Surgeon General Bigot
If all goes as planned, the nation’s top doctor will be an anti-gay bigot. ABC News is reporting this:
President Bush’s nominee for surgeon general, Dr. James W. Holsinger Jr., wrote a paper in 1991 that purported to make the medical argument that homosexuality is unnatural and unhealthy. Doctors who reviewed the paper derided it as prioritizing political ideology over science, and Democratic aides on Capitol Hill say the paper will make his confirmation hearings problematic.
Holsinger, 68, presented “The Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality” in January 1991 to a United Methodist Church’s committee to study homosexuality. (Read the paper here.) The church was then considering changing its view that homosexuality violates Christian teaching, though it ultimately did not do so. Relying on footnotes from mainstream medical publications, Holsinger argued that homosexuality isn’t natural or healthy.
Yes, go read the paper. It purports to be a purely scientific argument for what he calls “the complementarity of the human sexes,” with respect to both intercourse and procreation, but what it really is is an attack on homosexual activity and hence on homosexuality itself. And remember, it was written in 1991, not 1891!
Holsinger does not allow that homosexuality could in any way be natural (human nature isn’t just physiological, after all — what about desire?), or even safe. All he does is point to “evidence” that anal sex is dangerous: “[T]he varied sexual practices of homosexual men have resulted in a diverse and expanded concept of sexually transmitted disease and associated trauma.” Apparently it did not occur to him that heterosexuals also engage in anal sex and other such “varied sexual practices”. He even addresses, of all things, fisting. Indeed, there is a strange sensationalist quality to the whole paper, as if it somehow brought him pleasure to write about “anal-sphincter dysfunction” in all its many forms, not to mention “forceful anal penetration without lubrication against a resistant sphincter”.
What is clear from all this is that Bush has nominated yet another theocratic ideologue for a key position — a health-related position — in government. Hard to believe, eh?
opinions powered by SendLove.to
9 Responses to “Surgeon General Bigot”
Well, on another thread I said “lookie” about this story and it seems it has drawn comments now.
Next: Will the Dems in Congress make a circus out of this?
Ah…the old “Fisting is Unnatural” argument against the rights for the alternate sexualities. One of my favorites, really. And hooray for Bush for once again prooving his total ineptitude — it’s been about three years since I was actually surprised by anything he did.
DLS,
Answer me this, Who sent in the Clowns?
The “Dem’s” you say? That’s just too funny… Thanks for the afternoon comic relief.
Why the hell is it that whenever “homosexuality” is mentioned, anal sex automatically follows.
Exhibit A: Anal penetration is not the only way gay men interact. In fact, a certain number don’t even like it and resort to different practices.
Exhibit B: Homosexuality, last I checked, happened in both men and women. Lesbians are studiously ignored in all the arguments against homosexuality except occasionally to dismissively state that they were probably molested by their fathers.
Not all people who oppose homosexuality are actual homophobes, though opposing homosexuality has always struck me as being a lot like opposing left-handedness, or brunettes, that is, absolutely ridiculous.
What does seem to be a repeating theme amongst many homophobes though is that they tend to be men who want to prohibit sex between two men but would pay to see the same between two women. Well, that is those who aren’t secretly Gay, of course.
Lynx — I think I may have some answers to your questions. As to why homosexuality = anal sex: I think those who hammer (ahem) on this point, like Holsinger, are trying to make the “it’s so ICKYYY” argument. In the right wing world, where sex is always bad unless it’s for baby-making, it seems to work pretty darn well. I think of it much like I think of the pro-life crew giving painstaking details of abortion procedures and showing pictures of aborted embryos to “prove” their point. Also, it’s a rhetorical device that turns a man into an orifice, and it’s much easier to deny the rights of an orifice than those of an actual person.
As for why lesbians are entirely left out these topics? I believe it goes back to your final paragraph — ’cause lesbians are, like, totally awesome, dude. Only if they happened to be large-breasted supermodels, though.
I’ve read the paper by now and also some biographical information on the man himself. His arguments are twofold:
1- Males and females are physiologically complementary and therefore the only “natural” pairing is the heterosexual one.
2- Homosexuals (which are mostly assumed to be always male throughout the paper) engage in violent damaging anal sex that leaves them with a much higher risk of sexually transmitted disease and certain cancers.
As to argument one you can attack it from as many sides as you could care to imagine. Condoms are also not natural, neither are clothes, for that matter. In fact, sexual intercourse within marriage (another thing that has nothing to do with nature) with any intention other than procreation goes against “nature” according to this rule. Included would be any sexual activity that wasn’t vaginal penetration by a penis, whomever the participants may be. Presumably, the only “unnatural” behaviors that really bother this guy are the ones engaged in by homosexual males.
Number 2 is trickier, but by no means insurmountable. I’d love to see the references he cites, and see if the samples are corrected for high-risk behavior. I’d bet no. Many studies in the 80′s were done taking the homosexual samples from homosexual “colonies” like San Francisco. The clandestine nature of homosexuality at the time and the difficulty for people to be open about their sexuality meant that samples would only be taken from those gays who were most “out”, often those most risky. Also, the stigmatization of homosexuality itself lends itself to destructive behavior. If you took the heterosexual sample from the hippie kids of the sixties maybe you’d find some more comparable results. My guess is that your average married with kids gay couple in Massachusetts has the same risk of infection as any heterosexual.
Finally, reading the wikipedia on him it would seem that, indeed, his issue is with MALE homosexuals. His paper is almost entirely male-based. He belongs to a church that apparently purports to help homosexuals “change” (which as a doctor he must know is a throughly discredited notion). On the other hand this seemed positive to me:
“While Holsinger was Chancellor of the University of Kentucky Medical Center, The Women’s Health Center held a session on lesbian health during the fifth Women’s Health in Kentucky conference. University of Kentucky officials said that a session on lesbian health issues was requested on evaluations. Although two state senators had harsh criticism for the break out session, Dr. Holsinger stated, “I appreciate the concern of individuals, but I think it’s important to educate health-care professionals on the issues that surround lesbians. It’s important professionals have the knowledge base to care for these patients in a quality manner (Blackford 2002)”
“Answer me this, Who sent in the Clowns?”
(Touche’)
The US public, in 2000 and again in 2004.
U.S. Supreme Court in 2000; J. Kenneth Blackwell, Ohio voter suppression in 2004
[sigh] Bush won, twice. Get over it, grow up, “move on.” Next time don’t Choose to Lose (Gore) or offer the public someone guaranteed to lose (Kerry).
To something more intelligent:
Well, Dems often are clowns, after all, and make circuses of Congressional hearings. But obviously I was referring to the Bush people because their claims of impaired memory are generating the biggest laughter lately. No distinction here between those we elected and those that Bush appointed. Except I’ll note also that Cheney’s no clown and I don’t think he’s ever made you or anybody else laugh.