of what my therapist is doing, but she's not starting from the working premise that homosexuality is wrong... or that it is right. That's good therapy. That's not what happens in conversion therapy. In conversion therapy, there's only one acceptable outcome.

As far as the Rabbi goes, think you are actually referring to Dr Schwartz who is a Jewish therapist, not rabbi? He is a conversion therapist siting his fears. You don't have a huge crowd of therapists in New York and other states talking about their fears that they won't even be able to talk about the possibility they are heterosexual because it's a non-issue if you aren't practicing conversion therapy. What you describe as happening right now, is a fear tactic that some in support of conversion therapy, are espousing. It's not the reality.

 

[Starfish]

Reading emotional opinions on this controversial subject is very triggering to me. Conversion Therapy understandably would not work for gay folks. Education, not religious or uninformed opinions, is needed by therapists and general public. I “get” the subject of conversion therapy for a gay person,who has had to struggle with their identity, brings up many negative, triggering emotions. Again, I found reading a part of this thread alarmed me so I chose to quit reading and give this feedback ??

 

[hithere]

I didn't know what conversion therapy is until I read this whole thread. I'm glad to know what it is now. Wow. It's shocking to learn! I'm just astounded. It's so mind-spinning. My heart goes out to anyone who went through it willingly, or unwillingly, or just desperate or whatever. I'm happy for cultural changes that happening and hope they continue. That is just so mind-warping. I'm being very serious when I say my heart goes to anyone who went through this.

 

[moolala]

Conversion therapy is not about exploring or understanding sexuality it is about *changing* a person's sexuality.

In conversion therapy, there's only one acceptable outcome.

Thank you for your words! As a bisexual this was a very difficult thread for me to read, especially as it got very heated and emotions became more volatile. The main thing I want to say is that an ethical therapist will help you learn about and accept yourself and your sexuality regardless of what partner you choose to have or how you choose to conduct your relationships. Ideally, a therapist would create a safe space for you to be whoever you are, without fear of punishment, right? Like @Muttly said, a conversion therapist is someone who wants you to disown parts of your self; some proponents even call it "reparative" therapy ie there is something wrong with you and you must be repaired.

Going back to the ex-conversion-therapist, he hasn't actually apologized for all the harm he has done to LGBT people through his work, so hopefully that's his next big announcement.

On a lighter note, there is a cute 90s rom-com about two girls who fall in love at an unrealistically-not-disturbing conversion camp called "But I'm a Cheerleader!" Starring a young Nicky Nichols from Orange is the New Black and RuPaul from RuPaul's Drag Race!

 

[shatter eyes]

I hope i do not offend anyone but i think the therapist ultimately converted himself from straight to gay or maybe he was in the closet and his clients inspired him to come out.

I see people as creatures with soul. A ball of energy stopping by earth and departing (yikes dont mean like a scientology alien kinda earthling way). If someone is LGBTQ+?/ help them thrive..dont try to convert people into something society or another person thinks they should be. I guess i am trying to say is love people for who they are..not how they look or what they identify as or with.

I heard about the harm this has caused and it is very sad. I hope justice does prevail and bring some closure to those affected.

 

[ms spock]

I don't know if any of his victims have any recourse, except more therapy, and would that help?

They could sue him from malpractice?

happy with his "choice" and new life.

This is such a cliché - of course the most homophobic person comes out as "gay" often after making heaps of other people's lives miserable. Isn't the first time and won't be the last time I will see this!

 

[DharmaGirl]

But would suing ease their soul? Maybe for a while. I feel like his happiness came at the price of many others unhappiness.

 

[ms spock]

I agree @DharmaGirl. There needs to be closer supervision of the so-called "professionals".

 

[Anarchy]

Careful what you wish for

The history of "regulation" is one of licensing and rubber stamping the screwing over of consumers.

Time and again, the calls for "regulation" actually come from the big fish inside the industry (every industry that has ever been "regulated")

Whether it's Railways, meat packing, agriculture, medicine, telecoms, electric power, broadcast, hairdressing, decorating finger nails ...

Although the popular perceptions are that regulators are there for the benefit of the little consumer, a little logical reasoning, and / or a little look at the historical record will soon convince you that the regulators are there to do the exact opposite of the popular perceptions.

First of all, who has the background knowledge to fill the role of "regulator" or "inspector"?
They're only going to come from one place; and that's inside the industry. Ever hear of "regulatory capture?"

Secondly, who has the time to devote to being a big shot in the regulator?
They're going to need to have the backing of one of the really big boys

How are they going to "regulate"?
The usual way is by demanding that voluminous paper records are kept and submitted
This immediately puts the little guys at a disadvantage, as the costs of "compliance" are disproportionately higher for them.
They'll also likely demand ever more "training" and "qualifications" and insurance to be able to enter the field, thereby limiting new entrants.

A little bit of economics. Supply and demand curves. I can't think of a good or service that has totally inelastic curves.

Reduce supply and you can increase price

That is the purpose of trying to establish monopolies, cartels and trusts.

I challenge anyone to come up with an example of a regulator or a trade body that has not tried to reduce supply (and thereby reduce consumer choice and increase the cost to the consumer).

Regulation, licensing, supervision etc also serves to shut out innovations and alternatives

Social funding goes one worse: you've already paid for the guys who've copied up to the state, in your taxes
But if you actually want something other than their one size fits all, you are going to have to pay for it all over again

I get that every time I want to see my chiropractor, I've already overpaid in my taxes for a bunch of pretentious quacks that I'd have to wait 3 weeks to get a gp appointment with, and they're worse than useless for dislocations that my chiropractor can fix the same day. Except he's not in the gp's medieval style guild.

A slightly different example, sharp practice by telecoms and power companies is actually allowed by the regulators, who serve to shut out competition that would provide an incentive to compete on the basis of honesty. When there are only one to five providers allowed in the market, the providers don't have to be nice to customers, they can all be as overpriced and dishonest as the regulator can get away with letting them be.

So far I haven't touched on the actual politicians
What sort of "regulations" would you expect from a bunch of politicians who were pandering for the votes of various anti gay religious groups?

One of the things that the lamestream news in Britain has been hiding and dissembling on, is the wording used by professor Jay, to describe the reasons why Moslem grooming gangs in Rotherham were not addressed.

The lamestream report it as "a misplaced sense of political correctness"

Professor Jay, actually says that she dislikes that choice of words. And that the reason appeared to be an unwillingness to risk offending a community that was expected to vote (political party).

The religion and the political party are irrelevant. If there's a large group in an electorate, politicians will pander to them, and the most vulnerable will be thrown under the bus.

It would be hopelessly utopian to expect anything dinferent.

 

[shatter eyes]

Careful what you wish for

The history of "regulation" is one of licensing and rubber stamping the screwing over of consumers.

Time and again, the calls for "regulation" actually come from the big fish inside the industry (every industry that has ever been "regulated")

Whether it's Railways, meat packing, agriculture, medicine, telecoms, electric power, broadcast, hairdressing, decorating finger nails ...

Although the popular perceptions are that regulators are there for the benefit of the little consumer, a little logical reasoning, and / or a little look at the historical record will soon convince you that the regulators are there to do the exact opposite of the popular perceptions.

First of all, who has the background knowledge to fill the role of "regulator" or "inspector"?
They're only going to come from one place; and that's inside the industry. Ever hear of "regulatory capture?"

Secondly, who has the time to devote to being a big shot in the regulator?
They're going to need to have the backing of one of the really big boys

How are they going to "regulate"?
The usual way is by demanding that voluminous paper records are kept and submitted
This immediately puts the little guys at a disadvantage, as the costs of "compliance" are disproportionately higher for them.
They'll also likely demand ever more "training" and "qualifications" and insurance to be able to enter the field, thereby limiting new entrants.

A little bit of economics. Supply and demand curves. I can't think of a good or service that has totally inelastic curves.

Reduce supply and you can increase price

That is the purpose of trying to establish monopolies, cartels and trusts.

I challenge anyone to come up with an example of a regulator or a trade body that has not tried to reduce supply (and thereby reduce consumer choice and increase the cost to the consumer).

Regulation, licensing, supervision etc also serves to shut out innovations and alternatives

Social funding goes one worse: you've already paid for the guys who've copied up to the state, in your taxes
But if you actually want something other than their one size fits all, you are going to have to pay for it all over again

I get that every time I want to see my chiropractor, I've already overpaid in my taxes for a bunch of pretentious quacks that I'd have to wait 3 weeks to get a gp appointment with, and they're worse than useless for dislocations that my chiropractor can fix the same day. Except he's not in the gp's medieval style guild.

A slightly different example, sharp practice by telecoms and power companies is actually allowed by the regulators, who serve to shut out competition that would provide an incentive to compete on the basis of honesty. When there are only one to five providers allowed in the market, the providers don't have to be nice to customers, they can all be as overpriced and dishonest as the regulator can get away with letting them be.

So far I haven't touched on the actual politicians
What sort of "regulations" would you expect from a bunch of politicians who were pandering for the votes of various anti gay religious groups?

One of the things that the lamestream news in Britain has been hiding and dissembling on, is the wording used by professor Jay, to describe the reasons why Moslem grooming gangs in Rotherham were not addressed.

The lamestream report it as "a misplaced sense of political correctness"

Professor Jay, actually says that she dislikes that choice of words. And that the reason appeared to be an unwillingness to risk offending a community that was expected to vote (political party).

The religion and the political party are irrelevant. If there's a large group in an electorate, politicians will pander to them, and the most vulnerable will be thrown under the bus.

It would be hopelessly utopian to expect anything dinferent.

I feel the effects of regulation of legalized cannabis. The potency has dropped and compassion pricing programs reduced resulting in paying more for less. Going from 25mg/ml before to now 21mg/ml. And sometime stock is out because they are regulated on how much can be produced i think.

I wonder is that why there is shortage of doctors too...


Good regulation is Emotional Regulation.

 

[Anarchy]

wonder is that why there is shortage of doctors too...

Very much so,

There have been several stages to it, and I'm very rusty on the dates that they occurred both sides of the Atlantic.

Iirc it was the early years of the twentieth century that the medical associations (effectively doctors unions or doctors guilds) we have today, got to prevent members of other associations from calling themselves doctors and practicing medicine.

They also got many medical schools / courses shut down, And got controls placed on which places could do medical training, what would be taught and not taught in them, and how long the training must take.

Those measures serve to limit entry into the business, to reduce supply and to raise the prices that consumers have to pay.

The changes were whitewashed as "raising standards" and sometimes as "modernising" or "bringing up to date"

There's actually nothing modern or up to date about it, it's straight out the playbook of the medieval guild system and the mercantilist systems of special privileges of the 17th century. Systems that reached their worst extreme in France, under Louis the fourteenth's first minister, Colbert.

I'll see if I can find you links to the audio book chapters on French mercantilism from Rothbards "History of economic thought"

In France, the system of special privileges for producers, reached the extreme that for example printed calico cotton was outlawed (you could be sent to row a galley for the rest of your life for possession of calico!) Because it was "low quality" and it competed with the silk makers.

Getting back to doctors

There used to be a system called "lodge practice" where fraternity lodges (masons, buffaloes, odd fellows, knights of columbus etc), would get doctors to tender to provide services for their members families for the year

It worked well, people of limited means got good medical care at very reasonable prices
The doctors were kept in line, as they wanted to get the contract for the next year as well

Anyway, the politicians "fixed" that system

In Britain, things went a step further. The "national health service" is a virtual monopoly cartel for doctors.

The doctors get to decide how much they want to be payed, and we have to pay it through our taxes.

Canada has got to the stage of having an absolute monopoly cartel. You are not allowed to seek private medical services!
Trying to go outside of the monopoly is considered a criminal offence.

 

[Anarchy]

Ouch, I thought that I could find the individual chapter of the audio book, I'm finding big zip files
An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought | Murray N. Rothbard

There are the pdfs of the print version
An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought | Murray N. Rothbard

And Rhoderick Long's essay on the ending of medical insurance through fraternal societies
How Government Solved