The Ex-Gay Watch health section tracks exgay activists’ frequent criticisms of gay individuals’ health and longevity.
Exgay literature frequently cites two statistics:
1. Homosexuality takes 20 years off an individual’s life.
2. The average lifespan of a homosexual is 42 years.
The new web page The life expectancy of gay men: Does HIV make much difference? analyzes the sources and the math underlying these two statistics:
As a general rule: When the term “20 years off your life” or similar is used, the claimant is referring to this work by Hogg and his colleagues. Use of words such as “the average age is only 42 years” points to Paul Cameron. Hogg’s paper was valid, although now clearly out of date and sorely misused — it requires a considered response. Cameron’s scurrilous work is without any merit, and needs only be rejected out of hand.
The authors of the page include XGW commenter grantdale; the work includes numerous links to original sources and a thoughtful analysis of the study upon which the antigay movement’s flawed Statistic 1 is based.
The tentative conclusion:
Among all adult men who are behaviorally gay or bisexual, HIV/AIDS reduces life expectancy by 1.2 years. (Among African American men who have sex with men, however, life expectancy drops 7.7 years.)
Those studies are also flawed in that they assume that all gay men are the same; its like saying, ‘the average life expectancy of a black man is zyx’ – yet, it doesn’t take into account the fact that there are extremes at both ends of the spectrum; you can have *VERY* old people and *VERY* young people which can screw the data.
That and the fact that Paul Cameron deliberately used the data in such a way that he tried to say, “if you’re gay, this is how long you’ll live for’ when in reality, being gay has NOTHING to do with the life expectancy; what dictates the life span is the LIFESTYLE – if a person chooses risky behaviour then their life expectancy can decrease, just as it could decrease if one were overweight, high blood pressure, risky employment etc. etc.
Ooh, it’s up and running.Agree completely kaiwai — an AVERAGE is exactly that. It says very little about any individual, or the risks that they assume or avoid in life. Someone else has asked that I add a little discussion about this on the webpage, and I will be doing that.And it bears reminding everyone that homosexuality or being gay has no impact per se on life expectancies. The impact discussed in the paper is caused by a virus, not homosexuality.Personally, we two are about as far off to the left of that bell-shaped curve as we can be. If anything — given the data about how companionship etc etc IMPROVES life expectancy ie married vs single people — I’m confident that by being together we will both enjoy a few extra years.This raises an interesting point: if being in a loving relationship adds several years — on AVERAGE — to your life… this more than offsets any AVERAGE risk of contracting HIV in seeking that relationship. (Of course, I don’t know anyone who would be so absurd as to go about reasoning in this way about love. No one’s a robot!)
The Cameron “study” was fundamentally flawed for reasons that should be obvious. (He used statistics that he gleaned from obituaries from gay newspapers)
The Hogg study was fundamentally flawed for a more subtle reason: he used statistics that he gleaned from people who were patients at clinics in putative primarily gay areas. But not all gay people live in “primarily gay areas.” (We don’t live in the South End of Boston, for example. We live in a largely hetero western suburb of Boston.) And not all gay people are treated at clinics that are in those areas. We are not, we are treated at Lahey, which is in Burlington, MA (northwest of Boston). The idea that one can glean statistics regarding health of gay people merely from data gleaned by clinics–which Hogg did–in presumably gay majority areas is ludicrous.
Not correct about Hogg raj.It is not based on clinical responses/studies, but on overall epidemiological modelling. Hogg didn’t interview anyone. None of the data came from clinics. For this reason the methodology remains sound.
Actually, Hogg, in 2001, wrote a letter declaring that the particular study in question was being distorted to show that gay men have a shorter lifespan.
Pardon me. Hogg et al was not the study out of Vancouver?
When I was posting on FreeRepublic.com a number of years ago people would continually refer not only to Cameron, but also to a “study” out of Vancouver. I suspect it was this one.
I think the point, raj, is that the Hogg, et. al. was the Vancouver study, but it was never intended as an estimate of the life expectancy of the typical gay man. Rather, it was attempting to estimate the impact of one disease on life span – an academic but important distinction. In fact, the main reason Hogg, et. al. should not be used in the manner the “ex-gay” or “pro-family” movements use it is because they were conducting a thought model, based on assumptions, and not reality. The update linked to on this page clearly demonstrates how changing those assumptions, and using more up-to-date data, utterly changes the conclusions.
From what I have read, Hogg, et. al., were never intending to estimate the life expectancy of gay men, and were uncomfortable, if not outraged, by such use of their work.
CPT_Doom at July 27, 2005 10:26 AM
I think the point, raj, is that the Hogg, et. al. was the Vancouver study, but it was never intended as an estimate of the life expectancy of the typical gay man
That was my interpretation of the study when I read about it. It is clearly questionable whether they had any “data points” regarding the typical gay man. Their data points were all people who attended the clinic(s). Healthy gay men would not have seen a need to attend the clinic(s).
Another point. We (my partner and I) are in our mid-50s, and, apparently, are living on “borrowed time” and we don’t do clinics in gay-central areas. No particular reason why, but we have a long term relationship with a clinic that has been done well by us in a suburb of Boston. So it is unlikely that we would be among the data points.
It’s unfortunate that radical right wing web sites spin these things the way that they do. It is unlikely that they will stop. I’d go on about the fund-raising issue, but it gets boring after a while.
Quite franky, the only medical study that I pay much of any attention to is the Framingham Heart Study
https://www.framingham.com/heart/
That also has some flaws, but it has had enough participants and it has been going on for long enough that it is probable that it can probably provide some reliable data.
I should amend my previous post. All studies have flaws. But it is likely that the more data points that a study can accumulate, the more reliable that the study will be. Within its intended study subject matter extent, of course. The Framingham Heart Study has to be absolutely astounding. It is excellent science.
And, no, I have no association with it whatsoever.
Excellent work, Grant!
Hi raj, I think there’s some confusionHogg didn’t use any clinical data. They did this (in a nutshell):Get an age profile of deaths of males due to HIV/AIDS. These were known, what they didn’t know was how many of these deaths were gay/bi men — so…Split this into gay/bi and straight (Hogg assumed 95% of deaths as within the gay/bi group, a guess at that time. We used the actual figures that are now reported by the CDC)Run these “extra” deaths alongside the standard life tables and calculate the impact of HIV for various estimated levels of % gay/bi men in populationIf you are saying that nobody has any idea what the average life expectancy of non-straight men is — you are utterly correct.(And, given this, we also don’t know what the average life expectancy of straight men is either… What we do know is the average life expectancy of all men; the standard life tables give this.)Even when we can calculate the impact of HIV of itself on the average life expectancies, this says nothing about what the overall life expectancy actually is. For all we know, gay men might live to be older on average than their straight brothers. A negative on one aspect may well be balanced by positives on others. Who knows?
Grant,
Re: “…if being in a loving relationship adds several years — on AVERAGE — to your life… this more than offsets any AVERAGE risk of contracting HIV in seeking that relationship.”
It also makes you healthier. Here’s a study by Prior & Hayes, “Marital status and bed occupancy in health and social care facilities in the U.K.” which concludes that married couples make much less use of medical services.
Here’s the abstract:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11781850
I have the PDF file if you’re intereseted.
It seems to me that the question then becomes are people in a relationship because they are healthier to begin with? That there is a sort in which those at risk of health issues tend to be excluded from the mating pool early on. Don’t know.
On the gay men don’t live as long issue, so what? What seems to be left out here is the proposition that the government actually makes money on those who do not live as long. When people die while they are still in their taxpaying years, it is a net plus to the government. Because no benefits associated with old age need be paid out. I always wonder why no one points this out.
On the other hand, there was long ago an ACTUP study on the net loss to the government brought about by HIV among gay men.
EXCELLENT!!!!!!!!!!!!
Re: It seems to me that the question then becomes are people in a relationship because they are healthier to begin with? That there is a sort in which those at risk of health issues tend to be excluded from the mating pool early on. Don’t know.
The authors discussed this issue. They noted that couples tend to take better care of each other and themselves than those who live alone. But they also noted the possibility that couples couple-up more when they are healthy than when they are sick. They could not directly measure the effect of either case from their data.
grantdale (and btw, which are you? grant or dale?),
“For all we know, gay men might live to be older on average than their straight brothers. A negative on one aspect may well be balanced by positives on others. Who knows?”
That’s an interesting point. I suspect that some of the stereotypical aspects of the urban ghetto gays probably would contribute to a longer life. Included could be attention to body fat, regular gym/activity, skin care, greater body awareness resulting in quicker attention to medical conditions, focus on heathier/more natural foods, etc.
These (as is the case with HIV) are lifestyle issues rather than purely gay issues and would also be seen to some extent in metrosexual straights.
It would be interesting to see what sort of impact “living a gay lifestyle” has on a person. Perhaps the “gay lifestyle” more than compensates for the 1.2 years and nets to a positive.
As to being a gay person (as opposed to lifestyle), who knows? Maybe the biological/hormonal “causes” of homosexuality also “cause” a significant increase in life expectancy. That could account for the natural selection of those genes/hormones.
It would be extremely difficult to test (I suggest nearly impossible at this point in our culture), but wouldn’t it be ironic if being gay actually added 20 years to your life expectancy?
After all, God does have a quirky sense of humor.
Hi Timothy,When numbers are involved, you can be certain that is grant. When the spelling is appalling, that would be dale. Sometimes it’s both. Confusing, no?I suspect the answer to “what is the TRUE life expectancy” will need to wait for clarity on what underlying biological differences exist. Everything else are just lifestyle choices that both gay and straight people can make. And exactly who is “gay” anyway, absent knowledge of any biological differences? We may well find that the underlying biological differences that select for a characteristic also have influence on other aspects — higher susceptibility to some cancers, improved heart functions… whatever.Sickle cell anaemia is a good example — should the underlying physiology be considered a disease, or an attribute that overall serves a positive?
Grantdale says:When numbers are involved, you can be certain that is grant. When the spelling is appalling, that would be dale. Sometimes it’s both. Confusing, no?
Thanks, I think. Grantdale and dalea are different people. Dalea has the ‘appalling’ habit of spelling according to upper midwestern pronunciation, acquired from long reading of the Chicago Tribune. Dalea also enjoys statistical discussion. So, when numbers are involved he does speak up.
Could spell check be added to the utterly awful typepad?
Hi anonNope. Dalea is someone else. We are two other people — a Grant and a Dale. We’ve never been to the upper midwest. I don’t know if Dalea’s ever been to Australia.This is us. Really.
Grant/Dale:
I don’t know why I thought you were Canadian! Now I gotta change travel plans 😉
Excellent… I love to put faces to names. At some point I’ll post a pic somewhere.
Some people don’t seem to grasp the concept of averages. That means some people will be far above and far below the averages.
Also, risk is variable. When we talk about lower life expectancy for smokers, we don’t usually break down between 1 cigarette a day and 3 packs per day. They are lumped together.
The point is simply that EACH homosexual act has a risk associated with it. The more you do, the greater the risk. Also, certain homosexual acts are far riskier than others.
We don’t need all of the details to show on average that the homosexual lifestyle, just like the smoking lifestyle, on average results in a lower life expectancy. We don’t call people smokerphobic who happen to point out these statistics and facts, and assume they have some kind of agenda. (Which in fact they often do, which is to improve health overall, and reduce the use of life-destroying tobacco.)
The only real debate is not whether the homosexual lifestyle on average has a health cost, but precisely what that health cost is. Either way, just as we would not promote smoking as a healthy alternative lifestyle, we should not promote homosexuality as a healthy alternative lifestyle either.
Will people smoke anyway? Sure, but hopefully far fewer once the facts are presented. Will some people engage in homosexual behavior anyway. Sure, but hopefully far fewer once the facts are presented, and not obscured by those with a gay rights agenda. People deserve to be told the truth, whether the tobacco executive or the gay rights activist likes it or not.
Mike, your surname’s not Haley is it?Anyway, homosexuality is not a “healthy alternative lifestyle”. It is sexuality. Like heterosexuality, which also has it own “risks”. Ever heard of women dying in childbirth? Want a fistula? Fecal incontinence? Why do so many heterosexuals multilate their female children for perverse sexual and cultural reasons? Yaah, great lifestyle that is… (See how easy it is to be Paul Cameron!)I’m also pleased to announce that I’ve been involved in uncountable homosexual acts over the years — still waiting for those negative consequences… While waiting for them, I have experienced the positive ones. Tobacco is a very bad analogy to sexuality. That would be like comparing sexuality to jumping off of a tall building. Alcohol is a much better example — we distinguish between sensible alcohol use (which appears to improve health) and alcoholism (which is extreme use and harmful).
RE: grantdale
I’m also pleased to announce that I’ve been involved in uncountable homosexual acts over the years — still waiting for those negative consequences… While waiting for them, I have experienced the positive ones. Tobacco is a very bad analogy to sexuality. That would be like comparing sexuality to jumping off of a tall building. Alcohol is a much better example — we distinguish between sensible alcohol use (which appears to improve health) and alcoholism (which is extreme use and harmful).
True – then again, during my teens years, I was a right little whore, but at the same time I *ALWAYS* insisted on protection, and I *ALWAYS* supplied it – sorry, I don’t trust people, atleast if something goes wrong, it all rests on my sholders – I decided and I provided.
I think the issue isn’t so much sex, how much and location, its about taking precautions – always, whether it be anal or oral sex, use a condom.
One can be that in Christchurch? The ho bit, not the sensible bit, I mean :)Actually, I like the town — I’ve always stayed at Scarborough with rels; bit of a tramp into town but stunning views up the northern coastline during your morning coffee. Happy childhood memories on holiday, though I doubt I could even tolerate a bare toe on that freezing beach these days. So long as there’s sand and water, the temp. doesn’t seem to bother kids.
The amusing part is that the anti-gay statistics quoters never bother to mention lesbians. Lower risk of HIV positivity than any other population. Zip interest in lesbian longevity among epidemiologists. There could be difficulty in defining “lesbian” – currently WSW (woman having sex with woman)? ever WSW? lifelong exclusively WSW? Many suppositions, eg, lesbians more likely to get breast cancer because they don’t have children, are difficult to model because under most definitions, even “never had sex with men”, a certain percentage DO have biological children. Claims about excessive smoking and drinking habits are a bit outdated since bar culture is no longer the only way to meet, and there are zillions of tofu dykes who are obnoxiously health conscious. Lesbians are less likely to be killed by partner than straight women.
The expectation would be that the longevity of lesbians is similar to that of straight women.
Good points of course NancyWe did actually do a spreadsheet for women but the overall HIV effect is piss all (mainly because those with the low rates are the minority and the majority has the higher rates — the opp. to men — and this flattens the average effect etc). An notable effect does show up when considering black women, but that’s all.And you’ll be pleased to know that an “intimate partner violence” page is under prep. as we speak…I can give you a few very unstunning pre-release conclusions (which sound mutually at odds until you think about them):straight women are assaulted by their partners at higher rates than are lesbianslesbians are more violent toward their partners than are straight womengay men are assaulted by their partners at higher rates than are straight menstraight men are more violent toward their partners than are gay men(overall, about 2.7 times more violent)Care to guess which are the only two ever mentioned in the exgay / antigay “research”?…
grantdale at July 27, 2005 08:51 AM
It is not based on clinical responses/studies, but on overall epidemiological modelling. Hogg didn’t interview anyone.
This was the Vancouver study. The study may have been methodologically OK for the narrow purpose for which it was intended. But the anti-gay people latched onto the study (which were of gay men who visited medical clinics in gay areas of Vancouver) and have used it to bash gay people. Obviously, people who visit medical clinics have a “health condition.” The study ignored people who did not visit such clinics.
For a statement by Hogg regarding his work, look at https://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/30/6/1499
Given his statement that
The aim of our research was never to spread more homophobia, but to demonstrate to an international audience how the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men can be estimated from limited vital statistics data. In our paper, we demonstrated that in a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 21 years less than for all men.
I actually do believe that their methodology was terribly flawed.
raj,you’re going to get a /sigh out of me yet… too late. That paper is linked off the web page — down the endish, 2nd link.Hogg’s study does not use any data from clinics. None. Nil. Zilch. Please do read his paper.(I know you have not done that, or you wouldn’t keep insisting his data came from clinics.)The method only usesthe total known number of deaths from AIDS (from mortality records) — not from clinicsdivides this into two assumed groups of gay/bi (at 3% or 6% or 9%) or not-gay/bi men — not from clinics, and bangs these through thestandard life tables used for insurance/life expectency/etc purposes — not from clinics.There is NO OTHER DATA USED.For that reason the methodolgy is valid — in fact it’s a very simple way of arriving at average outcomes. The reason the method is valid is because is does not use figures from clinics.It would however be very, very flawed to quote those late 1980’s figures as representative of anything today — and the anti-gay orchestra do exactly that.Hence, the update from us. ArghHHHHH!!!!!!!!