On Tuesday, the New York Times printed an editorial opposing President Bush’s nominee for attorney surgeon general, Dr. James Holsinger, for possible prejudice against gays. It said, in part:

Dr. Holsinger has high-level experience as a health administrator, but there are disturbing indications that he is prejudiced against homosexuals…

What’s troubling is the view he once expressed — and may still hold — on homosexuality, through his activities as a lay leader in the United Methodist Church. On the church’s judicial council, he supported a minister who refused to allow a gay man to join his congregation and argued that a lesbian minister should be removed because church doctrine deems the practice of homosexuality to be “incompatible with Christian teaching.” His supporters say these rulings should not be read as his personal views because the council can’t change church doctrine. However, some council members opposed his views, and the bishops later rejected one decision.

His strongest statement on homosexuality can be found in a murky, loosely reasoned paper that he wrote for a church committee in 1991. Titled “Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality,” the paper purported to be a scientific and medical review. It argued that gay sex was abnormal on anatomical and physiological grounds and unhealthy, in that anal sex can lead to rectal injuries and sexually transmitted diseases. Dr. Holsinger did not brand the large number of heterosexual women who engage in anal sex as abnormal, failed to acknowledge the huge burden of disease spread heterosexually and implied that women are more likely than men to avoid injuries with generous lubrication.

The Bush administration says the white paper reflected the scientific understanding of the time, but it reads like a veneer of science cloaking an aversion to homosexuality. The committee should examine whether Dr. Holsinger cherry-picked the literature or represented it objectively. Most important, it must determine whether Dr. Holsinger holds these benighted views today. The Senate should not confirm a surgeon general who considers practicing homosexuals abnormal and diseased.

This editorial annoyed me for two reasons. One, it didn’t even mention that responsible gay men use condoms during anal sex or practice monogamy. Two, there was that phrase at the end – “practicing homosexuals.” I was surprised to see this phrase in the New York Times, of all places.

Today the paper prints a letter that at least addresses the latter point.

To the Editor:

I support your views and skepticism concerning President Bush’s nominee for surgeon general, Dr. James Holsinger. I am questioning the appropriateness of your use of the words “practicing homosexuals.”

I, for one, never “practiced” homosexuality but am simply gay. I won’t burden you with my story of trying to be a practicing married homosexual and how that failed. In my case, I “practiced” heterosexuality, and the practice never worked.

The term “practicing” seems to try to be in opposition to celibate homosexuals. That does not make those individuals less gay, but it does mean that they are not sexually active with others. Is that what you meant? If so, what does celibacy have to do with it? Would you use also use the term “practicing heterosexuals” in an editorial? If so, what idea would that express?

Jerry Douglas, M.D.

Lafayette, Ind., July 10, 2007

Practice makes perfect!

I’ve given up on lifting weights.

I joined a gym a year and a half ago in a burst of energy and optimism. After a life of never having to worry about my weight no matter what I ate, I’d started to put on a little bit of mass around my middle. My old pants and shorts no longer fit me – I had to move up a size. And one day my brother one day noticed a little belly bulge underneath my shirt where there hadn’t been one before. So on Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday last year, I wandered over to the local New York Sports Club, took a tour, and decided to join.

I threw myself into it enthusiastically. I went to the gym six days a week – three days of cardio, three days of weights. I worked with a trainer, who set me up on a plan. Every six weeks or so, he changed the plan to keep things interesting. I started buying protein powder and had two or three glasses of protein drink each day.

During the first few months I saw some improvement. My weight quickly returned to normal and I was able to fit into my old clothes again. And I put on a little bit of definition in my upper body. It felt good. And I’d probably get even more definition by summertime!

But at some point my upper body stopped growing. I could never seem to increase the amount of weight or number of reps as much as I wanted to. In fact, I’d often go through several sessions of not being able to increase it at all. I’d meet with my trainer and we’d switch the routine again, and sometimes I’d return to a machine or exercise that I’d used previously but at a lower weight than I’d been using the first time around. I’d inevitably get frustrated.

So two or three months ago I gave up. Screw it. Cost-benefit analysis: I was spending all this time trying to make gains and not getting anything out of it. What’s the point?

I’ve decided to just do cardio from now on. The weightlifting was really just for aesthetic reasons – I hoped to get a defined, muscly body, and it didn’t happen. But the cardio’s for health reasons – it’s good for the heart, circulation, and metabolism, plus it keeps me trim.

And I like how I look, to be honest. I’m not musclebound by any means, but I think I have a nice, trim shape.

So no more weights for me, and I’m happier for it.