The study reports "...the absence of child abuse in lesbian mother families is particularly noteworthy, because victimization of children is pervasive and its consequences can be devastating. To the extent that our findings are replicated by other researchers, these reports from adolescents with lesbian mothers have implications for healthcare professionals, policymakers, social service agencies, and child protection experts who seek family models in which violence does not occur."
The study was made by Nanette Gartrell, M.D., Henny Bos, Ph.D. (University of Amsterdam), and Naomi Goldberg of The Williams Institute. The chief investigator, Dr. Gartrell, is a 2010 Williams Distinguished Scholar and an associate clinical professor of psychiatry at UC San Francisco.
While I encourage you to read more in the findings, two points crystallize.
. Even though we know all forms of abuse are generally under-reported in private and government studies, the results here are compelling. They are striking because even if the number of children who reported abuse by lesbian parents in this 24-year study--zero--is somehow low--and I am not saying this study is incorrect--the actual total would almost certainly still be remarkably small.
. There will be follow-up, longitudinal studies. By the time marriage equality is law across our nation, there is every chance these findings will largely have been confirmed.
Now, I am not making the case that lesbian mothers are fundamentally more decent, less naturally given over to anger, or have inherently far greater self-control than, say, straight women do. Nor does the study suggest that. I am saying that perhaps...and this is the opinion of a gifted psychologist, a friend whose practice has for decades welcomed the challenges LGBT teens and families face...that lesbian moms' socialization teaches, among other lessons, that any lapse in self-restraint can give ex-husbands an excuse to challenge custody arrangements.
Whether or not you buy the results of this ground-breaking study--and, again, I hope you'll read the details before you decide--this ought to make it clear that anti-equality rhetoric as to lesbian moms is, at best, emotional, mostly religiously-inspired claptrap that has nothing whatever to do with the lives of lesbians and their children.
_____
Publications - NLLFS - National Lesbian Longitudinal Family Study
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Poor Woman
Chicken Mãâàn
Dianne Schuch - Lindsey
nerd cred
jmac1949
Deborah Méndez Wilson
Salon.com
Comments
Decent, caring, loving people...the best. Nothing is guaranteed because of gender. Excellent post.
Here’s a tangential “for instance”:
A few years back I remember a newspaper article about a woman attempted to gain custody of her granddaughter, because the woman’s daughter (the child’s mother) had divorced the child’s father; come out as a lesbian; and was living with another woman.
The grandmother’s argument was that allowing the child to live with the lesbian couple might lead to the child herself becoming a lesbian. The article noted that the child’s mother, the newly declared lesbian, was an only child.
So the grandmother, whose only child was a lesbian, wanted to take and raise the granddaughter to “protect” the child from becoming a lesbian. (?????)
Forget the absurdity of supposing homosexuality is the result of environment and upbringing rather than genetics…even if you were to suppose those factors were a significant factor in determining the child’s eventual sexual orientation, why would anyone think that a woman whose only efforts to raise a child had ended up with the child a lesbian should be considered a “safer” choice to “protect” the child. That thinking is even more absurd.
Thankfully, we’re getting past this, Jonathan…faster than most want to acknowledge.
"Data for the current report were gathered through online questionnaires completed by 78 adolescent
offspring (39 girls and 39 boys). The adolescents were
asked if they had ever been abused and, if so, to specify by whom
and the type of abuse (verbal, emotional, physical, or sexual)."
My scientific intuition is that to get untarnished responses from this kind of population would require a much more subtle technique than what was evidently used.
Since the level of domestic abuse in same-gender couples is approximately the same as in hetero couples, it is counter-intuitive that these results are correct and certainly the wide ranging conclusions over state what can be drawn from the results.
The report does say what you say, however beyond just reading, one should actually think about what was done. The methods of getting the data is almost guaranteed to produce bad results.
The adolescent child, already aware that they are different from other children in having same gender parents, is asked to fill out a form on line indicting one of their parents as some sort of offender.
The child is presented with questions, not an interview, not a person, questions on a screen (I don't see the questions anywhere in that report) The children knows who is asking the questions, they know that certain answers will be 'wrong', they don't know what the outcome will be of reporting any 'abuse' and they don't want to report their parents.
This is a terribly flawed procedure for getting at the truth. And any scientist or person who believes that this kind of study should be the basis for the monumental conclusions actually drawn needs a refresher in scientific methods and course design (which I taught for years).
I do not know for sure that lesbian families are the same as two-gender families, but I'd really want a flawless study on this to show the same results you've reported before I'd give credence to a "no abuse whatsoever" result.
.
Thanks for the agreement but I don't think I was trying to make any point beyond the fact that this article was based on a very flawed study that was too small, not random, not exhaustive (exhaustive in the design sense)
Beyond that I think it is irresponsible of JW to imply this was some huge research finding
"UCLA Law School's Williams Institute has just released a twenty-four-year longitudinal study--the most comprehensive of its kind ever. UCLA found, in fact, that no child of a lesbian couple had been either physically or sexually abused. Not one."
when it was based on 74 children reporting in a totally inadequate manner.
This is the kind of fact distortion expected from tabloids.
From this study alone we have no basis for determining "the truth". I see no mention of similar information being sought from a control group of children of two-gendered parent. The study, used in comparison to OTHER studies, which used OTHER methods of achieving their results as far as children of two-gendered parents, would be laughed out of any respectable research facility or university.
Yes, the "results" are remarkable. So remarkable, in fact, that they are unbelievable. I'll await the results of studies done which meet the criteria of acceptable research before jumping on this band-wagon.
I recall, all too clearly, an information pamphlet given to parents by the Catholic church, when I was a boy, that purported to show that Catholic children were better raised than non-catholic children. Hah!
I think I'd also want to look into whether or not the group that did this "study" had an axe to grind. They might not; but I'd want to assure myself of that.
.
HUGGGGGGGGGGG
As to adoption, our son is African-American, adopted when he was 5 weeks old. We had little problem largely bc the laws in his birth-state and the stete where we then lived were favorable. Our son is now 22.
When you add in the OTHER studies that have been done (like the one I cited the other day showing lesbians raise children that are markedly more happy & better adjusted than those raised by hetero couples) I think you can see a documented trend: Lesbians ROCK as parents!
As for the nay sayers: what this study SAYS is that of the people studied there was zero instances of abuse AMONG THE PEOPLE STUDIED... Not that there has never, ever, ever an instance of a lesbian abusing their kids. That said, ALL studies are samples of a population and show trends not universal facts. What they DO provide, ESPECIALLY when issued from places such as this one came, is a stringent and critical peer review by professional researchers who KNOW the subject. (not a couple of old curmudgeons who THINK they might be wrong).
BTW Traveller, I scanned that reference of yours. Interesting reading, but I saw NOWHERE in that document the sexual orientation of the involved people. So care to tell me how that is relevant to the discussion or were you just pulling a Maggie Galligher and throwing up some random crap hoping no one would actually read it?
My sense of the field of socialpsychology is that the statistical models used do their very best to account for that and do not intend to be flawless at all times, tho Amy's comment above, re: peer-review, it relevant here.
I find it HIGHLY comical the implication by some of your commenters that OF COURSE the study is skewed because the children of lesbians are OBVIOUSLY lying, (the children of heteros would never do that!)
Did it ever occur to them that if some children DO lie about abuse that it would be the same percentage on both sides???
Well, if stating the obvious - that this information runs counter to the expectation that lesbian families would more nearly resemble the norm for all families - then I'll wear the label "curmudgeon" proudly.
I'd do the same if someone put up information which claimed that lesbian families had a markedly higher rate of abuse than two-gendered families.
I am very skeptical of anomalies. ANY anomalies. I still support any gendered couples in their quest to adopt or otherwise become parents. It is their right to do so. NOT because they are any better at parenting (yet to be proved) but because they are loving, caring, adult humans, who want to do so. They're jus' folks - same as us hetros.
.
And your scientific research credentials to declare this study to be "crap" and "shoddy" are exactly what???
Please show your bonafides to make such outlandish claims.
BTW, what part of "peer reviewed" confused you?
I am quite finished with you here and any further comments, and the last one, will be and are being deleted.
It is not my job to host abusive comments as to my friends or integrity (your allegation that I invented the practitioner in my piece.)
And as to your contention that I'm biased? OF COURSE I like the results of this study - I'm a lesbian mom you doof!
But the bottom line is that me being "biased" pro and you be biased against believing it doesn't make it any less valid.
I ask again: what part of "professional peer review" is confusing you so much? Let me know and I'll try to explain. (then when we're done I can go over that birds & bees thing with you, K?)
I'm not going to have him here given his assertion that my psychologist friend is a source I've invented.
It's no writer's job to take abuse...deal w disagreement, sure...but none of us are required to host abusive comments.
Thank you for sharing this study here. I've seen it around the web, glad it is here too. I would argue, though, that this study and it's findings DO contribute to denting and ending bigotry. I feel it's the only chance we have. Studies that start the conversations (perfect in design or not, and here's a hint: no study is perfect in design), much like the comments and replies shared here help us to learn from each other. The conversations must happen...and I believe eventually the truth will win.
Further, without becoming defensive (I am fully in support of your points, and the information in the study), the saddest part of this whole story is that we as a society still find a need to study and try to justify whether lesbian women *should* or *shouldn't* raise children.
The evidence of negligence in all families, gay straight adopted blood old young rich poor, is that all sorts of people make great parents, and all sorts also make awful miserable excuses for parents.
A recent news story in my home state, Michigan, talked of a police call to a home where they suspected to find a wanted man. His gf answered and swore he wasn't there, suggested other places he might be at the moment. The two-year-old son of the couple came to the door and said "Daddy's in the attic." Both parents were arrested. Is anyone willing to tell me that two women raising a child is a worse arrangement that the straight couple in the story?
Again, sorry to come off defensive (althought it *is* my very right to pursue my own happiness, the liberty our country *stands* for, and my love and commitment to children that is questioned), and again, it's not directed toward you, but toward the archaic society we still live in, making progress, but still painfully behind.
Thank you, thank you for sharing, for having the coversations here. I believe it is our only hope.
Gay/Homosexual people are as good as any other parent. That this issue is used to deny the rights of LGBT individuals is unfathomable by me. I know that there are misguided people in the world but I for one am sick of deliberate meanness.
My niece and partner went to the "bank" and my niece had a girl. Her partner will carry the next baby.
They own a lovely home in western Mass, pay their bills, pay their taxes, cut the lawn, drag fire chips in for the three stoves, worry about the quality of schools, attend the Unitarian Church, get the cars serviced, make nice with their straight neighbors, visit their parents - who still love them and baby - and we always have.
As far as I am concerned uncaring pinched nosed bastards can get lost.
:-) / r
More important, I'm getting a onsies like the one pictured for my brand new great niece.
More important is the study sample. The lesbian parents were more educated than the population as a whole, tended to have professional jobs, and were better off financially. All of the children were conceived through fertility clinics, with procedures that are notoriously expensive. Thus, all of the pregnancies were not only "planned" but highly orchestrated. Since the study deals with a sample that is very different from the population as a whole, you can't make any valid inferences about lesbian parenting in general, or about the differences between lesbian and heterosexual parenting.
Jonathan writes: "Part of the rhetoric we hear against marriage equality is that children are naturally far better off in homes where there is a heterosexual, married couple."
The argument is that, all things being equal, a home with father and mother present provides a better situation for children than a home in which the father or mother is absent. It's better, because fathers and mothers each offer different perspectives and life experiences to children. In addition, the relationship between father and mother provides a model for children, most of whom will eventually themselves be in heterosexual relationships. In other words, being brought up by two women or two men is not the same as being reared by a father and a mother, and a missing father or mother is a loss to the child.
Again, this is "all things being equal." Obviously being reared by two caring women or men would be better than being reared by abusive biological parents.
Oh, Mishima some of your stuff is just TOO rich! :D
Do you even realize what a great case you made FOR gay marriage?
Okay... So we are "unequally" better educated, have more professional jobs, are more financial stable (them are YOUR words, BTW), and now have YET ANOTHER study showing us to be superior parents.
So, all things BEING UNEQUAL, how can you then say the child is missing out on anything by not having a person in the household whose sole claim to fame is having dangly bits? (and no, "dangly bits" do somehow give you some special "god given" parenting skills, dude).
R♥
To put it another way, were there a study stating lesbian Moms (or any other demographic) were abusive and awful it would be equally as absurd. However, I doubt that study would be flaunted here and buttressed against dissenters by saying "take your concerns up with the researchers"! Sheer propaganda to support a pre-disposed point of view.
Looking back at ancient cultures,children grew up mainly with women because of the food-providing,absent men.
What seems even more important is the supportive community,or today,a good functioning network.
Children adjust to any situation.
They are different models of childraising already long in practise;new ones can be added.
I will do extensive reading.
R
R
They/There
I'll ask you the same question I asked the Traveler:
Got any research or credentials to back up the "bunk" allegations or are you simply saying stuff based upon your OPINION rather than research and peer reviewed studies & facts?
I'm saying that the SAMPLE of lesbian couples was better educated, had more professional jobs, and more financial resources than both the POPULATION of lesbians and the POPULATION of heterosexual couples.
The purpose of most research is to make inferences about a population based on a sample of the population, within a certain margin of error. To that end, sample selection is critical. If your selected sample is significantly different from the population, then it is impossible to make valid inferences about the population. And that's the problem (one of the problems, actually) with this study: the sample is not representative of the populations about which inferences are made.
With respect to abuse, another problem is that the sample participants were not randomly selected; they were volunteers, recruited through advertising in publications serving a gay and lesbian readership. I think you would agree that a study about family dynamics would be less likely to attract people with a history of or inclination to abuse, or with a history of alcoholism or drug usage. So people who were likely to have abusive relationships with children would be largely self-excluded even before the study began. In addition, since all of the children were conceived at fertility clinics, no children were unwanted or "surprises" or seen as burdens.
Safe Bet: "So, all things BEING UNEQUAL, how can you then say the child is missing out on anything by not having a person in the household whose sole claim to fame is having dangly bits?"
Being male or female includes many other characteristics besides genitalia. A man is not a woman with a penis, nor is a woman a man without a penis. There is no generic "person" to which one can attach a penis or vagina and make a man or woman. The life experiences, roles, goals, and expectations can vary greatly between men and women. A good father in the home teaches a boy how to be a good man and teaches a girl what good men are like. Likewise with mothers and daughters.
I trust that your comment was rhetorical, and that you don't really believe that the only thing a man has to offer his children is his ability to urinate while standing.
When writing my comment,I had several concepts of childraising in mind,but one persisted,and that is why I would like to suggest a book that people might want to read.
author:Clarissa Pinkola Estes
"Women who run with the wolves"
"Die Wolfsfrau erzählt"(Auf den Spuren der Wilden Frau)
Sorry,I can't find the English book title for this one.
Since Traveler is no longer allowed to comment on this thread, I will simply note that he has two doctorates, over 100 papers as principle author or statistical advisor, two books on research-related topics, and in general literally years of experience in biomedical statistics and research design, in addition to running a research lab and supervising other statisticians and data analysts.
Does this constitute sufficient credentials to comment on a research study? If not, please feel free to present your credentials.
I do not know what the man's cred are. Nor do I care.
What I will not have is anyone, whether they generally agree w me here or no, tell my readers and me that I have lied in my post(s). That he uses his purported expertise to buttress the name-calling is nothing to write home about.
I would bar anyone from commenting here who would do that. It is never a writer's job to host that; disagreement, yes; being told one is a liar, no.
Be specific (and we'll use my two beautiful, intelligent, well adjusted, heterosexual daughters as examples):
What can you teach them, as a male, that I can't teach them as a woman?
• How to have a loving relationship with my spouse while using power tools? Had that and have a barn full of tools I'm skilled with.
• How to stand up for themselves and protect themselves & others? My kids would be SERIOUSLY in your face by now and, as a person with and advanced belt in martial arts, I've made sure they CAN defend themselves?
• How to hunt, be a "good provider" and have a strong work ethic? :D I have a freezer full of geese & ducks the girls and I shot this year, I'm sure my income WAY exceeded yours this year and I have been mentoring them on their own VERY successful business for several years.
So, what other "manly man" things are you referring to? How to date? How to have a caring relationship? How to respect others rights? How to play football?
What thing???? (and be specific or admit you are blowing smoke with no flames)
I cannot use power tools without causing serious harm and I really like football.
:)
Secondly, as I stated on his post, I question there veracity. Let's just say todays credentials are VASTLY different than what he stated they were a year ago.
Nice job parroting his claims as facts though, dude. Better luck next time!
Kids of the rainbow world are to be loved because they are precious. No matter who or what their parents are!
And, sadly I must further comment that statistically, all heterosexual marriages these days seem to have about a 50/50 chance of escaping divorce. It may be worse than that. Also, statistically, about 60% of men cheat on their wives and female cheaters are closing in rapidly. So I am wondering why anyone would buy into the theory that kids are better off with a heterosexual parent structure with these kind of statistics. Seems that the high rate of heterosexual divorce, the amount of stress, anger and depression followed by infidelity, makes a fairly good case for all concerned. Again, I say this sadly, as it is not what most of us signed up for when we chose to marry. In time, it will be interesting to see what the statistics are for same sex marriages ending in divorce and their rate of infidelity, but in the meantime, I can see no objection whatsoever, to any loving, committed same sex couple, who dedicates their life to the healthy, happy and loving raising of children in any society. And, "Modern Family" isn't the #1 hit show on television for nothing. Or, it's pretty close to the top of the leader board. We all just need to grow up a tad and face the changing face of families everywhere and swallow hard on the fact that relationships take a whole heck of a lot of work and unselfish mutual effort. Finding that balance in any relationship is key to the success of bringing children into the mix. Again, I love the slogan on the baby's "onesie." If that 'don't' just say it all!
The same person who went to all the trouble of creating a post to decry having his comments deleted here (for just cause, I might add) just deleted one of mine in which I basically Mishima he was acting cowardly by repeating his same old vague crap there, while refusing to address specifics here.
Pot meet kettle!
In other words, you want to have a discussion of the issue in which the deck is stacked in your favor. I'm supposed to respond specifically to your family situation, that you know everything about and I know nothing about.
And then there is you, the "sample mother," the ninja warrior/huntress/business woman, holding a jackhammer with one arm and a breast-feeding infant with the other, not exactly the typical female.
Since I don't know your family I'm not sure how to respond specifically to your family situation. Besides that, the issue is not one specific family, but family life and child rearing in general, and issues that operate at the cultural and societal levels.
As I said before, men and women have different life experiences, and bring those experiences to child rearing. Men and women go through different processes of maturation. They often have different careers. Men and women often experience different social expectations. They often have different interests. Women can bear children; men can't.
Growing up, I knew even as a child that whatever I would eventually become, my life would resemble that of my father's more than that of my mother's. Thus I looked to my father to see how to treat women, and how to be in a relationship with a woman. I listened with particular attention to his stories about growing up, about work, about being in the Army in WWII, about his friends, about his favorite boxer and baseball team. I loved both parents, but I knew that eventually I would be more like my dad., and I needed to know what that would be like.
In general, mothers tend to be more nurturing, more about unconditional love. A father's love tends to be more conditional, more related to accomplishments. Especially with boys, the mother's love is given; the father's love is earned.
These are all generalities, and there are always exceptions. But as generalities I believe they tend to be more true than not.
Beyond my personal observations, there are probably thousands of books and academic papers written about the topic.
A book from the U.S. Department of Education web site: Mothering and Fathering: The Gender Differences in Child Rearing -- "Both parents have unique contributions to make in the development of a child. Mothers and fathers think and act differently from one another, and children thrive on these differences."
Gender Differences in Parent-Child Relations -- Journal of Family Issues, March 1994
Parents' Differential Socialization of Boys and Girls -- Psychological Bulletin March 1991
Parents' gender-based attitudes toward marital roles and child rearing: Development and validation of new measures -- Sex Roles, Vol. 32
Gender and Parenthood -- American Sociological Association, 1983.
How Mothers and Fathers in Intact Families Spend Time with Children -- Gender and Society, April 2006
Young adults' retrospective reports of parenting by mothers and fathers: Associations with current relationship quality -- Journal of General Psychology, January 2006
Gender, Internalization of Expressive Traits, and Expectations of Parenting. -- Sex Roles, November 2007
There are also many books and papers on gender complementarity in parenting published by conservative organizations. Since I knew that you would reject those out of hand, I didn't bother listing any.
I'm not a sociologist, and I have listed these references just to give you an idea of some of the work that has been done, and to show that it is reasonable to think that there are real differences in parenting between men and women.
Safe Bet writes: "I basically [said to] Mishima he was acting cowardly by repeating his same old vague crap there, while refusing to address specifics here."
Not cowardice, but a power outage. Yesterday evening a wind storm knocked out power to 4,000 households, mine among them.
I've been following this argument, both here and on Traveler's blog. I have a few things to say about it:
No one here that I've noticed (and if I've missed someone on this, I'll apologize right here) has stated that it is impossible for lesbians to be better parents than others in at least some respects. That is not anyone's point.
No one here is stating that studies showing that the children of LGBT parents are somehow worse off have any validity. From anything I've read, they don't. No one is saying that LGBT marriages have a higher probability of producing gay children, for whatever such a conclusion would be worth either way. To my knowledge, the available data reach the opposite conclusion: orientation of the children is not dependent on orientation of the parents.
So, we can start with the point that those who question this study here are, generally speaking, not making a point about the quality of lesbian parenting. Maybe I have to repeat that: Those who question this study here are, generally speaking, NOT making a point about the quality of lesbian parenting.
Those who are questioning this study are questioning its ability to show anything useful reliably. They are not saying that the conclusions reached by the study are wrong; they are saying that the study does a lousy job of proving those conclusions and so we cannot rely on this particular study to support those conclusions adequately.
This is not a question of a hidden agenda. This is a question of judging the validity, reliability, and credibility of this piece of research. Let me again repeat this point: This line of questioning IS NOT in any way, shape, or form an attack on lesbian parenting.
The point is: How do you construct a study reliably? Or, to put the shoe on the other foot, what makes the results of a study, or the conclusions drawn from the data by researchers, suspect?
Longitudinal is a good idea. That they did right. So, what can screw them up?
Sample size. The fewer people in the study, the less reliable the results.
Questioning technique. How are the respondents being questioned? Are there factors that might interfere with their ability or motivation to give honest answers? Do we know that no one is looking over their shoulders while they answer? Is there anyone they might be inclined to protect? Do they trust their privacy? Do they trust their anonymity?
Controlling for variables. In this case, for example, we're trying to draw conclusions about lesbian parents. However, from what I read in earlier comments, the parent sample here is better educated than the population at large. Is there a difference in child abuse statistics between parents of differing education levels? If so, particularly if increased education is correlated with less abuse, how do we figure out if the major contributor to low violence levels is education or orientation? Or a third factor? If the sample size is large enough, we control for each variable and see where the correlation remains strongest.
Control groups. We can't legitimately compare this population to other populations unless we examine those other populations under the same circumstances. What happened when they looked at the children of male gay couples? Of heterosexual couples? If you're looking for differences based on a particular variable, in this case lesbian parenthood, you also have to examine the variables you're comparing to. You could say: There are other studies looking at these groups. However, if you do that, you can also say: The differences in results we're seeing between groups might be attributable, at least in part, to methodology: differences in questioning techniques, differences in variables other than the main one we're looking at, differences in reliability of result due to sample size. If you want to compare results of more than one population, the more similarly you examine these populations, the more reliable your conclusions will be.
These are valid questions. These are not questions designed to attack the body of research showing the quality of lesbian parenthood; they're actually the opposite: The more reliable the research, the more potent it is as a rhetorical weapon. Some in here, seem to think that the point is to deprive them of rhetorical weapons because we disagree with them; actually, the point is the exact opposite: We don't want them going into battle with an unreliable weapon that might cost them their reputations as reliable sources.
Even though I'm a male heterosexual parent, and even though I have recently lost a child with a severe disability for whom I was the primary caregiver, and even though I (and others) have a pretty high opinion of my parenting, I would not have a problem learning that, statistically, lesbians are more likely to be good parents than heterosexual fathers are. Frankly, I'd rather see that than the reverse, because the reverse would lend credence to bigotry of which I do not approve.
That being said, based on what was reported about the study here, I'm afraid I have my doubts as to whether this study is reliable enough to base arguments on. I have told you exactly why. I would rather be wrong, but I'm not taking faulty weaponry into combat because it ultimately hurts the cause.
"I came back and read your post a little more closely. Though I don't think you read my last comment, which is understandable given the age of the post, as a just-in-case measure I'm going to comment again. I now understand the nature of the issue a little better.
"That Jonathan would know a psychologist who would make that irrelevant a comment about biological fathers is entirely plausible. There are a lot of psychologists in this world, not all of them are sensible all the time, and we have no idea how abbreviated a description of this study was presented to said psychologist leading to what may very well have been an extremely off the cuff remark not intended for publication, even anonymous publication as in this case.
"That's a far cry from said psychologist's existence being fictitious.
"Making a point about the validity of what Jonathan writes is one thing. Making a point about the veracity of what he writes is quite another.
"When you question a man's veracity, you make it personal.
"We react in different ways. I'm inclined to leave such accusations on my threads because I want the ability to demonstrate in the future that any given individual is the sort of person who makes such accusations. Jonathan, on the other hand, insists on a civil thread in much the same way as he insisted on a civil classroom.
"You may have misconstrued the reason for Jonathan's reaction. If I'm right about this, your credentials are beside the point to him."