The Accidental Stepford

Stepford - n. a married person who submits to their partner's will and is preoccupied by domestic concerns.

[theaccidentalstepford]

Amazing.

[gaywrites]

Minnesota’s Anoka-Hennepin school district, infamous for a high degree of LGBT bullying and related suicides in recent years, has announced they may change policies relating to discussions on sexual orientation in the classroom. 

The current policy mandates teacher neutrality in discussions relating to sexual orientation, but a potential new policy would stress a little more the importance of discussing controversial topics like sexuality. Teachers would still have to keep from advocating their personal opinions, of course. Interviews from the Advocate.com article: 

Jonathan Plotz, an English teacher at Anoka High School, told the Associated Press the proposed new policy seems like a positive move. “I felt like before, I was prevented from having frank discussions take place in my classroom regarding sexual orientation,” he said. “I think that now, based on my initial reading, it has become what I’ve always tried to do when discussing any controversial topic.” Another teacher, Jefferson Fletek, who is a gay-straight alliance adviser, expressed reservations. “My concern is with the use of the word ‘controversial.’ … What exactly does that mean and who decides?” he told St. Paul’s Pioneer Press newspaper. He hopes there will be ample and clear training on how to apply the policy, he added.

Given its history, this school district needs to take the lead in opening up discussions about LGBT issues in schools. The policy will be discussed in a meeting tomorrow - stay tuned for updates. 

[theaccidentalstepford]

[theaccidentalstepford]

Homophobia exacts a chilling price as hate crimes climb

Hate crime towards gay and transgender people is on the rise across Britain, with thousands of people suffering abuse for their sexuality every year. Crimes against transgender people went up by 14 per cent during 2010 and, in some cities, attacks motivated by sexual prejudice are up by as much as 170 per cent annually.

The rise in homophobic crime in England, Wales and Northern Ireland went from 4,805 offences in 2009 to 4,883 in 2010. Campaigners say the figures are just the "tip of the iceberg" as research suggests three out of four people are still too afraid to report these crimes.

The police now record any crimes they believe are motivated by homophobia – anything from persistent harassment to serious assault and murder. Experts believe the reason for the increase may be in part because more people feel able to be open about their sexuality, making them easier to be picked out by thugs. Vic Codling, national co-ordinator of the Gay Police Association, said: "People have got more confidence in themselves and, when you get people who are openly gay, that provokes homophobes. There is still stigma in Britain and, if you're open about your sexuality, that encourages people to take up arms and act on homophobia."

The gay rights group Stonewall says there is anecdotal evidence that unprovoked attacks on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people are on the rise. The results can be fatal. The story of 62-year-old Ian Baynham, who was killed by drunken teenagers screaming "Faggot", while they bludgeoned him to death in London's Trafalgar Square in September 2009, is one of many. The Independent on Sunday is aware of at least nine people who have been killed by attackers because of their sexuality – or who committed suicide after being bullied – since 2009.

A growth in more extremist religious views has also contributed to the increase in attacks. A homophobic campaign, launched by extremist Muslims in east London earlier this year, featured stickers declaring the area a "gay-free zone" and that Allah would be "severe in punishment". "A lot of the problems come when people believe their religion encourages them to be homophobic," said Mr Codling.

The rise in recorded attacks may partly be attributable to an increasing willingness among the LGBT community to go to the police and report crime. Police have also been better trained in recording crimes as homophobic, rather than just robberies or muggings.

The most dramatic increase is in Scotland, where homophobic abuse has risen fivefold in five years, police statistics show. There were 666 crimes against LGBT people recorded in Scotland in 2009/10 – almost double the 365 reported in 2007/08.

In Oxford, homophobic crimes reported to police rose by more than 170 per cent last year; and in London's West End, still a focal point for the capital's gay nightlife, crimes motivated by homophobia increased by 20.9 per cent.

Experts say a dramatic growth in the number of transgender people seeking medical sex changes has made those born into a different gender more visible and therefore more vulnerable. In 2010, there were 357 incidents of hate crime against transgender people, up 14 per cent from 2009. The number of people medically changing their sex is growing at a rate of around 15 per cent every year: 1,200 people now undergo gender realignment procedures annually.

Bernard Reed, of the Gender Identity Research and Education Society, said: "The more people who feel the need to reveal their condition, the more people put themselves at risk. Our research shows 90 per cent of transgender people do not report abuse, so this is the tip of a very large iceberg. Society's acceptance and understanding of trans people is up to 20 years behind LGB; we know people who are spat at every day."

While numbers of reported incidents rise, police forces nationwide are closing down specialist LGBT liaison officer posts in response to budget cuts.

Sam Dick, of the charity Stonewall, believes the problem starts in school. "I think there's a misconception that because the laws have changed, social attitudes towards gay people have changed. But it's clear that people are leaving school feeling that homophobia and violent homophobia is acceptable: 17 per cent of gay students who have experienced homophobic bullying have received death threats. It's clear this behaviour is going on in schools unchallenged."

Lynne Featherstone, the Equalities minister, said: "Targeting a person purely because of gender identity or sexual orientation is a shameful act and will not be tolerated. We are working with the police to improve our response to hate crime. For the first time, forces are recording data centrally, which will help target resources more effectively and better protect victims. Everyone should have the freedom to live without fear of hostility or harassment."

Case studies...

Rachel Maton, 56

Egham, Surrey

Rachel has suffered systematic abuse since she began her sex change in 2007

"I became a target because I'm transgender. Youths would pelt my house with eggs, smash my windows and shout at me. One day, I was hit from behind and the lights went out. Then they set upon me. My nose was smashed flat and I couldn't breathe. Now I'm careful not to get in a vulnerable position."

Chas Anderson, 20

East London

Chas, a former model, was assaulted in April outside a gay bar in Clapham

"My partner and I were queuing at a cash point after leaving the bar when a group started making abusive comments. They started saying the shorts I was wearing looked ridiculous, and one of them said that because I was gay, I deserved to be dead. Next thing, a man punched me in the face and I fell to the ground. There was a lot of blood and I had to go to hospital. The police said there had been a spike in similar incidents at the time in Clapham and south London."

[thebeginningwriter]

(via The Writing / kate winslet reading.)

[theaccidentalstepford]

[theaccidentalstepford]

Why conservative Christians flock to a Chicago gay bar

  Can one man build effective bridges between evangelical Christians and Chicago's gay community?

That is the hope of Andrew Marin - who has spent the last decade living in Boystown, Chicago's officially-designated neighbourhood for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) residents.

  He works to try to bring Christians and gay people together in open conversation about sexuality and spirituality - and that includes running a large-scale meeting four times a year at Roscoe's, one of America's most famous gay bars.

That is no small achievement in a culture where openly gay people and evangelical Christians have long viewed each other with suspicion.

But Andrew Marin's determination to bring polarised opposites together in dialogue has grown in ways he never imagined.

From small beginnings 10 years ago, he now takes his message around the world and has worked with governments as well as churches.

He is fast becoming a well-known figure in the United States, and has collaborated with one of the country's largest Christian publishers to produce a course for churches wishing to address questions about sexuality.

Cutting ties

His main concern is to build trust between unlikely conversation partners.

  He believes that too many Christians don't understand the complexity of the small number of Bible verses that mention homosexuality - he also thinks that gay people are often too quick to dismiss Christianity.

But why did he feel the need to address these concerns by moving into Chicago's gay village, with its sex shops, gay bars and saunas?

The answer lies in a series of conversations Andrew Marin had with his three closest friends over a period of three months.

One by one, each friend told him that they were gay - and he says the news came as a complete surprise.

He had grown up in a conservative Christian household, and says he was "the biggest Bible-banging homophobic kid you ever met".

He was absolutely clear that Christianity and homosexuality were incompatible.

"I didn't know what to do. I thought there was no way my theological belief system could ever line up with my friends' way of life, so I ended up cutting ties with them."

But Andrew Marin says that over the following months, he believed God was asking him to get back in touch with his friends and apologise to them.

A few weeks later, along with two of the three friends, he moved into Boystown.

Christian presence

The early years were extremely difficult, he says, as he struggled to work out whether he could reconcile his friends' sexuality with his Christian convictions.

"When I went to gay bars or events with my friends, I felt bad, because I felt that I should have been saying to people: 'You're wrong and you need to change.'"

But rather than condemning local people, he decided that he should be an open-minded Christian presence.

That decision brought with it some unexpected results - and an unanticipated nickname.

"For the first three years, everybody just called me Straighty Straighterson - because I was literally the only straight male [they met]. People would start talking to me about God and church and the Bible - people would just bring their questions to me."

So chance conversations in bars and clubs spelt the beginnings of what is now an organisation at work throughout the United States.

'Creative tension'

One of the most unusual aspects of the Foundation's work are its Living in the Tension gatherings, where people from all perspectives gather together to explore questions about Christian faith and sexuality.

I met some participants from a recent meeting - including a married Christian couple who minister to male prostitutes, and a woman who self-defines as "queer" and who left the church because of its attitude towards homosexuality.

Most intriguing were two gay Christian men who had reached dramatically different conclusions about faith and sexuality.

Will is an openly gay man, and a pastor in the United Methodist Church.

He says he has resolved a "creative tension" he initially felt between his calling to ministry and his sexuality.

Sitting opposite him was Brian, who also says he's always known he was gay - but whose traditional theology meant he chose to marry a woman and has since fathered a child.

He says that falling in love with his wife was "an experience that I can only say was through God himself bringing my wife and me together".

'Judgement of God'

The two men's stories could hardly be more different.

But the Marin Foundation believes that polite, honest conversation between people of all perspectives is essential if Christians are to address questions about sexuality more effectively.

Not everyone is convinced that Christians are ready - or able - to have many such discussions.

At Harvard University, a theologian who specialises in Christian understandings of sexuality has convened an international group of scholars to try and get beyond what he calls an "impasse" in current debates about religion and sexuality.

Professor Mark Jordan suggests that it may be time for "a kind of ceasefire - a disengagement, where we stop spending all of our time sniping at each other".

And he says that each Christian faces a personal, spiritual question about how they involve themselves in such discussions.

"My hope is that I would be willing to kneel at a communion table with my bitterest enemy in these debates."

"There comes a moment when you have to shut up - you have to silence your angry conversation and submit yourselves in some way to the judgement of God."

Sexual morality

So does Andrew Marin's work in Boystown genuinely offer a way forward for Christians at war with each other over questions of sexuality?

That may depend on how many Christians are willing to tolerate the Marin Foundation's refusal to define its own position on Christian sexual ethics.

Andrew Marin admits it is a criticism he hears frequently, but he insists that his focus is on enabling gay people who wish to explore Christianity to be able to do so.

He admits that some churches will continue to focus on "healing" gay people of homosexuality - while others will simply welcome and affirm gay people on their own terms.

He says that the Marin Foundation simply wants to get gay people thinking about Christian spirituality in its broadest sense, without a disproportionate emphasis on sexual morality.

"What we try and do is help the person live the most faithful, God-honouring life that they can through their understanding of where God is leading them."

This open-ended approach will frustrate both traditionalist and progressive Christians.

But few can argue with the fact that Andrew Marin's foundation has enabled many conservative churches to begin open discussions about sexuality for the first time.

And there is little doubt that the relationships that he has built between Christians and gay people in Chicago would, for now, be unimaginable in many cities around the world - and may just offer a hopeful model for the future.

[theaccidentalstepford]

[theaccidentalstepford]

The truth about social smoking

When I was growing up, my father bribed my brother and sister and me not to smoke. He offered us £100 if we could stay off the ciggies till we were 21. Despite this incentive, I naturally experimented. I have, however, only ever smoked two whole cigarettes in my life, both when I was 16 and on holiday with my mate, Hugh, in France.

On the first occasion, I only just made it back to the youth hostel where we were staying before passing out. I was comatose for 12 hours. On the second occasion, a few days later, I became a gibbering wreck within minutes. My father's bribe was wasted on me. There was no way I could have become a smoker.

When my two boys were growing up, I made them the same offer, upgraded for inflation to £500. Did it have the desired effect? This is hard to say. Both smoke, but they are occasional smokers. They do not smoke every day and when they do, it is one or two in the evening. A fag with a drink after work.

One of the frustrations I feel about the debate over smoking is the way the world is divided into smokers and non-smokers. Are all smokers the same? Clearly not. Some smoke 60 a day, some 20 a day and some, like my sons, one or two, and not every day.

So when we talk about the risks of smoking, what do we mean? They cannot be the same for all smokers. Sir Richard Peto, Britain's foremost expert on smoking, told me a decade ago that this was not a problem because all smokers eventually end up as 20-a-day smokers. But this is not the case.

Occasional or social smokers exist – but they are rare. They are defined in two ways: either as not smoking every day or as smoking an average of less than one cigarette a day.

Surveys suggest that between 10 and 18 per cent of smokers smoke five or fewer cigarettes a day. The surveys are now 20 years old but there has been little recent research.

Professor Robert West, an expert on smoking at University College London, is updating a study of light smokers he made with his colleague Peter Hajek in 1995. They found occasional smokers were predominantly middle class, better educated and viewed smoking as a social activity. However, they were still addicted. Some 80 per cent of occasional smokers find they cannot stop when they try. But this challenges our understanding of addiction. How can you be "occasionally" addicted?

Professor West says: "Nicotine addiction is not just about keeping the level of the drug topped up to avoid withdrawal symptoms. One way addiction works is by forming an association between situations where a person would typically smoke, which then creates the impulse to smoke when they find themselves in that situation again. A lot of daily smokers report very strong situational cravings."

Not all occasional smokers are the same, however. Some used to be 20-a-day smokers who are trying to give up, while others will be 20-a-day smokers in a few months' time. Relatively few are stable occasional smokers.

Switching from daily smoking to occasional smoking is possible – but it's hard. Most smokers can't do it for the same reason that most alcoholics can't return to controlled drinking. It is all or nothing.

Yet some can remain occasional smokers – neither increasing their consumption nor reducing it. Figures suggest there are high numbers in North America, though this is unexplained. What protects them from escalation into dependence on nicotine and prevents the development of tolerance and withdrawal discomfort? There may be genetic factors, family influences or what experts call "dimensions of social adjustment that may accompany higher levels of educational attainment". Or it may be down to simple bribery.

Occasional smokers pose another question. What are the health risks? Clearly they must be smaller than those faced by daily smokers – but they are not as low as you might think.

Smoking causes a wide range of diseases but the key ones are cancer and heart disease. With cancer, the risks are proportionate to the amount smoked. "The excess risk of cancer for a daily smoker is 15-fold higher than for a non-smoker," Professor West says.

Heart disease is different – the risk is not proportional to the amount smoked. It is much higher, proportionally, for the first one or two cigarettes – hence the risk from passive smoking.

There is some fascinating evidence that demonstrates this. Helena, a small city in Montana, banned smoking in public in June 2002, only to have the ban rescinded six months later. During the ban, heart attack admissions to the local hospital fell by a staggering 40 per cent. After the ban was lifted, the heart attack rate increased to its former level.

Following publication of this research, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta warned that even 30 minutes of exposure to other people's smoke might be enough to trigger a fatal heart attack in people at risk of heart disease.

Scientists have been puzzled by this disproportionate risk. A non-smoker who lives with a person who smokes 20 a day has one-third of the risk of their partner, even though they are actually exposed to only 1 per cent of the smoke.

Laboratory evidence suggests this is because toxins in tobacco smoke peak at low levels of exposure, increasing the stickiness of the blood (the tendency of the platelets to aggregate) and inflaming the arteries, increasing the risk of thrombosis – a blood clot that can trigger a heart attack. What applies to passive smokers, of course, also applies to occasional smokers.

Professor West says the mechanism is similar to that which puts people with heart disease at risk on days of high pollution. "Inhaling particulates has an immediate, same-day effect on people whose vasculature [the state of their arteries] is compromised. Getting an increase in the stickiness of the blood affecting millions of people means that, by the law of averages, some will hit the dust."

Figures published last month show smoking continues to decline among young people. Nevertheless, 27 per cent of school pupils had tried smoking and 5 per cent smoked at least one cigarette a week, girls more than boys. Most of these will become 20-a-day smokers.

Pupils who were regular smokers were likely to show signs of dependence on the habit. Around two-thirds reported that they would find it difficult not to smoke for a week, while almost three-quarters said they would find it difficult to give up smoking altogether. Almost two-thirds of regular smokers had tried to give up smoking.

The proportion of pupils who thought it was OK for someone of their age to try smoking to see what it is like has steadily decreased from more than half in 1999 to around a third in 2010.

Of course, it is not a good idea to smoke. Apart from anything else it makes your legs fall off (I find this morsel of information works especially well with children). More people undergo amputations because the circulation in their limbs has been destroyed by smoking than for any other reason.

But if you have to smoke, it is better to smoke occasionally rather than regularly and it is better to smoke a little than a lot. It confers some health advantages, though they are not great. It may be easier too to give up, though not much.

And yes, bribery works – but only a bit.

[theaccidentalstepford]

I'm still gutted that Anne didn't clinch this one... she played like the badass she is, but Petkorazzi sneaked through. Special K hasn't really been the same since...

[theaccidentalstepford]

[theaccidentalstepford]

The EastEnders furore shows gay equality is still a long way off

Two weeks ago, in its primetime soap EastEnders, the BBC showed resident gay couple Christian Clarke and Syed Masood in bed. On Thursday it was forced to release a public statement to defend it. This means two things: there are still viewers out there for whom homosexuality is of such concern a nod to its existence warrants complaint, and there were enough of them to require a broadcaster to feel it had to respond. It won't have helped that one of the characters was a Pakistani-British Muslim.

The people watching aren't your Last of the Summer Wine demographic either, the soft sort of viewer with mild sensibilities. They're East "brains splattered out with a Queen Vic bust on Christmas day" Enders fans. There are apparently people who happily park their children in front of fictionalised drug abuse, prostitution and murder without batting an eye, yet regurgitate their own dinner at the sight of two people of the same sex lying on a mattress.

This comes the same week as Points of View discussed viewers' disappointment that Holby City, so far swerving it deftly, was now "following the trend" of showing a relationship that happened to be between two men. Whether said complainers thought that the onscreen depiction of straight people or indeed the interaction of humans generally was similarly a compliance to fantastical trends remains unseen (maybe next week).

What is obvious is that a country that in law has instilled (near) equality between gay and straight citizens has failed to do the same in its culture. This is not to say vast progress has not been achieved nor to overblow the significance of TV complaints (though isolated they are not). It is, however, to remind ourselves that homophobia does not just come in the extremity of thugs throwing punches in the street but the gentility of a bigot writing an email from their living room. They are very clearly different but share an entrenched ignorance at the heart of the matter.

It's time this was acknowledged. The "I'm not a homophobe but … " mantra – a predominant piece of nonsense spouted in response to homosexuality (and funnily enough, the opening line of the chosen POV complaint) – can still seemingly leave the mouth without many blushing or feeling any sensation close to shame. It invariably is followed by a statement that confirms the speaker is very much a homophobe, traditionally by an objection to "explicitness" or a plea for someone to protect the children.

The "explicit" objection is easily solved (even by David Cameron): if it fits within the pre-watershed guidelines, you're good to go. Yet here's the rub: the explicitness of a romantic scene is too often dependent on which genders are in it. A man eating a woman's face will go undetected, but if it happens to be another man, the BBC must brace itself. It's like maths for homophobes. One heterosexual heavy petting equals one gay peck. Or is it a cuddle? A brisk handshake? The EastEnders characters in question were simply holding each other in bed, but for some an act otherwise seen as harmless, romantic even, was seen as harmful and perverse. It wasn't, it was said, an appropriate image for children. In contrast to the naturalness of straight relationships, it was something it needed to protect the innocent from.

These are not their children's thoughts of course but entirely their own. They, who deem noticing the existence of homosexuality as damaging, when it is in averting their child's gaze that they cause harm. Some of their children will be straight and left (at best) battling the confused ignorance their parent's special brand of "censorship come outrage" have bestowed them with. Others will be gay and, sunken within the tragedy of an unaccepting home, will be deprived the smallest escape of another world, of seeing a part of themselves on screen and knowing they are OK.

The snob may dismiss mainstream television as drivel but the power of it should not be. What we see on screen has an effect, and the more popular and widespread the programme, the greater this is. The complainers are right. What their children see does matter. This is the very reason the BBC should keep its nerve and refuse to pander to them.

[theaccidentalstepford]

Conversion therapy: she tried to make me 'pray away the gay'

They described her as "reckless", "disrespectful", "dogmatic" and "unprofessional". They said she showed "no empathy" towards her client. Why? Psychotherapist Lesley Pilkington had tried to turn a gay person straight.

In a landmark ruling this week, Pilkington, 60, was found guilty of "treating" a patient for his homosexuality. A hearing of the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy – the largest professional body for therapists – concluded that the treatment she gave constituted "professional malpractice".

The unanimous verdict came with heavy sanctions. Pilkington's accreditation to the organisation was suspended. She was ordered to complete extensive training and professional development. If she does not file a report in six to 12 months, satisfying the board that she has complied, she will have her membership fully revoked: she will be struck off.

The report concluded: "Mrs Pilkington had allowed her personal preconceived views about gay lifestyle and sexual orientation to affect her professional relationship in a way that was prejudicial."

The client Pilkington tried to cure was me. I am an out, happily gay man. I was undercover, investigating therapists who practise this so-called conversion therapy (also known as reparative therapy) – who try to "pray away the gay". I asked her to make me straight. Her attempts to do so flout the advice of every major mental-health body in Britain.

But despite the decades of abuse that gay patients have received from therapists and psychiatrists – despite the electro-convulsive therapy used until the 1980s, despite the chemical castrations, the aversion therapy (where pain is inflicted to dissuade same-sex fantasies) and despite the recent rise in fundamentalist talking therapy – no one has ever been held to account.

The details of this case, and another I am pursuing, explain why not only gay clients but mental-health patients in general do not come forward to complain. Psychiatrists and psychotherapists routinely avoid accountability – and the government is helping them do so.

My investigation began in April 2009. I heard that a conference was taking place in London for therapists and psychiatrists who wanted to learn how to convert their patients to heterosexuality. Homosexuality was removed from psychiatry's glossary of mental illnesses in 1973. How then could anyone treat something healthy? I went along to find out, posing as someone looking to be "cured". Two people agreed to treat me. The first was a psychiatrist – we'll come to him later. The second was Lesley Pilkington.

A few weeks later I was in her grand Hertfordshire home with a Dictaphone taped to my stomach. She set about trying to find the childhood "wounds" that she believes led to my homosexuality. But she found none. "There was no sexual abuse?" she pressed.

"No."

"I think there is something there . . . you've allowed things to be done to you." She then prayed: "Father, we give you permission to bring to the surface some of the things that have happened over the years." I asked who could have committed this abuse – a member of my family? "Yes, very likely," she replied.

Was homosexuality a mental illness, an addiction or an anti-religious phenomenon? "It's all of that," said Pilkington. During the sessions, she recited prayers for me to say whenever I thought about a man sexually. She gave me how-to-be-heterosexual tips such as taking up rugby, abstaining from masturbation and distancing myself from gay friends.

When the results of my investigation were published last year in the Independent, it sparked widespread outrage. Not least because Pilkington claimed that she had had referrals to "treat" gay clients from the NHS GP surgery to which she is attached. As a result of the investigation, the British Medical Association passed a motion condemning conversion therapy and calling on the NHS to investigate instances where it may have unwittingly paid for it.

Just before its publication, in January 2010, I made a formal complaint about Pilkington to the BACP. But by last autumn, little had happened. Three dates for a hearing were made and then cancelled. The BACP, which has 32,000 members, explained that they couldn't find people for the adjudication panel. Why? "The legal advice we've been given is that the panel members can't be very religious but nor can they be overtly pro-gay," said Fay Reaney from the professional conduct department. So in a complaint about racism would they therefore not allow someone on the panel who is strongly opposed to racism? "This is the advice we've been given," she replied.

A new date – 20 January – was confirmed. Four days before the hearing Pilkington gave an interview to the Sunday Telegraph, contrary to BACP guidelines that neither party speak publicly about the case. I had not named her in my original article. She then went on the radio to talk about it. In response to Pilkington's disclosures – 48 hours before the hearing was due to take place – the BACP adjourned it and issued us both with confidentiality agreements.

The signed agreements would have prevented either side from ever talking about the case. My barrister, Sarah Bourke, advised me not to sign. But I couldn't decide. I didn't want to jeopardise the case but was it worth pursuing if it could never be discussed publicly? The BACP wouldn't tell me what would happen if I refused to sign.

Meanwhile, Pilkington's representatives – the Christian Legal Centre – were making intriguing claims. On the day the hearing would have taken place, they stated that it had been postponed because one of the expert witnesses she had cited in her defence had been subject to "menacing phone calls, threats and intimidation". I was the only person named in her lawyers' statement. Although she submitted testimony from several witnesses, I never knew their names and the BACP did not call any of them.

But the Daily Mail ran a story regardless: "Trial of therapist who tried to 'cure' gay man is halted after 'expert defence witness is intimidated'," screamed the headline. Countless Christian websites repeated the claims. Hate mail poured in. Pilkington continued to give interviews and gave a talk at another conversion-therapy conference in London. With the agreements unsigned, the BACP decided to go ahead regardless. What was the point of adjourning the case for four months? The BACP would not explain.

Finally, the date was set. During the hearing, Pilkington said she still "feels there's a need" for my homosexuality to be treated. The panel asked her if it was good practice to say to someone who had stated they had not been sexually abused: "You've let things be done to you." She replied: "It didn't come across like that."

Was it, the panel asked, her belief that homosexuality was wrong, sinful or unnatural? "Oh yes," she replied. "There's no question about that . . . but there's a way out."

Pilkington revealed that she was trying to convert another gay client to heterosexuality. But that now she's "clearer" about it – she uses a contract adapted from a US-based conversion-therapy organisation. Equally startling, however, was what the panel asked me: on what basis did I assert that the BACP was publicly opposed to conversion therapy? I read aloud the letter the BACP had written to the Guardian in 2009 describing such therapy as "absurd" and stating that it "makes people with gay thoughts suffer extra pain". The panel was unaware of the letter and the BACP's position on the subject. After lunch the chair announced that they would disregard the statement as they "don't know who authorised it".

As the hearing progressed, I discovered the strain all complainants go through. I was cross-examined at length by Pilkington's barrister and by the panel. How would someone with mental-health problems cope with that? And it isn't just the emotional challenges that could deter a complainant. Without being well educated and having free legal help to interpret the BACP's jargon-dense literature and legal letters, I would have found the process incomprehensible and intimidating.

The BACP's ruling in the Pilkington case will, however, help to reassure the victims of conversion therapy. Since my first article was published dozens of people have contacted me describing their experiences. Young people whose parents had forced them into residential gay "cure" centres in the US deep south. Middle-aged men and women who wasted decades trying to be straight. Several people who had attempted suicide. One young man showed me the self-harm scars on his arms. I thought about him every day.

But although this case will serve as a precedent, it does not solve the wider problem. Even if Pilkington had been struck off completely she would still be able to carry on practising. Anyone can claim to be a therapist in Britain because there is no state regulation of the profession. "Psychotherapist" and "counsellor" are not protected titles. The BACP is a self-regulating, independent body. No one has to be a member. Thus you can't stop a bad therapist seeing clients any more than you can a fortune-teller.

The previous government had planned to regulate counsellors and psychotherapists by bringing them under the Health Professions Council, in line with other health workers, such as chiropodists, hearing aid dispensers and art therapists. This would have provided a central body offering standardised codes of conduct. But, contrary to the advice of mental-health charities such as Mind, the coalition has decided not to do this. Instead, the HPC will introduce a voluntary register for therapists.

But there is another unsettling thread to this story: that of the psychiatrist. His name is Dr Paul Miller. After meeting him at the London conference, he agreed to "treat" me for my homosexuality via Skype – as he lives in Belfast. He claims to have "resolved" his own conflicted sexuality and is now married with children.

Miller told me that homosexuality "represents a pathology". He added: "The men you were having sex with or falling in love with are just as wounded as you." He concluded that because my father is a physicist, and I was always more creative, that prevented a "gender-affirming process" which in turn led to my sexualising men.

His advice was for me to have massages with male masseurs and to stand in front of the mirror naked, touching myself, thus somehow affirming my masculinity/heterosexuality. He told me to visualise a red light when aroused: "I want you to move that red from your genitals up into your chest," he said.

I complained to the General Medical Council (the Royal College of Psychiatrists has no remit for disciplinary procedures). The RCPsych has stated: "There is no sound scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed." Yet the GMC let Miller off without even a warning – in fact, without even a hearing.

After receiving my complaint they appointed a consultant psychiatrist – whose identity was redacted – to write a report about the taped evidence I submitted. The crux of the report was that conventional therapeutic practices used by many psychotherapists have "as much or little scientific evidence" as conversion/reparative therapy. And yet reparative therapy is based on the work of self-proclaimed psychologist Elizabeth Moberly, who is not trained – her degree was in theology – and whose theories were not based on clinical research. The professional guideline document Good Psychiatric Practice, to which all psychiatrists are bound, states: "A psychiatrist must provide care that does not discriminate and is sensitive to issues of sexual orientation." The GMC report relating to my experience concludes: "I do not consider that Dr Miller's actions were inconsistent with Good Psychiatric Practice." I will appeal.

Reaction to the report has been unrestrained. The psychiatrist and author Dr Max Pemberton told me: "The GMC's decision is scandalous. Conversion therapy has been shown consistently to be dangerous and damaging. It is a disgrace that a qualified doctor is engaging in such practice, and an even greater disgrace that the GMC do not appear to feel that this warrants their attention."

A 2002 study by US clinical psychologists Ariel Shidlo and Michael Shroeder found that 55% of patients experienced psychological harm from conversion therapy, the results of which included depression and suicide attempts.

Furthermore, as Michael King, professor of psychiatry at UCL, points out: "There is an error in the GMC's logic: homosexuality is not a diagnosis. To therefore offer any kind of treatment can be damaging." He added: "Self-regulation is a problem. Professions are inward looking. People don't like to criticise each other."

But until the government steps in, self-regulation will continue to protect psychiatrists and therapists. Dissatisfied patients, meanwhile, will be deterred from complaining.

Dr Miller is still practising in his clinic in Belfast. Lesley Pilkington can carry on charging patients and praying for God to "bring to the surface" their non-existent traumas. No one can stop them.

[theaccidentalstepford]

LTA joins national programme to promote gay equality for staff

The Lawn Tennis Association, one of the first sporting national governing bodies to sign the new Charter launched by the government to tackle homophobia in sport, has joined Stonewall’s Diversity Champions programme.

The Diversity Champions programme promotes a good working environment for all existing and potential employees and helps to ensure equal treatment for those who are lesbian, gay and bisexual.

The Lawn Tennis Association joins other sporting bodies including the Rugby Football League, Sport Wales, UK Sport, Youth Sport Trust and the Professional Footballers Association on the Diversity Champions programme that has more than 600 major employer members.

Members of the programme benefit from business benchmarking through the Workplace Equality Index, good practice seminars around the country and exclusive entry into Stonewall's Starting Out Recruitment Guide that profiles gay-friendly employers.

Last year tennis topped an online poll by Stonewall as the most gay-friendly sport, with 65 per cent of the vote.

Roger Draper, LTA Chief Executive, said: "We were very pleased that tennis was voted the most LGB friendly sport last year and we look forward to building on the sport’s good reputation as a diverse and inclusive sport.

"By supporting and developing our staff through the Diversity Champions programme we’re sending out a message that all sports should be inclusive to people who are lesbian, gay or bisexual. Joining the Diversity Champions is a strong step towards achieving this in tennis, and we’re proud to join the programme."

David Shields, Stonewall Director of Workplace Programmes said: "By joining the Diversity Champions programme the Lawn Tennis Association has joined the list of sporting organisations who recognise that people perform better when they can be themselves.

"Our members are forward thinking 21st century employers who want to recruit, recognise, and support the very best staff regardless of background. Good employers understand that providing support for all their staff improves their operational effectiveness."

[theaccidentalstepford]

Are we still in the West Midlands? Short answer: yes.

[theaccidentalstepford]

Representative Steve Simon (DFL Hopkins/St. Louis Park) says a proposed Minnesota constitutional amendment is largely about religion. He says if sexual orientation is innate as science is showing us, and not a lifestyle choice, then God created gay people. He asks how many gay people must God create before we accept that he wants them around.

[theaccidentalstepford]

What I have been reading recently

After making my way through The Ice Storm (which I had mixed feelings about), I started on Cheri by Colette. I adored Colette's style of writing, and her amusing portrait of French society. In a similar way to Edith Wharton, she also managed to capture perfectly the very bittersweet sense of loss. Being a very slim work, I ripped through Cheri quickly and I am half tempted to watch the relatively recent film version starring Michelle Pfeiffer... though I'm not sure how well it translates into film.

The next book I tackled was The Cement Garden by Ian McEwan. I was attracted to this book for two reasons - firstly I LOVED Saturday so was keen to read more of his work, and secondly (as pathetic as it sounds) I liked the cover design... It was a very interesting read, and the beginning of Maddona's 'What it feels like for a girl' finally makes sense. It was bizarre and vivid in equal measures, and I'm glad I took a chance on it, though I'm not sure it is a book that I shall revisit in years to come.

On an impulse I picked up The Soft Machine by William Burroughs, and all I can say is 'wow'. It was incredibly surreal to read, more so than The Waves by Virginia Woolf, and I'll be frank I found it hard going, and I'm not sure I "got it". Also, I'm not sure any book has the word "cock" in it quite as many times that is not an erotic novel... I'm still not sure what to make of it...

Currently I am reading The Moonstone by Wilkie Collins which is much more within my comfort zone (not that I don't like being challenged by what I read). I was a little weary when I learnt that it was an epistolary novel (memories of Richardson's turgid Pamela resurfaced) but it has yet to get in the way of my enjoyment of it. Having taken a course on crime fiction at university, it's interesting to see an early form of the genre, and to be honest it's just good old fashioned fun, which is always appreciated.