DISQUS

EzekielWeaver · 5 months ago

What could be gained from taking him on? Paul Cameron has been persona non grata, professionally speaking, for 25 years. He's long since been thrown out of the American Psychological Association, and censured by the American Sociological Association and the Canadian Psychological Association. He is taken seriously by no one except for a small strand of devotees in the religious right, whose opinions do not seem to be swayed by rationality. To take on Paul Cameron is to give him publicity, thus risking making a mouse into a martyr. Better to respond to credible opponents who have position and power, and leave the fringe unacknowledged in the shadows.

a. mcewen · 5 months ago

Ezekiel,

If you look at the religious right data on lgbts, you will see that the majority of it comes from his claims. There are groups that still cite him. If it came out that these so-called moral groups regularly cites data from a man not only makes up stories about gays castrating children, but has gotten into trouble for manipulating data, the repercussions could be big. Especially if it came out that these groups KNEW of his dubious history when citing this stuff.

Also, his data is cited in school board meetings, radio programs, and other places across the country and NO ONE is familiar with his history. That has negative consequences for us because that means no one is challenging him.

The problem is we don't make enough noise about it. If we did, we could put the religious right on the defensive for a change. We wonder how the religious right can get attention with their nonsense but fail to see that it's all about making noise and directing attention to the situation.

It's not only a lack of vision that's killing us but also apathy.

EzekielWeaver · 5 months ago

Your comments are thoughtful, and I wish I agreed with you. If I did, I would be a far less cynical person. I am aware that Paul Cameron is widely cited by fundamentalists. I question whether facts have any power to persuade in this situation. I think they don't. I suspect that the people who cite Paul Cameron are either aware that his work has been discredited by the mainstream and are citing it any way for their own political gain, or believe that his work has been unfairly discredited. In either case, the facts seem powerless. Is there a significant body of people who are being fed misinformation and would shift their opinions if they had access to facts? I'd like to think there is, but I can't say I've personally seen any evidence of it. For example, my partner's relatives -- reasonably intelligent, college-educated Baptist Republicans -- espouse nonsense I wouldn't cite in a discussion with my cat. I fear we like to think people are rational creatures, but most of us simply aren't.

a. mcewen · 5 months ago

It's not about convincing those who have unfair biases against lgbts.

It's all about getting the information out in the open so when people think of the religious right, they think of Paul Cameron.

It's about giving the religious right the stigma they deserve.

Dr. Mike in LA · 5 months ago

I was surprised to see his ugly face in "Bruno." Apparently Sascha Cohen knows more about who he is than most of the gay rights groups. And, by the way, my Gaydar went through the roof just listening to him. We're talking Deep Closet here.

drbrentzenobia · 5 months ago

John, I think you need to reach back a bit further in LGBT history for a more complete picture here. Those of us who were activists during the '70s and '80s are well familiar with Cameron and spent quite a bit of time educating people about his junk pseudoscience. During that era we were expending a lot of energy to pass (or retain) nondiscrimination ordinances in cities across the country, and Cameron kept getting cited in these fights. LGBT groups did expose the facts on Cameron, e.g., he'd long since been thrown out of the APA, his "research" was widely discredited and was not taken seriously, etc.

The general consensus at the time was to treat Cameron in the same manner as Holocaust deniers: to shun them, not to engage him, not to dignify their claims with a direct response.

I think it is important to continue reminding people of Cameron's background, as you are doing here, so that younger people will know and that we do not collectively forget where he is coming from. But he's a miserable creature, really, a pathetic figure so marginalized as not to be worth responding to. His "research" is not being used to persuade so much as to bolster prejudices already formed on other grounds. Thus, there's a limit to how much he's worth taking on. Remind people who he is, then move on to more productive pursuits.

trinu · 5 months ago

Isn't Paul Cameron the man who said society would need to start sending gays to Nazi style execution camps if the number of "practicing homosexuals" increased?

drbrentzenobia · 5 months ago

I couldn't say, but he is the original source of the infamous "gerbil" myth.

Butch1 · 5 months ago

This is the charlatan that the right continues to quote when they want to produce "data" about gays. The more disinformation they display the worse it gets for the "mouth-breathing, toothless, knuckle draggers" who eat up this tripe.

FNReedie · 5 months ago

I challenged Cameron at a church meeting back in 1987 in Oregon when he was recommending that all gays be tattooed and jailed because of AIDS risks. He, and the numerous faux science organizations, are a joke -- and yet his junk science gets repeated frequently by the media.

Caoimhe · 5 months ago

Actually, I'm pretty sure that LGBT-rights groups do speak out against Paul Cameron -- see, for example, this blog post describing exactly that.

superstition · 5 months ago

I tried to get Huffington Post to cover him by sending in a tip with links to three blogs' articles about him, but so far nothing has been posted. Perhaps someone may post a blog on him at some point there.