Queers United urging boycott of Dr. Phil show

by Rhonda J Mangus | August 29, 2009 at 01:29 am

1497 views | 58 Recommendations | 23 comments

Claiming that Dr. Phil has been on a crusade to pathologize queer identities with shows about "gender confused children", "experimental bisexuality", and by giving a platform to "ex-gay therapy experts" from Focus on the Family, Queers United is urging a boycott of the Dr. Phil show.

Here at Queers United we have been dedicated to monitoring Dr. Phil's programming and ensure that we hold him accountable for his actions. His upcoming shows continue to raise a red flag merely by their title and description alone and considering his past actions we do not expect any change.

One show called "Teen Experimenting With Bisexuality?" has this description:

"Did your teenager recently tell you he/she is bisexual? Maybe you caught them engaging in same sex activity? Are you torn with how to react?

Do you feel that what your teenager is doing is just a phase? Or maybe you feel like girls kissing girls is the new teenage fad? Do you feel strongly opinionated on the subject?"

This insinuates that bisexuality is not a psychologically sound or stable orientation. We would applaud a show on bisexuality, but not one that gives credence to the myths surrounding it.

Another show that is alarming is called "Struggling With Sexual Identity?"

Are you a woman struggling with sexual identity? Maybe it's causing problems with an addiction? Or maybe you feel you might be in denial about your sexuality?

Did you think you knew who you were but then something or someone opened your eyes to a new you?

It would be wrong to pre-judge or presume what the show will be about beforehand, but again there is serious concern given the track record of the show. Is Dr. Phil asserting that a GLBT identity may be related to addiction, or is he referring to sex addiction regardless of orientation? The shows title raises a red flag because proponents of "ex-gay therapy" often use the terms "struggling" and "sexual identity" to refer to GLBT people.

I would think Dr. Phil subscribes to the American Psychological Association. One would think then that he is very aware of the association's position on the topics he is addressing on the show; most recently: Verdict In: APA Rejects Sexual Orientation Change Efforts

Comments can be sent to Dr. Phil demanding he stop his anti-LGBT programming, here.

A twitter petition demanding positive coverage can be accessed, here.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

xiaohouzi

at 02:23 on August 29th, 2009

I still don't know how anyone can watch that kind of crap. It's obviously exploitative in nature and seems to contribute to media's mind control of the masses. Tourists so often show up to places like Serendipity 3 as if Oprah forced them on a pilgrimage they otherwise would have never made, especially knowing that their server is likely to be gay. So i started to see how easily influenced the masses are as if they are not able to think for themselves. Of course this can be quite dangerous... just look at what the likes of Hannah Montana and the Jonas Brothers are doing to the youth. There certainly needs to be much more control of the media for the sake of not only american society but the future of the world. I just can't have faith in the general public to have sense enough to make the right decisions for themselves.

Karl Gotthardt - albertacowpoke

at 02:42 on August 29th, 2009

I'm afraid you're right. How can anyone possibly think that any type of problem can be solved in 42 minutes of show. It is insane. The population does look to these shows to answer their problems.

Grace H

at 09:11 on August 29th, 2009

The Entertainment industry, especially movies and TV, serves one of two purposes. It either gives people an outlet through which to vicariously live out their fantasies. Or it distracts them from their own discontentment with their life.

Rory Cripps

at 06:45 on August 29th, 2009

There certainly needs to be much more control of the media for the sake of not only american society but the future of the world. I just can't have faith in the general public to have sense enough to make the right decisions for themselves.

JEEZ and a double WOW! I'm almost afraid to ask, but who do you have faith in that has sense enough to make the right decisions for the general public? The U.N. perhaps?

I agree with your sentiments regarding those that can't seem to think for themselves. And the stuff that people watch on TV is crap in my opinion. But I'd much rather let them go on watching the crap as opposed to having some international body of thought police dictating what they can watch on the boob tube.

xiaohouzi

at 08:38 on August 29th, 2009

No, not the U.N. or any international body of thought police. You're thinking "1984". I'm thinking a director of media who is democratically elected to decide what is good taste and bad taste. If after that, people still prefer bad taste, they can pay for it. PBS and NPR are the two broadcasters that certainly shouldn't have to rely on donations and should always be free. They do a fantastic job and american society would be a lot better off if the masses tuned in a little more often instead of watching crap like "Sex and the City".

Grace H

at 09:09 on August 29th, 2009

The youth, really? Maybe the preteen morons who do not know what music is. No one my age listens to that shit.

Susan Marie Kovalinsky

at 04:44 on August 29th, 2009

Rhonda, I think it is very clear that Dr. Phil has been listening to NARTH. It seems all the issues he is bringing up read like a text of a NARTH newsletter, wouldn't you agree?

Susan Marie Kovalinsky

at 05:20 on August 29th, 2009

Oh, I followed the links and yes, he actually has referenced NARTH leaders as experts. I figured as much.

lounsbury

at 05:26 on August 29th, 2009

NARTH, Queers United...

So an important issue is being drug through the mud by special interest groups. Maybe it's me, but isn't that what special interest groups do? Narrow their efforts and energies on a special interest?

We need to get over these types of knee jerk reactions in this country, and start thinking more independently. We need stop looking to organizations to think for us, and then fight about what it's polar opposite organization said and then fight about who and what is credible.

I think it's great that we can see what both sides of the issue have to say about it, but to deferring to them is intellectual laziness. I can't speak for Dr. Phil's brain, but if he did do that, I would be surprised. We are all influenced by the things we hear, but the very nature of his show is to cover ground breaking territory. I would have to see the charge of Dr Phil being a NARTH mouthpiece proven before I would agree with it.

Barry ORegan

at 06:50 on August 29th, 2009

Dr. Phil, what a Wanker!

Susan Marie Kovalinsky

at 07:54 on August 29th, 2009

Rhonda: I put a link to this piece in my article, when I mention yours. Tell me how it looks to you. :)

Amy Judd

at 07:58 on August 29th, 2009

He really has descended into sensationalism, I would expect this from Maury, but not really from this show I thought

Susan Marie Kovalinsky

at 08:17 on August 29th, 2009

Yes, sensationalism is the word for it. ;)

The_Cynic

at 09:15 on August 29th, 2009

I don't think I have ever seen a full show of his, snippets here and there - but his show, and ones like his always come down one basic premise, that we are all the same and in so being are all in a position whereby all our problems can be solved by an ageing white dude who has a gazillion dollars in the bank.

And don't even get me started on Oprah...

A. Tran

at 10:07 on August 29th, 2009

It's an offensive and hurtful message to transgendered people by labeling them as "gender confused"! Whatever happens to compassionate acceptance of people in general?

lounsbury

at 13:27 on August 29th, 2009

I think part of the problem is that folks seemed preoccupied with offending other people by asking valid questions and drawing what they feel are truthful conclusions based upon the facts as they know them. The term "gender confused" no doubt describes many people who are indeed confused about their gender. On the other hand it is not a matter of opinion that there are in fact some individuals who are not entirely male or female in varying degrees. Some are more obvious than others, I am speaking of hermaphrodites, however others have much more subtle physicals signs of the same general issue.

It is wrong to just shout people out of the room because someone who may very well be gender confused might feel offended. What if that person is gender confused? What if that person is living a tortured life because of said confusion and can receive professional help to come to terms with a purely psychological condition?

Why is that asking questions, intelligent questions that are relevant and in fact honest attempts to understand complicated issues are characterized as "intolerant"? A person can be tolerant and have questions. And just because a person has an opinion that you might disagree with, doesn't make that person automatically wrong. Are they wrong? Again, exploring the facts, asking questions does not a hate monger make.

Rhonda J Mangus

at 00:50 on August 30th, 2009

Special thanks to everyone who read, commented on, contributed additional information/material, and/or for the recommendations. As always, your contributions are deeply appreciated!

Rhonda J Mangus

at 05:50 on August 30th, 2009

Rob, you might want to read the material at the link I provided to Roy C, above. Thanks!

Rhonda J Mangus

at 13:30 on August 30th, 2009

And you should know:)! Thanks for stopping back!

Spydermonkey

at 09:54 on August 31st, 2009

The lack of knolage in our childeren regarding sex & sexual orientation is proabably a result of parents/friends that were confused themself(s). I have known one person (when still a teen) that was truly "sexually confused" But a little open descution & experiance & the problem was solved.

My self, well I have experiance with both male & female partners, I know where my attractions lay, for my own sex... I knew this when I was quite young, but because of the ridged attitudes of others (& like many in my place) I had doubts about myself & my feelings untill, I got to a point in life that I knew, with no doubts, about who & what I am.

Now. I am Me, SpyderMonkey ! I am not sick nor born with some "evil tant" no mater what another may think, I have felt my God move, & never will I doubt again.

Spydermonkey

at 20:35 on August 31st, 2009

monogamy or reproduction is not relevent to love in some cases.

Rhonda J Mangus

at 20:35 on August 31st, 2009

Nor to equality:)! Thanks, Spydermonkey!

Rhonda J Mangus

at 08:11 on September 2nd, 2009

Rob, please feel free to "speak your truth" anytime. In the event you are not aware, I am not here to convince anyone of anything, I seldom have time to deconstruct 'arguments', and I simply put information before the reader to consider, if they so choose.

Thanks again for stopping by!