Tom Hilton’s parents have been active in the United Methodist Church for years, and his father served with James Holsinger, Bush’s Surgeon General nominee, on the 1991 Committee to Study Homosexuality. Holsinger presented the committee with “Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality”, a pseudo-scientific mess that reflected his own virulent anti-gay viewpoint. Now he’s trying to distance himself from that paper and the prejudice it represents, but as Tom points out today, we shouldn’t fall for it:
…My dad got a call from a Senate staffer last week asking about Holsinger. It turns out he served on the UMC Committee to Study Homosexuality with him–the one for which Holsinger wrote his notorious paper (the focal point for efforts to sink the nomination). It’s no surprise to anyone already familiar with Holsinger’s wingnuttery, but my dad confirmed that the guy was obsessed with the mechanics of gay sex–which, in his own mind, was synonymous with homosexuality. When Holsinger saw that the committee wasn’t going to adopt his prejudices, he stormed out, swearing he would do everything within his power to undermine the committee and block their recommendations. Which, in fact, he proceeeded to do. (As a member of the UMC Judicial Council, Holsinger has continued to do everything possible to attack gay people in the church.)
My dad stressed that personally, Holsinger was a ‘nice guy’–’nice’, that is, on a purely personal level. When my dad mentioned a medical issue he was dealing with, Holsinger offered to take a look, and made some helpful suggestions. Unfortunately, Holsinger is the sort of ‘nice guy’ who never stops to think about the destructive nature of his own prejudices.
The big question the Senate committee is dealing with is whether Holsinger can separate his personal beliefs from his role as Surgeon General. Holsinger says he can (and has been backpedaling furiously from his 1991 paper). My dad says he can’t; he stresses the point that Holsinger was supposedly serving on the UMC committee as a doctor, and his ‘medical’ opinion was purely a matter of obsessive personal prejudice…
So, just in case, you’ve been listening to Holsinger’s testimony before Congress and thinking he might be a changed man — rest assured he’s not.
I guess my husband went to a liberal medical school, but one of the very first things they were taught was never, never to react to any sexual practices a patient might describe, no matter how they felt about it personally. And this was back in the early 80s.
Oh, Del, you just brought back a flood of memories from medical school and residency! Memories like interviewing a hypersexual patient with bipolar disease in the ER while he was chained to the plastic couch. I was asking questions; he was trying to lick me! I kept a straight face and completed the interview to the absolute and utter delight of his accompanying police officers who were rolling on the floor with laughter.
Sorry, I digress from the discussion. Sounds like the perfect Surgeon General nominee for Shrub to nominate. Just the antidote to that nonconformist that’s whining now about not being able to discuss science. Not surprised at all.
Oh Renee, how very funny. And you brought back a hilarious memory for me; when we were first married, the husband was befriended by a (male) psychiatrist while doing some out-of-town training. At one point I came in for a visit and the psychiatrist and his wife invited us to their home for dinner. They had one child, a little boy three years old or so who ran wild all over the house performing all kinds of “look at ME” tricks. When we finally sat down at the table, the kid crawled underneath. Then I felt something. “I–I think he’s licking my leg,” I said, trying to be polite. “Oh yes,” said the dad, completely unconcerned. “He’s probably masturbating.” I immediately tucked both legs up onto the chair, where they remained for the rest of the meal.
Maybe now we know “the rest of the story.”
Kathy, just what kind of a blog are you running here?
Apparently one about perverted three-year-olds.
Okay, so I’m sorry I shared the funny story. Back to Holsinger, then. The husband says Bush just wants to make darned sure he appoints somebody who isn’t going to have a word of criticism for the current health care system, gays or no gays.
I liked your story! And Renee’s. I think your husband is correct. Bush wants a rubber-stamper (but not a condom-endorser) who’ll do what he’s told and use Bush’s name at least three times on every page of every speech.
Oh, Del, I loved both your story and Renee’s! Thanks for sharing them with us. I was just being a wiseguy with Kathy. Sorry I didn’t make that clear.
I know you were kidding. I was kidding too, but when I saw it posted I realized it looked too brusque. This format really is unsuitable for conveying certain nuances, isn’t it. An emoticon can only do so much.
Kathy, did you hear that routine too? The husband was quoting something about how the Hippocratic oath would now read, “I swear by Apollo, Asclepius, and George W. Bush…” I think it was on a public radio show.
I didn’t hear that one, but it sounds about right.
If anybody was innapropriate, Del, it was that psychiastrist dad. Your story was perfect and, IMHO, perfectly appropriate.
Whee! Great story, Del.
I say W should bring back Joycelyn Elders! Now, that was a Surgeon General I was proud of. Not that it would happen, of course.
Jocelyn Elders, yes yes! I’m sure it just hasn’t occurred to Mr. Bush. Let’s email him.