She coined the term ‘reparative therapy’ to describe her therapeutic approach to restore one’s sense of gender identity. Where the failure of bonding is particularly severe, ‘a defensive detachment from the same sex implies disidentification: not just an absence of identification but a reaction against identification’. In other words, transsexuality is extreme homosexuality.
- Her research did not involve psychotherapy with any gays or transsexuals.
- She simply did an extensive review of the previous writings of Irving Bieber, Lawrence Hatterer, and Sigmund Freud. No trained psychologist or psycho-analyst would restrict themselves to just these three writers.
- She admitted that she had done no new research.
- Her work was never peer-reviewed by any psychologists or psycho-analysts.
- The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Pediatrics have all condemned reparative therapy as ineffective.
Moberly's opinions continue to be endorsed in Christian circles as ‘scientific’.
She now works in cancer research.
- Elizabeth R. Moberly. Psychogenesis: The Early Development of Gender Identity: London & Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul 1983.
- Elizabeth R. Moberly. Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic. Cambridge: James Clarke 1983.
- Jeffry G. Ford. “Reparative Therapy is Neither”. http://jgford.homestead.com/Fordessay.html.
- Elizabeth Moberly. "Homosexuality and The Truth". Leadership U. March 1997. www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9703/opinion/moberly.html with reponses at www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9706/correspondence.html.
I was unable to find a clear statement of what qualifications, if any, Moberly has. No writers claim that she has any qualifications in either psychology or psychoanalysis. The assumption is that she has a degree, a PhD even, in theology. Sometimes Cambridge is mentioned, sometimes Oxford. Or maybe she was a child in Cambridge.
Is there any way of tracking this woman down and asking her, where she got her qualifications, what tests she did, and why she thinks she is qualified to talk about these matters?ReplyDelete
she is afterall the source of most ex-gay pseudoscience.
I was at Oxford with Elizabeth Moberly. She is a brilliant scholar who graduated from Lady Margaret Hall with a degree in Theology in 1972. I believe she went on later to teach at St Andrew's University. She is the grand daughter of Bishop Moberly who wrote a definitive work on the Theology of the Atonement. I cannot speak for her qualifications since Oxford but her character and integrity should not be impugned by the ignorant.ReplyDelete
Impugned by the ignorant and defended by the blind . . .Delete
such often is the legacy of the hatefully obsessed.
I can only say that if she is indeed 'brilliant', she hides it well. I listed above various problems with her work. No sincere scholar would publish work containing those deficiencies.ReplyDelete
If she did a BA in 1972, then I must have her age wrong? Or is it a different Elizabeth Moberly?
It is character assassination of the lowest kind to say that a criticism is impugning by the ignorant.
It is perfectly fine to be ignorant of theology and challenge Mrs Moberly's qualifications to speak about sexual orientation, since theology has nothing to say about psychoanalysis or science in general. All she has done is help certain religious extremists create a controversy about nothing.ReplyDelete
Her work is about as useful as the discovery of phlogiston was to chemistry.
Is it not character assassination to call into question the credentials of an Oxford PhD when you disagree with their ideas or arguments. I believe that is called an 'ad hominum' attack in debate club.ReplyDelete
a) Moberly started the ad hominum attacks by accusing her detractors of dishonesty.ReplyDelete
b) her arguments are extremely badly done if in fact she does have a PhD
c) all attempts to fact check her degree do not produce any results - I notice that you do not give any of the normal details, e.g. year, thesis title etc
d) 'gremmie' is a blogger registration that gives no details. Are you the same as the anonymous above? Why does no actual PhD person support her position? Why does no actual psychoanalyst support her position?
Elizabeth Moberly may indeed have been a brilliant theological scholar, but that does not give her views on homosexuality any authority of superior knowledge or expertise. She is not a clinician and her "reparative drive" explanation of the origins of homosexuality is nothing but armchair theory, and very unconvincing armchair theory at that. I'm surprised that any thoughtful person should ever have bought into it.ReplyDelete