Q Should youth be entitled to unbiased advice on sexuality? Sean Yu of Shamshuipo has misunderstood my points and he seems to have been misled by Melvin Wong. The paragraph that Dr Wong quoted from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition as evidence to link gender identity disorder (GID) with homosexuality actually says: 'By late adolescence or adulthood, about three-quarters of boys who had a childhood history of gender identity disorder report a homosexual or bisexual orientation, but without concurrent gender identity disorder.' This means that the condition of GID no longer exists in these individuals after they have identified their sexual orientation. But Dr Wong left out the last six words in his presentation, making the meaning of the paragraph sound markedly different. The manual continues to say that males with GID include substantial proportions with four specifiers: sexually attracted to males, sexually attracted to females, sexually attracted to both, and sexually attracted to neither. This means that these cases do not show any noticeable link to any particular sexual orientation. If Dr Wong is persistent enough, he may come back with another paragraph from the manual, which says: 'Virtually all females with gender identity disorder will receive the same specifier - sexually attracted to females - although there are exceptional cases involving females who are sexually attracted to males,' and claim that most lesbians have GID. But clinically, individuals in these cases are not lesbians but people who do not identify with their assigned gender. Furthermore, the manual explicitly states: 'Gender identity disorder can be distinguished from simple nonconformity to stereotypical sex-role behaviour', and not wearing high heels, not putting on makeup and not wearing dresses are most certainly unrelated to female GID. Dr Wong is supposedly a professional in the field, so I do not think I need to emphasise further. But at the end of the day, many lesbians and gays are content with their genders. If Mr Yu is as respectful towards the right of people to determine their own future as he claims to be, then he should not support generalisations that subject people to prejudices - prejudices that deny them equal opportunities and, most importantly, the right to a happy life. Maybe if we all judge each other a little less, start accepting each other's differences - and as the title of this round of Talkback letters says, provide 'unbiased advice on sexuality' - these people will make very different decisions for themselves. Reggie Ho, Secretarial Co-ordinator, Horizons Please stop discriminating against unsatisfied homosexuals and those professionals who stretch out their hands to help them. I am writing in response to Reggie Ho's criticism of the 'Restoring Sexual Wholeness' workshops on December 29. I am frustrated by Reggie Ho's labelling as homophobic the Restoring Sexual Wholeness workshops, which I regard as a typical example of political accusation rather than a rational discussion of different approaches to helping homosexuals. As far as I know, homophobia means fear or hatred against homosexual people. As a participant in this seminar, I sense the passion of the speakers in caring for homosexual people who are not satisfied with their sexual orientation. The whole orientation of this workshop was to share their professional experience with various helping professionals - teachers, pastors and counsellors - on how to help those homosexuals who were not satisfied with their sexual orientation and had a strong motivation to change to a heterosexual life. That is why these workshops were held, to help them understand the underlying reasons for unsatisfied homosexuals, such as overcoming sexual addiction, defensive detachment and emotional dependence, gender identity confusion, and child sexual abuse. The workshops respect their choice and help them realise their dreams. These topics are not at all judgmental; on the contrary, they are humane. How come they are coined 'homophobic'? Throughout the whole workshop, speakers like Melvin Wong and Hong Kwai-wah listed extensive documented scientific evidence to show the high correlation between those mental conditions and practising homosexuals. Is Reggie Ho absent-minded or falling into the fallacy of begging the question - being misled and then trying to mislead the readers of the Post to believe that the speakers in this workshop were so ignorant on the issue of homosexuality? I can also confidently tell the readers that not only did Dr Hong make a clear distinction by saying 'some homosexuals', he also pointed out lots of reasons - from the mouths of ex-gays - why they were not satisfied with their homosexual lifestyle. One of them was related to evil spirits. But Reggie Ho seems to think that homosexuals who received treatment from the speaker were so naive that even their own feeling of being unwell could be manipulated by others. Reggie's words - 'whether or not the idea of being unwell has been planted in their heads' - are in fact insulting their intelligence, and reject the authenticity of their need to change. For me, this is fear or hatred against unsatisfied homosexuals. I suggest Reggie Ho respect the rights of unsatisfied homosexuals who are longing for a change to a heterosexual lifestyle, and those who pay a high cost by helping them realise their dream. Horizons claims to give support to homosexuals and their families. This is no support at all. I hope that Reggie Ho can be aware of the different needs of homosexuals, and appreciate other organisations, like the one that organised this workshop. Daniel Sin Pan-ho, Sai Ying Pun
