Letters in Response to the Gryboski Article
Many individuals sent in letters either to Connect Mason or to Broadside about the controversial Gryboski article.
- Will the Real Gryboski, Please Shut Up? by Michael Wallace
- Response to "Homosexuality Is a Mental Disorder"
- Homophobia is a Social Illness: Odom Corrects Gryboski’s “Reason” by Daniel Odom
- Okay, Let's Be Reasonable by Daniel Lawson
- Pride Alliance Co-Chairs Share Thoughts on Article by Ben Masters and Shizrae Mallick
- Articles Creating Divisiveness On Campus by E. Teejay Brown
- A Letter to Gryboski by Rebecca Walters
- On Broadside and Gryboski by Aman Agah
If you have a response you would like to have added to this list, e-mail it to cmasonmedia@gmail.com.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
re: Review & Examine?
I am, admittedly, completely uninterested in addressing that so-called "central issue". It's irrelevant. Sure, the APA decision was politicized. It may very well also be correct. This latter question is one to be determined by an evaluation of the clinical evidence, not through spurious complaints about the politics of the APA.
If characterizing my writing as a "rant" and "mumbling", and making vague accusations of "ad hominem attacks" (while calling me one of "the Cafeteria Radicals at SDS") is your idea of a counterpoint, I'm not terribly optimistic that this will be a very productive conversation.
Review & Examine?
This Fawcett Blog post does nothing of the sort.
You don't address the central issue raised in the original article: that of political pressure causing the APA to change its stated policy, rather than Science.
Rather, you rant on in a series of Ad hominem attacks on the author, mumbling the usual cliches about "Authoritarian" personalities and "hostility" ala the Frankfurt School.
This an example of the cut-rate "Deconstructionalism" that we have come to expect from the Cafeteria Radicals at SDS.
On Gryboski’s “Homosexuality is a Mental Illness”
"This essay will review Gryboski's article, which I will argue demonstrates an ideologically authoritarian hostility towards both homosexuality and science. Part I will examine the scientific standing of Gryboski's specific claims. Part II will examine Gryboski's conception and "use" of science in general, and Part III will examine his authoritarian posture towards homosexuality."
continued...