Monthly Archives: July 2007

Sex in the Public Square Launch Party!

Join us to celebrate the launch of SexInThePublicSquare.org!

August 17, 2007
7-10 PM
Rapture Cafe
200 Avenue A between 12 St. and 13 St.
Manhattan, NY
United States
See map: Google Maps

Sex in the Public Square.org is dedicated to expanding the space for public discussion of sexuality. Blending the techniques of blogging and social networking (think Blogger meets MySpace — but all open source!), Sex in the Public Square.org is a space on the Internet where members can explore which parts of sex are private, which parts are public, and what happens when private and public collide. We believe that sexuality is a fundamental component of human life, and that by excluding it from “polite conversation,” we lose an important element of democratic participation.

With forums, blogs, reviews, resource lists, calls for action, and a nationwide calendar of events dedicated to sexualities of all genders, colors, and persuasions and with thousands of visitors and new contributors joining each week, we’re ready to celebrate our “birth” and we want you to join us!


Help Keep Sex Out Of The Closet!

Readings and performances by:

Audacia Ray

Rachel Kramer Bussel

Lux Nightmare

and more!

Plus screenings of film clips from Cinekink and some old sex ed films too!

Click here to check out Rapture Cafe.

And check back here for updates on the festivities!

The party is free and all are welcome. Invite your friends. And we hope you’ll help us support Rapture by enjoying their coffees, teas, and bar offerings.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Advertisements

Comments Off on Sex in the Public Square Launch Party!

Filed under Audacia Ray, community-building, culture, Education, feminism, Gender, public discourse, sex, sex and the law, sex education, sexual orientation, sexuality

Democrats vote to increase funding for abstinence-only “education”

I don’t know how I missed this item posted on the Advocates for Youth web site last week:

Democrats INCREASE Funding for Discredited Abstinence-Only Policy
Ignore Findings that Programs Don’t Work

WASHINGTON, DC (July 19, 2007) Today, by a vote of 276 to 140, the House of Representative passed the Labor-HHS Appropriations Bill which included an unprecedented $27.8 million increase for failed abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, bringing the total annual funding for Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) to $141 million.

“In one spectacularly cynical move, the Democrats turned their backs on science-based public health and chose political expediency over the health and well-being of young people,” said James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth. “With friends like these, who needs conservative Republicans?”

Democrats who have been ardent critics of abstinence-only voted to increase the very programs they opposed when Republicans controlled the Congress.

“With this vote, reproductive health ‘champions’ like Representative Nancy Pelosi and Nita Lowey have aligned themselves with ultra-conservative abstinence-only proponents,” added Wagoner. “They are now complicit in funding programs that promote ignorance in the era of AIDS.”

Since 1982, Congress has allocated over $1.5 billion for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs that censor information about birth control and the health benefits of condoms in the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases. A 10-year congressionally mandated evaluation conducted by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. and released in April, 2007, found that “youth in the [abstinence-only] program group were no more likely than control group youth to have abstained from sex and, among those who reported having had sex they had similar numbers of sexual partners and had initiated sex at the same mean age.”

“It’s becoming increasingly difficult to tell our friends from our opposition these days,” concluded Wagoner. “The majority of Democrats say they oppose these ineffective programs because they withhold life-saving information, yet they failed to act on those beliefs. Shame on them!”

Cynical? Cynical doesn’t even come close.

Now I know these provisions are buried in huge appropriations bills. And this one is interesting because in at least some states (New York, California, I haven’t checked them all!) it is the Democrats who tended to support the bill and Republicans who tended to it. So clearly the vote wasn’t “about” abstinence-only “education.” It was more likely about the funding of things like public schools and hospitals, for museums and libraries, public broadcasting, programs for the blind, for Medicare, for the National Labor Relations Board, and other important stuff. (Click here for the text of the bill, its provisions, and the programs it funded.)

But Democrats certainly had an opportunity in moving the spending bill through the House to amend it or alter provisions to which they objected, and they certainly could have cut funding for abstinance-only programs and allocated money instead for comprehensive sex education programs (which, by the way, also promote abstinence as the best policy for teens).

Here is the section of the bill that deals specifically with “abstinence education”

Provided further, That $136,664,000 shall be for making competitive grants to provide abstinence education (as defined by section 510(b)(2) of the Social Security Act) to adolescents, and for Federal costs of administering the grant: Provided further, That grants under the immediately preceding proviso shall be made only to public and private entities which agree that, with respect to an adolescent to whom the entities provide abstinence education under such grant, the entities will not provide to that adolescent any other education regarding sexual conduct, except that, in the case of an entity expressly required by law to provide health information or services the adolescent shall not be precluded from seeking health information or services from the entity in a different setting than the setting in which abstinence education was provided: Provided further, That within amounts provided herein for abstinence education for adolescents, up to $10,000,000 may be available for a national abstinence education campaign: Provided further, That in addition to amounts provided herein for abstinence education for adolescents, $4,500,000 shall be available from amounts available under section 241 of the Public Health Service Act to carry out evaluations (including longitudinal evaluations) of adolescent pregnancy prevention approaches: Provided further, That up to $2,000,000 shall be for improving the Public Assistance Reporting Information System, including grants to States to support data collection for a study of the system’s effectiveness.

We are now spending almost 137 million dollars to teach teenagers that abstinence is the only acceptable method of preventing STDs and pregnancy, and we are prohibiting organizations that accept grants from this allocation from offering “any other education regarding sexual conduct.”

Ironically, or not, this same bill in Title V section 517 b provides that “None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to disseminate scientific information that is deliberately false or misleading.”

Click here to find out how your legislators voted (once there, click on your state to see each of your legislators’ votes) and then call them or email them and let them know you’re outraged that they didn’t address the problem of abstinence-only funding but instead voted to increase funding for the very programs they claim are harmful to kids. You can use the “Speak Out!!” box on the left side bar to find contact info for your representatives.

By the way, this same bill in Title V section 507, continues the ban on spending federal money to provide abortions (so they aren’t covered for poor women, or for women insured under federal health insurance programs).
__________________________
This is posted here and also at SexInThePublicSquare.org

Technorati Tags: , , ,

6 Comments

Filed under abstinence only, activism, Education, Health, News and politics, pro-choice, public discourse, reproductive freedom, sex, sex and health, sex and the law, sex education, sexuality, sexuality and age

Interpreting the new research on child pornography use and child molestation

The New York Times reports today on research that demonstrates a very high correlation between use of child pornography and the actual molesting of children. The Times did a good job of reporting why it is so important to be cautious about interpreting a study like this one. And it also does a good job of reporting on the need for continued research on child molestation.

Because of the tremendous moral panic risks that are attached to publishing anything about htis kind of research I am going to focus entirely on the cautions. There will be lots of voices out there focusing on the tentative conclusions of the study itself, so here lets just focus on the limitations:

1. Remember when thinking about these results that they were produced using only already-incarcerated men convicted of child pornography charges. These men may well not be representative of all people who have ever downloaded or viewed child pornography.

2. The men who were studied were not only incarcerated, they were voluntary participants in treatment programs for sex offenders. It is quite reasonable to ask whether men who volunteer for sex offender treatment are like other users of child pornography. There are several ways in which they could be different. They could be more likely to be men who had in fact molested children and thus believed they could benefit from treatment, for example.

3. The Times reported that the study found that 85% of the child-porn convicts in their sample also admitted to “acts of sexual abuse with minors,from inappropriate touching to rape”. But we can’t tell what to make of this statistic. We don’t know whether the use of child pornography came after the acts of sexual contact with kids or before it. (The study has been at least temporarily blocked from publication by the Federal Bureau of Prisons whose psychologists conducted the research, so we can’t yet evaluate it in its entirely.) Given the lack of complete information, it would be dangerous to interpret the statistic reported in the Times. Correlations are notoriously misinterpretable. For example, what if there is a correlation between use of child pornography and likelihood of molesting children. Does it matter whether it is the inclination toward molesting children that causes the use of child pornography, or whether it is the use of the child pornography that causes the molestation? Of course it does. It also matters whether there is some external variable that causes a person to be inclined toward both of those other activities.

The limitations of the study that the Times reported today should not be cause for putting down the research itself. Rather, they should be used as a guide for interpreting the findings and for highlighting where more study needs to be done.

The Times has, in the past, discussed the difficulties with studying sex offenders. While some of the challenges are methodological, and some are ethical, in an article published in March, a professor from a law school in Minnesota pointed out that some are cultural:

Professor Janus said he hoped for “an explosion of knowledge” about how to prevent sexual violence before it happened, which he said would prevent far more sex crimes than civilly committing offenders.

That sort of research is unlikely to happen in the United States, Dr. Berlin and other experts said, because so many Americans believe that the only investment in sex offenders should be punitive.

Research on sex offenders, on their treatment, and on preventing sex crimes is all very important and needs to be encouraged. It’s difficult to encourage research in an environment like ours, where findings — whatever they indicate — are so potentially explosive because of the moral panic that characterizes our approach to policy around kids and sex and crime. If as Dr. Berlin suggests many of us believe that punishment is the only thing to consider when we address sex offenders, we will never get any clear understanding of how to prevent those crimes in the first place. Such an attitude essentially guarantees that more kids will be harmed and more adults will become criminals.

In encouraging more research on sex offenders and sex crimes, we need to keep the following goals in mind:

1. To develop prevention strategies that work so that harm is avoided in the first place.
2. To develop treatment strategies that work to reduce rates of reoffending.
3. To better understand adult sexuality, childhood and teen sexuality, and to better understand consent so that we can distinguish between criminal acts with real victims, and loving, affectionate or simply playful acts that harm no one.

This last is a controversial goal to be sure. When Bruce Rind and colleagues published an article in Psychological Bulletin (a peer-reviewed and widely respected academic journal) in which they found that not every instance of sex between a child and an adult caused harm to the child, they were the subject of a firestorm that even led to their being “unanimously condemned by Congress.” And when Judith Levine published Harmful to Minors, perhaps the clearest discussion of kids, sex, and policy out there, she writes that “overnight I became the author of ‘the pedophilia book,’ even though the book only touches on pedophilia in a few of its 300+ pages. University of Minnesota Press, which published the first edition, was overwhelmed with calls “demanding that the press’s management resign and Harmful to Minors — and maybe its author — be burned.” (p. 229, Afterword, Harmful to Minors, 2002 edition.) The book went on to win the 2002 Los Angeles Times Book Prize and its 2002 edition, published by Thunder’s Mouth Press, has a foreword by Dr. Joycelyn Elders.

Yet this last goal is ultimately important if we are to avoid the kinds of harm we cause to children, teens, and adults when we make policy based on fear rather than on evidence. Prevention, treatment, and a clearer understanding of the sexuality of kids, teens, and adults are all essential if we’re going to get a handle on sex crimes.

This entry is published on SexinthePublicSquare.org and also SexinthePublicSquare on WordPress.com

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , ,

2 Comments

Filed under culture, moral panic, News and politics, public discourse, sex, sex crimes, sexuality and age

The good news and bad news about the new teen birth rate data

A new study by the Federal Inter-agency Forum on Child and Family Statistics reports that the teen birth rate is at an all time low. The current birth rate for teens between 15-17 in the US according to the study is 21 per 1000.* (That’s down from a high of 39 per 1000 in 1991). The same report gives a teen pregnancy rate of 44 per 1000 in 2002, the most recent year for which they give a rate, and some of the drop is attributable to an increase in condom use. You can see a PDF version of the report here.

Any drop in the teen pregnancy rate, the teen birth rate, and any increase in the rate of condom use is certainly very good news. But the good news is hardly unqualified. There is a fair bit of bad news that surrounds those important bits of good news.

One bit of bad news is that the teen pregnancy rate in the US is still much higher than it is in other western postindustrial societies. In the Netherlands and in Switzerland there were only 5 births per 1000 women between 15 and 19 in 2002 according to UN data. (There were 53 per 1000 young women in the US that same year according to the UN figures). The UN data I found did not report pregnancies, only births. Data from the Guttmacher Institute indicate that the pregnancy rate in the Netherlands was 12 per 1000 in 2001.

Another bit of bad news is that in the US there are significant differences in birth rates for girls of different racial and ethnic groups. The lowest teen birth rate is found among Asians (including Pacific Islanders). That group has 8 births for every 1000 girls between 15 and 19. For non-Hispanic White teens, the rate is 12 per 1000, for Native Americans (classified as American Indian/Alaska Native) the rate is 31 per 1000, for non-Hispanic Blacks it is 35, for Hispanics it 48 per 1000.

These differences must reflect, at least in part, access to health care, contraception, accurate sex education, and abortion services. The differences are not likely to be primarily related to differences in sexual activity between groups. A study published by the National Center for Health Statistics reporting on National Survey of Family Growth data from 2002 finds that Hispanic girls between 15-17 are less likely than their non-Hispanic black or white counterparts to have had sex. The same is true for 18-19 year olds. In the first age group 30% of non-Hispanic white girls, 41% of non-Hispanic black girls, and 25% of Hispanic girls report having had sexual intercourse with a male. In the second age group 68% of non-Hispanic white girls, 77% of non-Hispanic black girls, and 59% of Hispanic girls report having done so (p. 24). And, of those girls who had had sex in the previous four weeks, 19% of non-Hispanic white girls had had sex 4 or more times in that period compared with 13% for both black girls and Hispanic girls.

Why do white girls have lower pregnancy and birth rates if they’re having sex more frequently? This same study found inequality in use of contraception (which may provide some support both for the observation of unequal access and also of the observation of cultural barriers to use). White girls were more likely than either other group to be on the pill at the time of their first intercourse (18% compared to 13% of black girls and 10% of Hispanic girls), and were also more likely to use both pills and condoms together during their first time (15% compared to 9 % for black girls and Hispanic girls). This may speak at least in part to their access to multiple methods of contraception and to their ability to gain access to birth control pills before becoming sexually active.

In fact, when asked whether they had ever used specific methods of contraception, the study found that only 37% of Hispanic girls had ever used birth control pills (compared to 68% of white girls and 55% of black girls). Given an intersection between ethnicity and religion, and the prohibitions against contraception by the Catholic church, some of this difference might be explained by religion and culture. But given that Catholics around the world use birth control pretty regularly, I think that inequality of access to health care and prescriptions is a big part of the story.

There is no teen sex crisis in the United States, but there is a sex education and sexual health care crisis in the United States. If we want to bring our levels of teen pregnancy and teen births down to rates that are in line with those of countries like the Netherlands, we need to start addressing teens sexual health as a serious matter, treating teens with respect, and giving them the tools they need to make smart decisions and creating an environment in which those decisions are respected.

We need to do this while paying attention to race, class and ethnic inequality. Teen parenthood is associated with long term disadvantage for parents and for their children. Girls who become parents in high school are less likely to finish high school, and less likely to go to college. Children who start their lives in poverty are less likely to make it into the middle class. They’ve got all kinds of structural factors working against them.

The answer is definitely not to continue promoting abstinence-only sex education. The answer is complicated, but it certainly requires promoting sound, accurate sex education where the values of abstinence are taught in conjunction with the importance of contraception, relationships skills, and emotional well-being. It involves providing support for teen parents so that they are not so disadvantaged. It involves making sure that access to emergency contraception is secured for everyone, and that abortion remains a legal option for young women. It involves providing equal access to health care. And it involves the acknowledgment that we can’t talk about inequality without talking also about sex.

*The original version of this post incorrectly labeled that rate as the “teen birth rate” which would have been the rate for girls between 15-19. The error was brought to my attention by a very careful reader, Carole Joffe, of UC Davis, who continued:

“…the overall figures from 15-19 (birthrate) was 40/thousand–in fact, nearly identical to the year before. This fact aside, I think your analysis of the Report is right on. I look forward to reading more of your postings. Best wishes from a fellow sociologist, Carole.”


Return to the corrected sentence.

3 Comments

Filed under abstinence only, culture, Education, Family, feminism, Gender, Health, inequality, moral panic, News and politics, reproductive freedom, sex, sex and health, sex education, sexuality, sexuality and age

A quick update on the Holsinger confirmation hearings

The AP filed a story this afternoon that was then run on the New York Times web page. It’s a disconcerting story in its utterly bland representation of the 1991 paper that Holsinger wrote on homosexuality. Here’s a quote:

Committee Chairman Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., said he was worried that Holsinger would let his own ideological beliefs cloud his scientific judgment. He referred to the paper that Holsinger wrote on homosexuality for a study committee of the United Methodist Church.

”Dr. Holsinger’s paper is ideological and decidedly not an accurate analysis of the science then available on homosexuality,” Kennedy said. ”Dr. Holsinger’s paper cherry picks and misuses data to support his thesis that homosexuality is unhealthy and unnatural.”

Holsinger said the 1991 writing was not intended to be a scientific paper and relied on the information available to him at the time.

”First of all, the paper does not represent where I am today. It does not represent who I am today,” Holsinger said.

Holsinger said he was personally troubled by allegations that he harbors bias against gays.

”I’ve worked diligently to provide quality health care to everyone regardless of personal characteristics including sexual orientation,” he said.

As I wrote two days ago, the problems with Holsinger’s paper go beyond the views he expressed on homosexuality, and go beyond what Kennedy claims is a cherry-picking and misusing of data. The problem in that paper, which Holsinger says was not intended to be a scientific paper, is that he doesn’t even cherry pick the data well, nor does he misuse the data in a way that really supports his arguments. The whole paper (which you can find here) is poorly reasoned and weakly written. Whatever it’s intended purpose, it does not represent the quality of work I’d have expected of a 52-year-old doctor (Holsinger’s bio on Wikipedia indicates he was born in 1939).

The article goes on:

Holsinger’s paper is interpreted by gay groups and others as saying that homosexuals face a greater risk of disease and that homosexuality runs counter to anatomical truths.

In the paper, which focuses extensively on human anatomy and the reproductive system, Holsinger said the ”varied sexual practices of homosexual men have resulted in a diverse and expanded concept of sexually transmitted disease and associated trauma.”

Health and Human Services officials said Holsinger wrote the paper when he was asked more than 17 years ago to compile a survey of peer-reviewed scientific data on health issues facing homosexuals.

”Since then, the science has deepened with continued research on these issues. Dr. Holsinger remains focused on addressing the health of all in need, including gay and lesbian populations, consistent with sound science and the best medical practices,” said Health and Human Services spokeswoman Christina Pearson.

It isn’t that gay groups and others interpret the paper to say that homosexuals face greater risk of disease or that homosexuality runs counter to anatomical truths. The paper does say those things. Explicitly. It isn’t a question of spin or interpretation. It’s a question of basic reading comprehension.

And it isn’t okay to explain the paper away by saying it was written more than 17 years ago as a review of peer-reviewed literature on homosexuality, and that the science has deepened since then. Of course the science has deepened since then, but Holsinger’s use of the science that existed when he wrote the paper is poor at best and ideologically driven at worst. It’s nice to say that Holsinger is committed to “addressing the health of all in need…consistent with sound science and the best medical practices” but his paper doesn’t instill confidence in his ability to parse sound science or appropriately evaluate medical or scientific literature.

Meanwhile, HRC reports on the organization’s blog that Holsinger was temporarily stumped today when asked about the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy that keeps gays in the military closeted, or fires them if they come out:

Got this email a little while ago from Lara Schwartz, our legal director, on Holsinger’s stance on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:

Sen. Sherrod Brown mentioned the 52 fired linguists and asked Holsinger whether homosexuality is more dangerous than untranslated documents and he actually floundered! He eventually stumbled to Al Qaeda being more dangerous, but it took a while.

It’s disconcerting to say the least that a nominee who knows his views on homosexuality are going to be questioned would be unprepared for such a question. It is even more disconcerting that a doctor could possibly believe, or be tempted to believe, that the presence of openly gay members of the military could cause more harm to the military or to the country than might the presence of untranslated intelligence.

It’s not too late to call the Senate switchboard and encourage your senator to support science, intelligence, expertise and experience over loyalty and ideology.

P.S.: According to the AP/NYT article linked above, Holsinger did say he’d resign rather than submit to political pressure to censor his science and his public health program agenda. But he hasn’t convinced me his science-and-health agenda isn’t already in line with the politicians that have done the censoring in the recent past.

 

 

Comments Off on A quick update on the Holsinger confirmation hearings

Filed under Gays in the military, Health, heterosexism, Homophobia, James Holsinger, News and politics, public discourse, sex, sex and health, sex and the law

Questions for Dr. James Holsinger, or those in charge of his confirmation hearings

Quick: name the Surgeon General of the United States. Can you do it? I couldn’t. I know all about the guy who is being nominated and nothing about the one who is currently serving. I had to look him up on Wikipedia. He is Rear Admiral Kenneth P. Moritsugu PHSCC, M.D., M.P.H., and he has been acting Surgeon General since his boss, Vice Admiral Richard Henry Carmona, M.D., RN, M.P.H, F.A.C.S., finshed his term in 2006. (For the record, David Satcher is the last surgeon general I have a clear memory of!)

On Thursday, the man selected to replace Moritsugu and take on the full mantle of surgeon general will have his confirmation hearings in the Senate. His name is James Holsinger and it’s a good bet you’ve heard of him. You may have heard that his nomination is a controversial one because he is a conservative Christian or because he has expressed the view that homosexuals are diseased and pathological, and both of those things are true. But he is controversial mostly because he used weak science and faulty reasoning to try to back up his view that homosexuality is pathological. It is that use of unscientific argument disguised as science that makes him an upsetting candidate to take on the job of top public health educator in the US.

This is a link to the paper that is the basis for all this criticism (PDF, hosted on ABCnews.com). Holsinger wrote it in 1991 for the United Methodist Church’s Committee to Study Homosexuality. The main text is only 6 pages long so go ahead and read it. I’ll be here when you get back.

~~~

Done? Good. So you probably have some questions, and so do I. Let’s lay some of them out. My first question comes after reading the second paragraph, which begins, “There is absolute concensus in the scientific community concerning the structure and function of the human alimentary and reproductive systems.” Holsinger goes on to explain that they are entirely separate systems in humans (as we do not possess cloacas, something he returns to later), and then explains how the reproductive systems of men and women interact to produce baby humans.

Now, I’d bet that there is no debate in the scientific community that the two systems are separate, nor that only one of them functions in a way that absorbs nutrients into the body while only the other functions in a way that causes reproduction when properly combined with the right other reproductive organs. But, how many scientists would agree that each system has only one function? And how many would deny that both systems can function in ways that create pleasure? Or would contend that pleasure is not an important part of human existence?

So one question I would ask at Dr. Holsinger’s nomination hearing on Thursday is this:

Dr. Holsinger, do you believe that public health policy and health education should ignore the ways that we use our bodies for pleasure, and should omit information about how we can do so safely?

My second question comes after a description of how the anus and rectum do not lubricate in the way that a vagina does, and so can be damaged by penetrative sex. From this observation he argues that “the varied sexual practices of homosexual men have resulted in a diverse and expanded concept of sexually transmitted disease and associated trauma.” He cites a study that I wont attempt to evaluate because I haven’t read it yet. The section he sites notes findings that bisexuals, heterosexuals, and homosexuals had different rates of assorted sexually transmitted diseases. Without commenting on the quality of the research, I can say about this is that his use of the study, whatever its own merits, doesn’t support his argument. He is trying to argue that homosexual sex is pathological and heterosexual sex is not, and he presents evidence that every group gets STDs, but that those STDs are distributed differently across groups. In the study, more homosexuals than heterosexuals get things like amoebiasis and giardiasis while heterosexuals are more likely than homosexual to have urethral gonorrhea and or chlamydia. Unless he’s willing to argue that only some STDs are signs of pathology while others are just fine, I don’t see how this helps his argument.

So, my second question for Dr. Holsinger at his nomination hearings would be this:

Dr. Holsinger, would you say that some diseases are markers of pathology in a person while others are not? If so, which diseases are markers of heathly lifestyles and which are markers of pathological lifestyles?

My third question comes from a strange quote he uses to support the claim that “trauma and tumors are the primary problems related to the anorectum in homosexual men.” He quotes a study that found that women who engaged in “anal-receptive intercourse” did not suffer from anal-sphincter dysfunction and rarely suffered from anorectal problems in general, partly because “consensual penile-anal intercourse can be performed safely provided there is adequate lubrication.” Ignoring that finding even though he cites it, Holsinger then goes on to decry the dangers of fisting and of unlubricated forceful anal sex.

So my third question would be this:

Dr. Holsinger, is it safe to say, based on your writing, that you only think homosexuality is pathological if it does not involves enough lube? In other words, would it be a key part of your public health policy to educate people about the value of proper lubrication? Or, rather, would you suggest that no sex that requires lubrication not supplied by the body itself can ever be healthy sex?

Last, I am puzzled by Holsinger’s claim that squamous-cell anal cancer, which is associated with HPV virus strains that cause genital warts is further evidence of the pathology of homosexuality. After all, those same strains cause genital warts in women, and lead in some cases to cervical cancers (for which we are all supposed to be screened annually or every two years, and which are often contracted through heterosexual contact).

So my fourth question would be:

Dr. Holsinger, how can a disease that occurs frequently in women who have heterosexual sex be used as evidence that homosexual sex is pathological, but not used as evidence that heterosexual sex is pathological?”

He ends his paper with an analogy to pipe fittings in order to illustrate just how taken-for-granted the sense of male-fitting-into-female is in our culture, and notes that injuries and diseases result “when the complimentarity of the sexes is breached.”

I do not want a man who reasons this way to be my Surgeon General. It is not his private views on homosexuality that are the problem, though I strenuously disagree with them. It is certainly not his privately held religious convictions, so long as could keep them separate from his scientific evaluation of evidence.

No, it is his inability to weigh scientific evidence to come to logical conclusions that is the problem. Perhaps Holsinger has gotten smarter in the 16 years since he wrote that article. I hope that difficult questions are asked during his confirmation hearings so we can discover whether he can now reason more logically than he could in 1991.

For updates during the confirmation hearings on Thursday, check the HRC web site’s blog.

To let your Senator that you oppose Holsinger’s nomination, you can use this HRC Action Form.

4 Comments

Filed under activism, feminism, Gender, Health, heterosexism, Homophobia, James Holsinger, News and politics, public discourse, sex, sex and health