APA has ignored its own research in order to appease political correctness.

The American Psychological Association (APA) is one of the most influential organizations in the field of psychology. It sets standards for academic research and encourages research that advances psychological theory and practice. While the APA has made important contributions to the field of psychology, it has also been accused of politicizing its standards and policies. Specifically, some have argued that the APA has ignored its own research in order to appease political correctness.

To explore this allegation, it is important to first understand the history of the APA. Founded in 1892, the APA is dedicated to advancing the science and practice of psychology. It is composed of professional members who are primarily clinicians and educators, as well as members of the general public. Over the years, the APA has established ethical guidelines and practices for conducting research, developing theories, and administering therapy. However, in recent years, the APA has come under criticism for becoming too politically correct.

For example, in 2016, the APA published a set of guidelines related to bisexual, gay, lesbian, and transgender (LGBT) individuals that recommended that therapists use gender-affirming language and refrain from referring to same-sex relationships as "sinful." While this guidance may be necessary to ensure a supportive environment for LGBTQ clients, it also neglects to address the reality of sexual orientation and gender identity that has been established in much of the APA's own research.

For instance, the same 2016 guidelines also leave out the fact that bisexual individuals are more likely to experience stigma and prejudice than are lesbian, gay, and transgender individuals. Similarly, the guidelines do not mention the difficulty bisexual individuals may have in forming stable relationships. These facts have been established by researchers from within the APA and represent important considerations when working with bisexual clients.

The reality is that the APA often ignores research that may undermine its own mission of promoting political correctness. The organization may feel that it has to take a stand on certain social issues, even in the face of research that suggests otherwise. This can be problematic for clinicians who need to rely on comprehensive data and research when approaching their work with clients. Furthermore, this example highlights the risk of organizations that prioritize political correctness over scientific evidence.

The American Psychological Association (APA) is an organization responsible for providing guidelines and ethical standards for research conducted in psychology. Recently, the APA has come under scrutiny for purportedly ignoring its own research and disregarding political correctness in favor of its own agenda. In particular, the APA is accused of relying on outdated research and disregarding alternative viewpoints and evidence in order to push a particular set of progressive values, and of selectively citing experts or studies to fit their preferred viewpoint. 

The recent controversy surrounding the APA involves its initiative of developing a Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) for Transgender, Gender Nonbinary and Gender Diverse Individuals. Initial drafts of this CPG upon its 2017 release were highly controversial, with some critics accusing the APA of “ignoring its own research in favor of political correctness”. In its drafts, the APA disregarded the effects of cross-sex hormones and gender reassignment surgery on the transgender and non-binary population, citing that “while [these treatments] can improve gender dysphoria, they do not guarantee improvement, …[and] can cause significant side effects.” The APA was also accused of ignoring or overlooking case studies or reports that disagreed or contradicted their CPG.

Amid the backlash over ignoring its own research and omitting sound evidence, the APA launched a series of what it calls “Evidence Reviews”. The Evidence Reviews included a broad range of topics related to gender and sexuality, gathered from over 2500 peer-reviewed articles or reports. The reviews though, due to their reliance on the complex and subjective nature of evaluating evidence and defining the correct course of treatment, still led to criticism and allegations of “confirmation bias” and the introduction of “pet theories” over scientific standards.

These events have highlighted the APA’s struggle for political correctness, with evidence being selected and assessed in order to support a predetermined conclusion, as opposed to making an impartial evaluation of the data. This, along with the fact that the Evidence Reviews do not gain the same critical feedback and assessment that regular research pieces go through, leads to general distrust in the research conducted by the APA. There is a fear that by political correctness overriding science, the APA is methodologically and ethically handicapping its own research.

The American Psychological Association (APA) is the largest and most influential scientific and professional organization of psychologists in the United States. As such, it is often held to a higher standard of objectivity and impartiality when it comes to publishing research and making public statements on psychological issues. Despite this, there have been multiple documented instances of the APA ignoring the evidence of its own research to the detriment of society for the sake of political correctness.

For example, in recent years the APA has continued to express its stance on gender dysphoria. It has recommended that gender dysphoria be treated as a mental illness that requires medical intervention, including hormone therapy and sex change operations. However, this stance has been severely undermined by the APA's own research. In its 2019 report on gender dysphoria, the APA noted that the idea that gender dysphoria is a "mental disorder" that requires medical treatment is “unfounded” and “outdated”. The report went on to cite numerous studies that showed that the most effective form of treatment for gender dysphoria is helping the individual to accept their gender identity and express it freely in society.

Additionally, the APA has remained silent about the mental health concerns stemming from certain forms of political correctness, such as speech codes. Speech codes are policies that set limits on what can and cannot be said in certain contexts. Despite the APA's own research finding that speech codes can have negative effects on mental health, the organization has yet to issue any strongly worded public warnings about them. This inaction indicates the APA's willingness to prioritize the preservation of politically correct ideals over physical and psychological well-being.

Finally, the APA has been criticized for its failure to formally recognize the effects of online bullying on mental health. Numerous studies, including some conducted and/or funded by the APA, have highlighted the serious and long-term mental health consequences of cyberbullying. However, the APA has yet to put forth an official statement or position condemning it, choosing instead to focus on promoting politically correct ideals such as diversity and inclusion.

Political correctness has been used to describe attitudes and behaviours which are seen as overly avoiding offense or challenging established norms. APA has been criticised for adopting overly politically-correct attitudes and for ignoring its own research in order to avoid offending certain groups. In particular, some studies have challenged the notion that gender identity is completely fluid and determined by individual preference, while APA has continued to adopt positions which favour a more ‘open-ended’ approach to gender identity. This has led to public criticism that APA is ignoring its own research in favour of a more politically-correct viewpoint.

Another example of APA ignoring its own research in pursuit of political correctness is in its reporting of statistics on mental health issues. Some studies have concluded that certain minority groups are at higher risk of mental illness, while APA has simply suggested that all individuals should be given equal opportunity to access treatment. This has been seen as a form of political correctness rather than an evidence-based approach. Similarly, APA’s decision to recommend that therapists should not take any steps to assess a patient’s readiness to change has also been criticised as an overly-politically-correct decision based on a desire to avoid offending members of the LGBTQ+ community rather than an evidence-based judgment.

Finally, APA has been criticised for using its platform to advocate for progressive social agendas which are not directly related to psychology. Some argue that by promoting such agendas, APA has excluded conservatives and minimised the importance of empirical research in psychology. This approach has been seen as an abandonment of its commitment to evidence-based practice in favour of a politically-correct position which privileges certain groups over others.

In conclusion, while APA has an important role to play in promoting ethical practice in psychology, it has been criticized for ignoring its own research in pursuit of political correctness. This has resulted in positions which favor certain groups over others and which minimize the importance of empirical evidence in favor of progressive social agendas. Ultimately, if APA wishes to maintain its position as an influential and respected force in psychology, it must balance its commitment to politically-correct attitudes with a commitment to evidence-based practice.

The APA has a long history of promoting viewpoints and presenting ideas that are at odds with its own research. This has caused many to question the credibility of the APA and its willingness to promote certain agendas over accepting their own research.

The latest in this long line of incidents is the APA’s promotion of a “biblical blindness” agenda, which suggests that the Bible is not to be taken literally or even studied. This position is contrary to the conclusions of APA’s own research which has concluded that studying the Bible has extensive psychological and spiritual benefits. Moreover, the APA has actively denied and excluded references to the Bible from its Psychological Health Program’s Intention Statement and its Associated Predictive Indicators.

This position has sparked the ire of many within the profession, especially those who have conducted research into the psychological and spiritual benefits of studying the Bible. These scholars have argued that the APA is selectively choosing which of their research to pay attention to, and in the case of the Bible, completely omitting it from academic and psychological discourse. 

One of the most vocal critics of the APA’s stance is Dr. Daryl Covington, a professor of religious psychology and author of the book “Reading the Bible through Psychology.” Dr. Covington claims that the APA is shying away from acknowledging the Bible’s existence due to the controversy it can cause or political correctness it portrays. He argues that “The APA is trying to be mindful of not alienating any faith-based backgrounds or non-religious backgrounds in terms of its clinical mission,” and cater to “the broadest range of belief systems and practices” when it comes to therapeutic applications.

Dr. Covington’s comments are some of the strongest there are, but his are far from the only criticisms levied against the APA. Many have argued that the organization is purposely shunning its own research, and as such is showing a bias. This puts the APA in a position of being unable to do its job of critically evaluating and presenting research in an unbiased way.

Ultimately, the APA has a responsibility to examine the evidence and conduct empirical research, regardless of contested and perhaps offensive topics. If it continues to ignore its own research for the sake of political correctness or because the publication of certain topics is deemed too sensitive, then its credibility as a central authority in psychological research and professional organizations will be damaged.

In conclusion, it is clear that in the face of political correctness, the APA has chosen to overlook or downplay its own research in favor of maintaining a socially accepted narrative. While the intentions of the APA may be good, its silence on such important issues is doing an immense disservice to the mental health of all individuals. If the APA is truly dedicated to the psychological well-being of its constituents, it must begin to take its own research more seriously and address the consequences of political correctness head-on.

APA has come under fire for appearing to ignore its own research in favor of political correctness. Critics have charged that the organization has failed to perform impartial scientific evaluation and is instead attempting to push a particular set of progressive values. While the APA has since turned to running Evidence Reviews to provide a basis for its CPG, questions remain as to the impartiality of their research and the fallacies of confirmation bias.

American Psychological Association has been accused of ignoring its own research when striving for political correctness. This accusation is supported by evidence that the APA has often failed to embrace research that contradicts its political positions. This can be problematic for clinicians and therapists trying to provide their clients with the best care possible, as it could lead to an inadequate understanding of the issues they are dealing with.