Warren Throckmorton, outspoken pro-ex-gay associate professor at a small Christian college, has launched his own independent web site, DrThrockmorton.com.
The site is useful for its demonstration of reparative therapy advocates’ (re)interpretation of scientific data.
Throckmorton has been discussed before by XGW. We will no doubt be seeing a lot more coverage of his advocacy.
What is Dr. Throckmorton a doctor of?
Just wondering why he gets to pontificate on these issues.
DW
Per the credit at the bottom of this Grove City College page: Warren Throckmorton is Director of College Counseling and an Associate Professor of Psychology at Grove City College.
Here is more about Grove City College.
On this GCC page listing the 5 psychology department faculty, Dr. Throckmorton is listed as part-time (possibly because directing the college counseling office rounds things out to full-time):
PhD stands for Piled higher and Deeper.
From what I recall of people who majored in psychology–no, I’ll refrain from going there.
I read through the “ask Dr. Throckmorton” section on the web site, and am frankly appalled. Not only does he continually discuss homosexuality as only a physical sexual issue (romance and love simply don’t play into it – they can’t if you are arguing homosexuality is a mental illness), but he completely belittles the very research that blew a gaping hole in the survey that Dr. Spitzer did – Schidlo and Schroeder’s research.
From his website:
“Shidlo and Schroeder’s study is the only peer reviewed study I know about that systematically sought to examine those who say they tried reorientation counseling but were not happy with the results.”
NOT TRUE – as I remember it, Shidlo and Schroeder followed their subjects from before they entered such “therapy,” so they couldn’t have been dissatisfied with the results – they hadn’t gone through counseling when they were recruited for the study.
In fact, 5/6 “successes” in the S&S study were working for “ex-gay” groups at the time – so why would they have signed up for a study of problems with “conversion” therapy?
“The difference in the outcomes of Shidlo and Schroeder and Spitzer (2003) is all about sampling. Shidlo and Schroeder advertised on the Internet and other places, specifically looking for people who felt harmed by attempts to change sexual orientation. Spitzer was looking for people who felt they had changed and were happy about it. Both studies were convenience samples, meaning the authors deliberately sought a certain type of participant. Nothing is random about either study so individually they say nothing about how likely or not change is to occur.”
Yes, both studies were convenience samples, but again, S&S did not specifically recuit individuals who felt they were harmed. In fact, 9% of their sample remained in “treatment” at the end of the 5-year study. Not only that, but Throckmorton completely ignores the evidence that S&S found that the “patients” were worse off than before they attempted this “treatment.” And they used common tests accepted in psychology, and remeasured several times over the course of the 5 years. The S&S study simply used much better methodology, no matter the convenience sampling.
CPT Doom is incorrect in his understanding of the Shidlo and Schroeder study. Anyone truly interested in the sampling techniques and the outcomes should consult the study found in the June 2002 issue of Professional Psychology: Research and Practice (vol 33).
Dr. Throckmorton was very quick to send me a version of the Shidlo and Schroeder (S&S) paper after my last posting. I did peruse it, but much of it was garbled, so I am not working with full information here (and the journal Throckmorton referenced does not have on-line archives before December 2002).
However, one of the contentions made by Dr. Throckmorton on his web site was that a difference between Spitzer’s work and the S&S study was that Spitzer specifically looked for “sucess” stories among “ex-gays” (which is true) and that S&S looked for failures – that is harder to state.
In their paper, S&S (in the background section – kind of the “why is this paper important” section) discuss the current leading medical/psychological organizations unanimous rejection of “reparative” therapy and the APA’s statement that such “treatment” produces harm. S&S then say, and I am paraphrasing here, “but no one has ever documented this harm,” and explain that they are attempting a first-ever systematic evaluation of the effects of this “treatment.” AT NO POINT DOES THE PAPER STATE S&S LIMITED THEIR SUBJECTS TO FAILURES.
Granted, the version Dr. Throckmorton emailed me was hard to read, but I saw nothing that stated that S&S only looked for “ex-gay” failures in their sampling. This is a key distinction. If Spitzer only looked for “successes” and S&S only looked for failures, you would expect widely disparate results. But if Spitzer looked only for “successes” and S&S for all types, the S&S research would be the far stronger argument.
The statement that Dr. Throckmorton appears to be using to justify his contention that S&S looked only for failures (which also begs the question, why did they have 6 “success” stories among their subjects?) appears to me to be a standard kind of statement that a conclusion has been reached with no scientific support – that is, S&S were trying to answer the question “does ‘reparative therapy’ cause this harm that everyone claims?” Dr. Throckmorton appears to be assuming a bias on the part of S&S from one statement. Having myself been co-author on two papers in psychological research, I don’t see their statement as providing a basis for a claim of bias in their sampling.
More importantly, as a scientist examining the results of the Spitzer and S&S work, one could only come to the conclusion that “reparative therapy” is a bust. After all, even if S&S were documenting failures, they were far better doing that then Spitzer was documenting “success” cases. Fully 90% of S&S’s subjects were failures (if you don’t include those who didn’t experience change, but were still trying – the failure rate is 97% if they are added in), but even by Spitzer’s own estimate only about 1/2 – 2/3 of his subjects were actually “success” stories, and that is using Spitzer’s definition of success (a movement of 10 points closer to heterosexual along a 100 point scale). If you use the stricter definition of “success” as complete movement from gay to straight, the rate drops to about 1/5.
A far more damning piece of data about the Spitzer work, though, comes from Wayne Besen’s “Anything but Straight” and appears to be directly sourced to Dr. Spitzer himself. Besen reports that Spitzer included a number of employees of ex-gay groups among his success cases, and would rather have not (because of inherent bias of the subject – they are basically being paid to say they changed), but could not find others to replace him. Apparently, Spitzer found nearly all the professed “ex-gays” in the country for his paper. In addition, according to an interview with S&S that I read – 5/6 of their “success” cases were also affiliated with ex-gay groups.
As to the nature of Shidlo and Schroeder’s solicitation, please see https://www.oasismag.com/Issues/9605/survey-convert.html – They set out to “document the damage.” S&S included people who identified as ex-gay when some ex-gays became aware of the study and asked if they could participate. However, S&S did not go out of their way to seek subjects from sources that would have included ex-gays.
As to the Besen source, Dr. Spitzer put out a wide call for anyone who met his criteria for change. Certainly some of the subjects were working for ex-gay groups. As best as I can tell, S&S did not track the individuals they contacted that may have worked for or been involved in gay activist organizations. I suspect some of these subjects worked for such groups.
However, unless you assume the ex-gays were lying, I fail to see how this is relevant. Don’t many people seek employment consistent with their values?
I have reviewed the link Dr. Throckmorton provided, and must admit that I am uncomfortable with the solicitation, but it still does not fully support Dr. Throckmorton’s premise that S&S were only looking for those damaged by “reparative therapy.”
Although S&S assumed damage was a given from such “treatment” in their solicitation (and this is only one solicitation, so we do not know whether it were typical of those they sent out), the key language is as follows:
“You can help make this research possible. If you know of any individuals who have experienced such a program and are willing to talk about it anonymously and confidentially, please refer them to our project. We can interview them either in person or by telephone.” They did not say “if you know someone who has been damaged by ‘reparative therapy’…” and the presence of some self-proclaimed “success cases” in their subject pool demonstrates that.
More importantly, Dr. Throckmorton’s web site has a very unique take on the comparison between Spitzer’s survey and S&S:
“Together they offer a quite interesting view of how people differ on an important question. Some people felt helped and others felt harmed. I suspect we will eventually learn that certain factors lead to favorable outcomes and that those factors were absent in the experience of those who were in Shidlo and Schroeder’s study.”
What this kind of statement ignores is the remaining evidence. Only Spitzer’s work in the modern era claims to find any support for “sexual orientation change,” yet as we all know that support is very limited, if it exists at all. Spitzer found a very low level of total orientation conversion – his subjects tended to remain somewhere between fully heterosexual and fully homosexual.
This, of course, is in line with what we know and hear from “ex-gays.” Not only are there the very visible failures of the John Paulk’s and Michael Johnson’s of the world, but nearly all the “ex-gay” people, when pressed, will acknowledge that they still “struggle” with homosexual fantasies/attractions, etc.
When you then add in the data from the era pre-1973, when psychiatrists only claimed about a 30% “cure” rate, at most (and that was using torture like electric shock therapy and chemical aversion), you see that the data overwhelmingly point to the failure to change sexual orientation.
Dr. Throckmorton, however, treats the issue like it is a matter of just finding the correct “treatment.” One of the interesting hallmarks of the “ex-gay” movement is the refusal to acknowledge that there are any people destined to be gay anywhere – which would require us to accept homosexuality as a natural and normal part of the human species.
One more thing. Dr. Throckmorton asked a question in his last comment:
“However, unless you assume the ex-gays were lying, I fail to see how this is relevant. Don’t many people seek employment consistent with their values?”
Well, Doctor, I have to assume that many ex-gays are lying, because I know I was when I claimed to be straight. In fact, I would guess that 95% of all gay people have spent a considerable amount of their lives pretending to be straight, and 75% of us manage to fool nearly everyone around us. When I came out, exactly three people – my father and two friends who had both worked in the theater – had any clue I was gay. My own sister was shocked, yet I was 33 years old and had never had a serious relationship with a woman.
If I could convince my sister I was gay for 20 years (I knew when I was 13), then I could certainly have convinced Dr. Spitzer during a 45-minute telephone call – and that is another criticism I have of Dr. Throckmorton’s web site. He often (e.g., when reviewing Wayne Besen’s book)points out that we are relying on self-reported data here – whether someone says they’re gay, “ex-gay,” or straight. Yet Dr. Throckmorton appears to assume it is just as likely for someone to lie about being gay and being unable to change under “reparative therapy” as it is for someone to lie and say they’ve changed.
But there is absolutely no benefit to lying about being gay, or being harmed or not helped by “reparative therapy.” In fact, I would guess that those people who have tried and failed at “reparative therapy” are more likely to have lost family and friends (assuming they were more likely to be part of a conservative church or sub-culture) by their “failure” at therapy, and would have an incentive to lie about it.
Mr. Doom wrote:
“you see that the data overwhelmingly point to the failure to change sexual orientation.”
The more I read of Mr. Doom’s posts, the more it seems to me that he sees what he wants to see. If we can’t agree that participants in peer reviewed research are to be trusted, then we really have no way to compare research results or evaluate the usefulness of any survey/qualitative data. I could simply dismiss the reports of Shidlo & Schroeder’s participants since the study was funded in large part by a gay advocacy group. However, I do not. Their work was peer reviewed and in talking with both Shidlo and Schroeder, I gained an appreciation for their work. And I would add that they conveyed to me the same respect. We both recognized that we were surveying different populations. You simply can’t have it both ways in serious research discussions: you either believe both perspectives or you have no rational reason to believe either.
My point, Dr. Throckmorton, is not that we cannot trust participants in peer-reviewed research (as I have been co-author on such research, I believe it in strongly), but that in the specific instance of sexual orientation “conversion” we must be very wary. There is a huge incentive in this society for gay people to claim to be straight, and when a gay person has gone so far as to enter psychological and/or religious “treatment” to change their orientation, and then publicly declare they have changed (although many admit that “change” is not a change in attraction, but a change in behavior), there is a powerful incentive for them to continue claiming this “change” is real.
Quite frankly, anyone claiming sexual orientation “conversion” has a very high bar to cross, and I truly believe if certain sects of self-proclaimed Christians did not have a moral opposition to gay people, there would be no question of the biological basis of sexuality, and the futility of trying to change it.
First off, it is pretty clear that nearly every component of our personalities is genetically based, at some level – even our favorite color. I am sure Dr. Throckmorton is familiar with the University of Minnesota’s twin study – which studied the personalities of identical and fraternal twins reared together and apart. That study, which went on for years (and may still continue) documented the genetic basis of personality.
Although the amount of genetic influence varies greatly among personality characteristics, it is clear that for any personality characteristic, we must assume a genetic influence. When you then look at the available data on gay people and genetics, you find that every single analysis points to a biological basis of sexuality – genetics and the pre-natal and early childhood biological environment working together to create the individual’s sexual orientation.
The genetic influence for sexual orientation (as seen in identical and fraternal twins and regular siblings) has been measured as stronger than the genetic basis for left-handedness, but no one considers left-handedness a moral choice (anymore). Inheritance patterns for male homosexuality through the maternal line have been documented, not to mention the birth order effect for male homosexuals (the more older brothers you have, the more likely you are to be gay, no matter what type of family you live in). Significant differences in physical characteristics – fingers, ears, brain structures – have been found between gay and straight people of both genders. None of these findings by themselves “prove” the biological basis for homosexuality – but they clearly point in that direction. NONE point in the direction of choice or mental illness.
Even if one examines modern psychology/psychiatry, one finds that the pseudo-Freudian theories of NARTH and others as to the formation of homosexuality have largely been abandoned in determining the cause of all other major illnesses. No more do we believe that schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, autism or obsessive/compulsive disorder are caused by bad parenting or other neurotic triggers. Even something like depression, which has to have a trigger, has been theorized as arising from a genetic susceptibility.
The only types of mental illness and behavioral problems that are caused by bad treatment to children and adults are things like multiple personality disorder, post-traumatic stress syndrome, substance abuse and other forms of acting out (e.g., sexual promiscuity in those sexually molested). In all of these, some kind of trauma or mistreatment has damaged the individual, causing them to behave inappropriately or suffer from significant impacts in many, most or all aspects of their daily lives. Yet gay people are born, grow up and lead relatively healthy and happy lives all the time. Not all gay people are so blessed, but we are not all screwed up – if that is the case, you can’t blame the substance abuse and other behavioral health problems in the gay community solely on their homosexuality – something else must be going on (rejection from family is the likely culprit).
But the most important data we have that points to the organic nature of homosexuality are the life experiences of gay people – which are as diverse as those for any other randomly selected group of human beings. There is no specific family structure, type of upbringing, or psychological influence that is common to all gay people – which would have to be the case for homosexuality to be a mental illness. And, most significantly, nearly every gay person reports his/her homosexuality simply arose during puberty. I know that I was never molested, seduced, recruited, enticed or otherwise convinced to be gay, and I have never met a gay person who acknowledged such a cause to their sexuality.
Finally, the most damning evidence against the mental illness model is the lack of “ex-gays” from the pre-1973 days, when homosexuality was not only considered a mental illness, you could be involuntarily committed for being gay. Thousands, if not millions, of gay people underwent psychoanalysis, electric shock and chemical aversion therapies and other behavioral approaches. Yet the reported “success” rates were still very low, and none of the current crop of “ex-gays” came from that environment. Where are these “success” cases today? Why are they not advocating for the medical model of homosexuality? They must still be with us, but none are speaking and none are encouraging young gay people today to undergo similar treatment to change their personalities.
I truly believe that any analysis of homosexuality (or bisexuality or heterosexuality) must start from the basis that homosexuality must be assumed to be organic and they proven otherwise.
Among those people who went through the psycho-analytical system are two who have spoken on their own experiences. Martin Duberman devoted an autobiographical book to his journey; it is called ‘Cures’. In it he recounts his long experiences with therapy. And how he was counted as a ‘success’ in scientific papers of the time. Larry Kramer, founder of ACTUP, has also written of his experiences in changing. The refutation of the earlier papers is readily available in life stories of men and women who went through the process.
So why would I believe them? One has a book he wants to sell and the other one founded a gay rights organization. Their truthfulness should be questioned because of these conflicts, don’t you think?
Ah, not to take this as an insult, but given that they wrote their stories after the treatment; they have fewer conflicts than one who is currently trying to claim that the treatments work. For them it is simply part of their life story or perhaps a warning that this treatment didn’t work for them. Of course they could lie, but then so could anyone else and should I mention that you also have something to gain by claiming the treatments work. I suggest you call a stalemate and take a look at it.
Some nformation about Martin Duberman:
‘MARTIN DUBERMAN is Distinguished Professor of History at the City University of New York and the author of some twenty books, including Charles Francis Adams (winner of The Bancroft Prize); James Russell Lowell (a finalist for the National Book Award); Paul Robeson (winner of several prizes, including the NYPL’s George Freedley Memorial Award for the “best book of the year”); Cures; and Left Out: The Politics of Exclusion, Essays 1964-2002. Duberman’s first play, In White America, won the Vernon Rice/Drama Desk Award, and Mother Earth, his play on the life of Emma Goldman, was recently been showcased at the New York Theater Workshop. Visions of Kerouac, his play about the Beat generation, opened at the Marin Theatre Company in May 2003.’
The Bancroft Prize is given by the American Historical Society annually for best work in history. He has been a tenured professor at Princeton. He also edited some 18 other works, writes numerous scholarly papers, contributes regularly to periodicals, and is generally a leading US essayist.
I sincerely doubt that Duberman needs to make things up to sell books. Because of this I accept his account concerning change.
I don’t know about a stalemate but I think an acceptable position is to believe people who make both claims: 1) attempting to change was harmful and 2) change occurred and is beneficial.
There exists another item of interest concerning the older psycho-analytical studies of change. It is an essay entitled: Boy On the Beach, availble for a fee at Commentary magazine. This essay looks at the tragedy of women who marry men who have changed sexual orientations. What makes it of interest is that the author is noted neo-conservative intellectual Midge Decter (wife of Norman Podhoretz, mother of John Podhoretz). Decter views gay negatively, and exgays even more poorly. Her essay prompted a lengthy response from Gore Vidal. Which developed into a major 1970’s controversy.
So, the question might be put this way: are there any older studies which have not been repudiated by their authors or subjects? The answer most likely is no.
If attempting to change could in some cases be harmful, one must ask the question why should anyone attempt to change at all?
Honestly sexual orientation is complex. Human nature is complex. I don’t doubt that it is possible for a person’s sexual orientation to change. Anything is possible. What many others and I doubt is that the treatments work. The fail rate of the treatments is pretty high and the people that claim success aren’t exactly shining examples of heterosexuality (being caught in a gay bar or hosting gay sex orgies just doesn’t look like something a truly heterosexual person would do.). Struggling with homosexual attractions while claiming to be ex-gay isn’t a change in orientation. Struggling with previously non-existent heterosexual desires/attractions after claiming to be ex-gay would be. Frankly claiming to be ex-gay in and of itself isn’t exactly a good sign. If the treatments really worked you wouldn’t be ex-gay, you would be straight.
It seems to me that in dealing with exgays we are looking at two distinct phenomena. One is the current movement which is primarily religious. The other is a much older effort based in psychology and psychiatry.
The older effort collapsed, for all intents and purposes, in the 60’s and 70’s. Changing sexual orientation etc ceased to be a part of the standard repetoire of psychiatry and psychology. The collapse was not total: a number of practitioners continued on with their efforts. They formed the nucleus from which NARTH emerged.
A separate and distinct movement for changing orientation arose in the mid70’s. We commonly refer to this as the exgay movement and associate it with ministries such as Exodus. From my reading of the literature put out by Exodus and others, it becomes clear to me that this has very little to do with the previous group.
It was only as Exodus emerged into the political arena that there began to arise theories that would underlie the practices associated with change therapy. These theoretical foundations came mainly from the NARTH circles who drew upon older work done prior to the 70’s.
I feel that what we see here is an overlay of Freudian psychology on Evangelical religion. Which seems like an odd marriage. Once the advocates of change spoke in the cultured accents of Vienna; now they speak in the language of the revival meeting.
Something that emerged in the 70’s has a bearing on this subject. For the first time there were large visible groups of lesbians and gays who were not in therapy. From the experiences of meeting and knowing outgays, educated opinion increasingly came to reject the sickness model of homosexuality. While not openly embracing this newly visilbe community, tolerance began to be expressed in more liberal places.
I feel that much of the move towards gay tolerance has come from people knowing outgays. Who were not visibly disturbed, not obviously pathological; simply people trying to make it in life.
Additionally there came to attention several factors told by those who were gay. The common story of feeling different experienced from a very early age. The early awareness of attraction to the same gender. One fascinating tidbit was the tendency of gays and lesbians to be left handed. (I was once on a softball team where half the players were.) From this came the belief that gayness is something deep within the personality. Which can be called genetic, but that is not the only possibility.
Additionally, surveys of large groups of gays did not substantiate any of the theories common in psychiatry about gays. And as the world saw functioning gays and lesbians the sickness model was futher weakened.
The old studies lost credibility because:
they were based on a discredited model
there theoretical assumptions could not be validated
empirical evidence showed that the theories were inapplicable
the subjects were frequently coerced
the subjects retracted claims of change.
In total, the collapse of the old model was complete. It only needed a new population eager for results. Which is the situation this blog discusses.
Looking at Dr Throckmorton’s website, I found the scientific evidence intriguing for one thing. All the sources cited as science are from psychology. Which is but one of the human and behavioral sciences. Noticably missing is history, which would shed light on how the older exgay system went under. Nor do I find anthropology, law, political science, political economy, art history, literature, sociology, biography or marketing. Just psychology, and more precisely, psycho-analytical varieties of that discipline.
Which should not surprise as psychology has long tended to be the most anti-gay of all the disciplines. Histories of gay people usually include chapters recounting the dealings gay people had with psychology. Invariably these are negative experiences. Dr Throckmorton reports on the use of aversion and shock therapy, without any moral condemnation. Which opens a huge gap between himself and gay people.
There are references to other disciplines in my writings, especially in my piece concerning the invention of a sexual minority. However, I am not trained in those disciplines and it would be silly for me to claim expertise in them.
You are mistaken if you are saying my views are psychoanalytic. I refer to these theories but I am not a believer in the family dynamic model of origins or the reparative drive as a generalized model for all SSA. I say so on my site. It was my site you were reading, right?
Yes, it was your website I read. Primarily the article titled: EFFORTS TO MODIFY SEXUAL ORIENTATION: A REVIEW OF OUTCOME LITERATURE AND ETHICAL ISSUES. I did not find an article on the invention of sexual minorities. The search engine could not find it either. Part of the problem may be mine in viewing your site. I am red/green color blind and found it very hard to distinguish different parts. I see red/black interfaces very poorly so I may have missed it for that reason.
I am not saying that your views are psychoanalytical. I am simply saying that your quoted sources, particularly in the above paper, tend to rely upon that school of thought particularly in the older references. My point here is that current exgay practice frequently points to older studies as a foundation for their current work.
This seems especially true when we look at the evidence supporting change. Many of the references cited are older and psycho-analytical. Many of the early members of NARTH came out of that tradition. My view is that we are seeing a tentative merger of the two groups in the current exgay movement.