Box Turtle Bulletin

Box Turtle BulletinNews, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric
“Now you must raise your children up in a world where that union of man and box turtle is on the same legal footing as man and wife…”
This article can be found at:
Latest Posts

IFI Corrects Paraphilias Claim

Timothy Kincaid

May 12th, 2009

On May 5, the Illinios Family Institute joined the chorus of those who misstated the APA’s definition of orientation so as to claim that the Matthew Sheppard Hate Crimes Act would protect pedophilia, exhibitionism and various other paraphilias:

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has defined the broad term of “sexual orientation” to include bestiality, pedophilia, incest, and “gender identity” disorder among 547 forms of sexual deviancy or ‘paraphilias.’

Clearly our Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion and the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, are at risk, not to mention legitimizing and safeguarding over 2 dozen mental/sexual disorders.

H.R. 1913 is an insidious piece of legislation that is aimed at protecting immoral deviant behaviors while inhibiting moral verbal opposition with the threat of prosecution…

We contacted the IFI and referred them to what the APA actually says. They have now issued a correction:

In the article entitled “Hate Crimes Bill Moves to Senate” (5/5/09), we mistakenly stated that the American Psychiatric Association’s actual definition of “sexual orientation” includes paraphilias. The APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) classifies “sexual orientation” as heterosexual, homosexual, and bi-sexual. The 547 mental disorders called “paraphilias” specifically involve non-human objects, physical pain, or unwilling partners as in pedophilia. IFI apologizes for the error.

Ok. That’s more of a slur by association than an apology. Which is, naturally, why IFI has been designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

And, of course, the IFI went on to oppose the bill in terms of “threats to equal protections”, an argument that did not seem to require attention when other classes of people were offered hate crimes protections.

Nevertheless, I do commend them for taking action to admit their misstatement.

Comments

POST COMMENT | COMMENT RSS 2.0 | TRACKBACK URL

David C.
May 12th, 2009 | LINK

Timothy Kincaid: Your honor, move to strike.

His Honor: Sustained, the jury will disregard the testimony of IFI.

Bystander: How can the jury truly disregard something it has already heard?
~~

How about the rest of the so-called “pro-family” groups that picked up and used this same theme, or the right-wing Christianist mouthpiece site, World Net Daily?

You can beat down the lie in one place, but it’s like a cancer, spreading over the minds of the general populace.

This, gentle readers, is where the true battle is joined. And, thank you, Timothy.

quo III
May 12th, 2009 | LINK

Everyone involved in this argument, on both sides, seems to be taking it for granted that protecting people who practice sexual paraphilias from hate crimes would be a bad idea.

I’d like to ask, why? Let’s consider a hypothetical scenario in which a man assaulted or murdered someone because that person practiced a paraphilia (to avoid complicating the issue, assume that the paraphilia in question is not pedophilia – it might be consensual sadomasochism, for example).

Why, exactly, would such a crime deserve a lesser punishment than a hate crime against a gay man or a lesbian? It seems to me that there is no relevant moral distinction between the crimes in question, and that a hate crime against someone who practiced a pedophilia that did not harm others would be just as bad as a hate crime against a homosexual.

Gay activists, in their zeal to rebut claims by conservative Christians, are subtly implying that somehow hate crimes against sexual minorities other than homosexuals are OK or really just aren’t that bad. How can this be right?

Timothy Kincaid
May 12th, 2009 | LINK

No, quo III

You are incorrect. We aren’t discussion whether to protect paraphiliacs would be a bad idea or a good idea.

We are discussing how all too frequently anti-gays are blatant liars.

Stick to the topic. If you want to advance a pro-paraphilia agenda, do so in your own space, not ours. I won’t have our exposure of anti-gay lies hijacked by your desire to talk about sexual peculiarities.

quo III
May 12th, 2009 | LINK

I am addressing the topic. The topic is arguments by conservative Christians against the hate crimes bill (and not how “all too frequently anti-gays are blatant liars” – which implies that it is acceptable for people to comment here only if they agree with you). Gay activists are responding to those arguments in a way that seems to implicitly admit that legally protecting paraphilias would be wrong.

I find that to be a dishonest and disturbing argument. It is certainly within the topic of this thread for me to observe that the way gay activists have responded to arguments against the hate crimes bill is wrong and unprincipled.

quo III
May 12th, 2009 | LINK

By the way, I’m not advancing a “pro-paraphilia agenda.” I’m not in favour of paraphilias – I’m simply observing that the same logic that leads to protection for gay people against hate crimes should also lead to protection of practitioners of most paraphilias – leaving aside pedophilia, which is a different issue. Please don’t misrepresent what I’m arguing.

L. Junius Brutus
May 12th, 2009 | LINK

I’m surprised. So few of these organizations have problems with outright lies. That a SPLC-designated hate group woulds admit that it was wrong, and ‘mainstream’ organizations like FOTF and AFA wouldn’t, is really surprising. Perhaps some of those other organizations will be added to SPLC’s list next year.

L. Junius Brutus
May 12th, 2009 | LINK

“I’m simply observing that the same logic that leads to protection for gay people against hate crimes should also lead to protection of practitioners of most paraphilias”

Right. How many people are assaulted or beaten to death because they practice a paraphilia – leaving pedophila aside? This is the sort of thing that leads to the dilution of narrowly focused hate crimes laws by adding lots of classes – exactly what the Republicans tried to do.

kim
May 12th, 2009 | LINK

I get mail from them and I did not see the retraction. I wonder if they sent it to all the people that receive their emails?

kim
May 12th, 2009 | LINK

I just checked my email. They have not sent the correction out to my email as of this time–May 12 at 9:15 EST. So where are they placing the correction—what good is a correction if they don’t mail it out (perhaps they will)

David C.
May 12th, 2009 | LINK

And before anybody opens a bottle of Champagne, note that one copy of the article has not been changed to reflect this “correction”, though another link does lead to a revised version of the article in question. As you can see both links still work, and it would be hard to tell were a search engine to lead someone to the article containing the erroneous statement.

Quotations in the revised article still contain unexplained distortions or non-factual statements:

Our criminal justice system has been built on the ideal of ”equal justice for all.” If enacted this bill will turn that fundamental principle on its head-justice will depend on whether or not the victim is a member of a protected category: a vicious assault of a homosexual victim will be punished more than the vicious assault of a heterosexual victim.

IFI cannot under any circumstances be expected to tell or reflect the truth.

quo III
May 12th, 2009 | LINK

L. Junius Brutus,

You may not be aware of this, but people who practice paraphilias are a widely despised (and feared) minority. The idea that some people, motivated by hatred, would commit acts of violence against them is extremely plausible.

This is perhaps especially true in the case of sadomasochists, who are widely portrayed as a sinister and dangerous group of people. I don’t know what statistics there are on this, but individuals involved in sado-masochism have certainly been keen to point out that they have been targets of violence.

For example, here’s Gayle Rubin in the early 1980s anthology Coming to Power: Writings and Graphics on Lesbian S/M:

“One of the biggest sources of injury in San Francisco right now is queer-bashing, fed in part by anti-S/M hysteria. One of the worst things that I have heard of happening to an S/M person occured when a gay man who was leaving a leather bar was assaulted by a gang of bashers. He suffered serious head injuries and the loss of an eye.”

So who says that violence against people who practice paraphilias isn’t a problem? I’m not personally in favour of hate crime laws, but if we are going to have them, then there would be as much reason to protect paraphiliacs as anyone else. The gay rights movement needs to become more honest about this.

Emily K
May 12th, 2009 | LINK

The topic at hand is talking about the lies of IFI in claiming the APA said something that it did not say.

Why quo III is so pro-paraphilia is beyond me.

quo III
May 12th, 2009 | LINK

Emily K,

Your view of the topic (“talking about the lies of IFI in claiming the APA said something that it did not say”) is interesting, in that it implies that one may not comment here unless one agrees that the IFI are indeed lying.

More importantly, it does seem odd to me to hold that one can discuss the IFI’s false claim that paraphilias (or rather, the people who practice them)would be protected by this law, but not the issue of whether protecting them would in fact be a good idea or not.

Lastly, I am not pro-paraphilia, just pointing out where the logic behind hate crime laws would take us if it were followed consistently – which its proponents evidently don’t want to do.

Emily K
May 12th, 2009 | LINK

So then the reason you’re commenting is because you believe the IFI was NOT lying? Because actually what you’re doing is saying “I can comment here if I disagree that the IFI lied” but then going off talking about how paraphilias deserve hate crimes protection status and not about the former topic.

quo III
May 12th, 2009 | LINK

No, I didn’t say anything of the kind.

Donna
May 12th, 2009 | LINK

quo III, your referenced story about the gay man leaving a leather bar being beaten…um…don’t you think that was probably more due to his being gay? And the perception that gays are all sexual deviants who are icky, sinful perverts?

Regardless, I see your point to an extent. A lot of “paraphilias” — like consensual sadomasochism, fetishism (with like, high-heeled shoes, women’s undergarments) are not generally harmful…and it wouldn’t be right to kill a person just because, say, they get off to wearing a leather mask and ball gag.

Then again, a lot of paraphilias — pedophilia, voyeurism, exhibitionism — violate others, cause harm, or both. Not that it would be right to go out and shoot a Peeping Tom…but the line blurs when you’ve got a pedophile molesting little kids…it’s like, no one’s gonna feel pity for a pedophile when the kid’s parent shoots him point blank (few juries would convict the parent, much less charge him/her with a hate crime…because it wasn’t about the pedophile being a pedophile, it was about them, you know, raping their child).

But then, what if you’ve got some guy who is attracted to little girls, knows it’s wrong, and keeps away from kids…someone finds out this dirty secret and, though he’s innocent, kills him? That moral line is blurry too.

Anyway, implied statements aside… I think the point is this: anti-gay marriage groups misquoted the APA (perhaps accidentally, perhaps not) to further their own agenda against gays.

They fight against hate crimes laws not on principle, as they claim, but because the new laws include a group against which they are personally biased. I don’t agree with hate crimes laws in general, but if we’re gonna protect race, religion, etc, we sure as hell better protect sexual orientation. Behind race and religion, sexual orientation is the third most common motivator to hate crimes, I believe?

quo III
May 12th, 2009 | LINK

Donna,

I find your response predictable. I was expecting that someone would say something like that when I made my earlier post. Yes, the assault almost certainly happened partly because the man was gay, but that doesn’t mean that it was a coincidence that it happened outside a leather bar or that the attacker’s feelings about sadomasochism had nothing to do with it.

Gayle Rubin, who was observing matters in San Francisco in the early 1980s, clearly didn’t think that anti-sadomasochist violence and anti-gay violence could be fully separated from each other. Her point was precisely that hatred of sadomasochism (and especially open sadomasochism) helped to feed hatred of gay people generally.

This is another reason why it doesn’t seem terribly logical to argue that hate crimes protections should apply only to crimes based on hatred for sexual orientation (homo/hetero/and bi-sexuality), but never to hatred against paraphilias. Why should gay activists be so angry about claims from Christian conservatives that people with paraphilias would be legally protected, if such protection would actually be a good thing in some cases?

Donna
May 12th, 2009 | LINK

quo III, did you read the rest of my comment?

Brieuse
May 13th, 2009 | LINK

One lie for another lie.

Quote
“The APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) classifies “sexual orientation” as heterosexual, homosexual, and bi-sexual. The 547 mental disorders called “paraphilias” specifically involve non-human objects, physical pain, or unwilling partners as in pedophilia. IFI apologizes for the error.”

I can’t find any reference to sexual orientation in the DSM-IV

William
May 13th, 2009 | LINK

quo III,

“Why should gay activists be so angry about claims from Christian conservatives that people with paraphilias would be legally protected, if such protection would actually be a good thing in some cases?”

Simply because – irrespective of the question whether or not such protection would actually be a good thing in some cases – the claims made by Christian conservatives that the American Psychiatric Association classifies the paraphilias as sexual orientations, and that therefore people with paraphilias would be specially protected by the Matthew Sheppard Hate Crimes Act, were coal-black lies.

That may seem a rather abstruse point, but I’m sure that you’ll eventually grasp it if you really put your mind to it.

William C
May 13th, 2009 | LINK

Quo III sez:
““One of the biggest sources of injury in San Francisco right now is queer-bashing, fed in part by anti-S/M hysteria. One of the worst things that I have heard of happening to an S/M person occured when a gay man who was leaving a leather bar was assaulted by a gang of bashers. He suffered serious head injuries and the loss of an eye.””

You are missing the point. This man was attacked because he is GAY. If he were a hetero, leaving an SM club with his leather-clad girlfriend, the bashers would STILL be waiting outside a gay bar

As far as paraphilias… We have been linked to pedophiles by the christianist right to such an extent that we may never be able to convince many that we are NOT pedophiles.

The SM communities, fetish communities, or even the folks who f**k dressed as bunnies have really little to worry about in regards to bashing

L. Junius Brutus
May 13th, 2009 | LINK

quo III

“The idea that some people, motivated by hatred, would commit acts of violence against them is extremely plausible.”

What you consider plausible, is of little to no relevance. What matters is how much evidence there is. Contrary to your assertions, there is none. I am not aware of a single case where someone was assaulted because of a “paraphilia”. Considering the fact that you oppose hate crimes laws and think that NARTH does great scholarship, I think I see a pattern.

“but individuals involved in sado-masochism have certainly been keen to point out that they have been targets of violence.”

Every night.

“So who says that violence against people who practice paraphilias isn’t a problem? ”

The case you mentioned was one of a *gay* man being attacked. How many straight people are attacked for being into that sort of thing? None that I know of. It’s just one more excuse to attack gay people.

“The gay rights movement needs to become more honest about this.”

Pot… kettle… black.

L. Junius Brutus
May 13th, 2009 | LINK

quo III

“Why should gay activists be so angry about claims from Christian conservatives that people with paraphilias would be legally protected, if such protection would actually be a good thing in some cases?”

1. It isn’t.
2. It’s a lie. I happen to have a problem with lies, even though Christian conservatives don’t – lies are the foundation of their movement. No way I’m going to sink to their atrociously low level of morality.

Priya Lynn
May 13th, 2009 | LINK

Well, Quo, you’ve been thoroughly spanked. But because you seem particularly willfully blind to the truth let me emphasize reality once more for you.

You said “Why should gay activists be so angry about claims from Christian conservatives that people with paraphilias would be legally protected, if such protection would actually be a good thing in some cases?”

Regardless of whether or not that would be a good thing, the point is that when Christian conservatives say paraphilias are sexual orientations and that they would be protected under the hate crimes law THEY ARE LYING.

quo III
May 13th, 2009 | LINK

Priya Lynn,

Yes, no doubt they’re lying, but some lies are worse than others. If someone lies and claims that you are doing something that might in some ways be good, then it’s rather odd if you become as upset about that as you would be if someone lies and claims that you are doing something totally wrong.

L. Junius Brutus,

Regarding why the man was attacked, you (I presume) were not there at the time, so I’m not sure why you’re so confident you’re right about this. Rubin, who was observing matters in San Francisco in the early 1980s, clearly felt that the attack was partly based on anti S/M feeling. I’ve no idea why you feel entitled to dismiss this out of hand.

Your opinion that sadomasochists aren’t subjected to violence or assults seems to be based upon nothing whatever, and certainly doesn’t correspond to what members of that community claim.

quo III
May 13th, 2009 | LINK

One more thing, L. Junius Brutus.

You wrote, ‘Every night.’ in response to my observation that, “but individuals involved in sado-masochism have certainly been keen to point out that they have been targets of violence.”

I find that a vulgar, flippant, and quite offensive response. It seems to suggest that, because they perform consensual acts of violence or mock violence, sadomasochists can’t complain if someone directs non-consensual violence or real violence at them. In short, you’re suggesting that their rights don’t matter.

Emily K
May 13th, 2009 | LINK

I still don’t understand why quo III insists that paraphiliacs get hate crimes status.

Timothy Kincaid
May 13th, 2009 | LINK

quo,

Our comments policy requires that claims be substantiated. Kindly provide the evidence that there is an ongoing problem with violence that is being directed towards S&M practitioners – but not because of their real or perceived orientation.

Federal tracking records will suffice. A single incident from the early 80′s that may have been an anti-gay target will not.

If you have evidence of paraphilia targeting, we’ll discuss whether a bill should address it. If you do not, we aren’t going to speculate over possible (but not evident) problems that exist only in your imagination.

If you don’t have anything to support this supposition about hate crimes based on paraphilias, then why are you seeking to change the subject?

Rather than discuss non-existent hate crimes that don’t need protection, let’s talk about why you think that some lies are not as bad as others and just what criteria you apply to decide whether lying about the hate crime bill is ok.

Because you sure seem to think that this lie was acceptable. Or am I mistaken? Is this an acceptable lie in your calculation?

Priya Lynn
May 13th, 2009 | LINK

Well, you lost me Quo, I don’t see what you’re getting at. They lied in order to try and prevent the hate crimes bill from passing and that upsets me as it should upset any moral person. Apparently, however, it does not upset you. That says a lot.

quo III
May 13th, 2009 | LINK

Timothy,

To make it quite clear, I did not claim that there was an ongoing problem with violence against sadomasochists. What I claimed, rather, was that individual people involved in sadomasochism have claimed that there was or is a problem. I have already substantiated this with the quote from Rubin in Coming to Power.

The request that I provide sources to support my claims wouldn’t have been necessary if you had looked more carefully at what I was actually claiming. Now, can you support your claim that there is, in fact, no problem of hate crimes against sadomasochists? What statistics are there that show that the problem doesn’t exist?

Jason D
May 13th, 2009 | LINK

“What statistics are there that show that the problem doesn’t exist?”

Nope, not biting. You show your cards first. Prove it does exist. Then we’ll address the merits of the source and their methodology.

Emily K
May 13th, 2009 | LINK

quo, even you must know that the burden of proof lies on you to prove a positive, not for Timothy to prove a negative. Kind of like, “innocent until proven guilty.”

So, I urge you, go on and prove, with police/federal records, that there is an ongoing problem with violence targeting specific paraphiliacs.

Then maybe a topic will be created for that discussion. Until the, it’s all in your imagination, and most people here don’t even seem to know where you’re going with it anyway.

Timothy Kincaid
May 13th, 2009 | LINK

Quo,

Now that we are in agreement that the problem is all in your imagination and only supported by a quote from the early 80′s about “queer-bashing”, perhaps you’ll tell us:

Is is acceptable or justifiable to lie and say that paraphilias are protected by the hate crime bill?

Donna
May 13th, 2009 | LINK

Quo,

Are you ignoring my response on purpose?

You know, the response where I agreed with you to an extent…

yet still made the point that anti-gay organizations misquoted the APA, attempting to create fear and keep H.R. 1913 from passing?

The anti-gay organizations, mind you, are the ones who came up with the claim that “sexual orientation” could protect paraphilias — harping especially on pedophilia — and specifically, themselves, said it would protect “Bizzare” sexual deviants?

I also said that the point is, overall, that these organizations harp on this legislation not because of principles, but because it includes a group against which they are personally biased?

One more thing. You said:
“Yes, no doubt they’re lying, but some lies are worse than others. If someone lies and claims that you are doing something that might in some ways be good, then it’s rather odd if you become as upset about that as you would be if someone lies and claims that you are doing something totally wrong.”

Thing is, from everything I’ve seen, the anti-gay groups harp on protecting PEDOPHILIA, specifically, — and almost everyone can agree that raping children is worse than consensual S&M. Just a thought.

If there is significant evidence that anti-S&M hate violence has emerged…then that’s something that should be looked at. But right now, that’s not the point.

William
May 14th, 2009 | LINK

No matter what one may think about the paraphilias; no matter whether or not people have been attacked because they had (or were believed to have) one of the paraphilias; no matter whether some lies are worse than others; and no matter whether worse lies could have been told; one simple fact remains: “conservative Christians” lied – as even quo III has conceded – and they lied in an attempt to prevent the hate crimes bill from passing.

Was that morally justifiable? If so, on what grounds? Quo III, why won’t you tell us?

Tin Foil Soldier » Blog Archive » The Fierce Urgency Of Whenever
May 14th, 2009 | LINK

[...] when they want to take away more rights.  At least some of the groups are being called on their lies and misdirection concerning the hate crimes bill.  For the time being the “”Illinois Family [...]

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.