WorldNetDaily readers all too often exhibit ugly, heinous and hateful worldviews** but published on May 20th, 2005 is a letter of interest. Unfortunately, letters are not archived so I’m reprinting the entire piece here: (google cache)
Ex-gay movement a fraud
There are two things that have always bugged me about the ex-gay movement.
One is I know it’s impossible to change your orientation no matter what they say. Granted, there are self-loathing gays. One only has to read this website daily to see how many otherwise intelligent people believe gays choose to be “that way” and that their choice is evil and hated by God and they’re going to hell.
It’s certainly not easy being gay, but I assure you it’s no choice. If these people say they can go from gay to straight, isn’t the reverse also true? Is there anyone reading this who honestly believes that I could make him gay? Didn’t think so.
Which brings me to the second thing that bugs me: All we have to go on is the ex-gay’s word that he or she has changed. That is, until now. Science is getting closer all the time to proving that we are indeed born that way, and the recent studies in Sweden could be used as a way to test these folks.
I challenge any ex-gay to prove his conversion. Lets take a picture of the inner workings of the brain, the hypothalamus actually, while being exposed to male pheromones (it would have to be a gay man not a lesbian for now). Since this is a response that cannot be controlled or faked, it should go a long way toward settling the question of whether or not gay conversion therapy really works. Any takers?
Scott L. Doonan
As the first commenter to this post pointed out, arguing about “biological gay attributes” isn’t getting us anywhere. The important point this letter attempts to raise is, ex-gays should have to provide more proof than just their word on the efficacy of conversion therapy.
Mr. Doonan’s proposal relies too heavily on “gay attributes” when there already exist a slew of methods by which researchers can quantify human sexual response: polygraph, pupil dilation and even measuring changes in blood-flow to the genitals. Hmm… any self-proclaimed ex-gays care to volunteer?
**Yes I know those are strong words but have a look: WND readers overwhelmingly voted 83-percent in favor of the United States threatening to vaporize Mecca and Medina in a sick and twisted effort to somehow deter terrorists from using nuclear weapons.(*) Shortly before Yasser Arafat’s death the exact status of his health was relatively unknown. During that time of uncertainty WND readers were asked what Arafat’s “real condition” was; 42-percent of readers replied he was “Dead, in hell”(*)
The letter is moronic.
Lets see why, though.
“One is I know it’s impossible to change your orientation no matter what they say.”
Wow, this person really is the epitome of intellectual inquiry…”I feel that something is such because I think it is.”
“Which brings me to the second thing that bugs me: All we have to go on is the ex-gay’s word that he or she has changed. That is, until now. Science is getting closer all the time to proving that we are indeed born that way, and the recent studies in Sweden could be used as a way to test these folks.”
Again, this person is either a complete idiot, OR he doesn’t take the time to do the research to back up his claims. Because I’m nice, I’ll assume the latter. Anyways, The research study in Sweden does not prove that we are born that way, and even the head researcher admits that. It proves nothing about whether being gay is inborn or not. Also, science is not that much closer to proving the existence of a gay-gene than it was a decade ago (during the height of Levay and Hamer’s classical studies). Most “sane” people believe that homosexuality arises from a complex combination of many factors, including biological and psychological ones.
“I challenge any ex-gay to prove his conversion. Lets take a picture of the inner workings of the brain, the hypothalamus actually, while being exposed to male pheromones (it would have to be a gay man not a lesbian for now). Since this is a response that cannot be controlled or faked, it should go a long way toward settling the question of whether or not gay conversion therapy really works. Any takers? ”
First of all, the test he proposes does not exist. And second, the author of the study on the hypothalums admits that his study does not prove that gays are born that way, nor does it conclusively prove anything about the brain anatomy of gays.
Second, and most importantly, the supposed biological attributes of gay men are not present in every gay men, and are missing in a significant number of those who identify as “gay”. Such attributes include finger lengths, hypothalamic anatomy, etc. etc. This is precisely why the research is not conclusive and still in its infancy.
Are these people lying about being gay because their brain anatomy and finger lenght don’t match up?
So far, there is no biological test that can accurately discern between gays and straights.
Ultimately, I can see that Scott is passionate about equal rights for gays, and I believe that he sincerely would like to help build a better place for all people, including ex-gays.
However, his approach is riddled with inconsistencies and media sound-bites.
Actually I agree with you, the whole search for a “gay attribute” is pretty inconclusive still but his point at the end begins to touch on something valid: that perhaps we should study the sexual response of ex-gays. As I pointed out it’s fairly simple to measure sexual response and arousal. If ex-gays are so adamant and confident about their newfound sexuality they should be lining up to prove it. Instead we’re left with their words and little more.
Hi Dan,
The point about studying the sexual response of “political ex-gays” is a good one. Those who would use their own life story to deprive people of their civil rights ought to be held up to a certain standard. And that means coming up with a good, objective test for measuring sexual orientation change.
Unfortunately, sexuality is much too complex to be determined by a simple test where a man looks at a homo-erotic picture, and we measure his genital response.
There are women who enjoy looking at lesbian porn, and get off on it, but ultimately would prefer being sexually and emotionally close with a male. What would such a woman be? Actually, a friend of mine is like that and she identifies as straight, and would have no problems living a straight life.
Also, I’ve heard of men who enjoy having sex with women, but masturbate to gay porn. These men are in happy, long term sexual relationships with the opposite sex. What would they be? Some of these men identify as bisexual, and some identify as heterosexual, and some identify as gay. Visually, they may enjoy male porn, but tactilly, they prefer the touch of a woman. Again, what would we make of such men?
As you can see, there is an infinite number of variations within sexuality that make it difficult to measure.
The consensus these days is that sexuality is “multi dimensional.”
But ultimately, Dan, and I’m sure you agree with this, the real point is whether entire laws and legislations should be made because of a few people’s (ex-gays) spoken testimonies.
Obviously, the answer would be no.
The fact that a few people have changed should have no bearing on civil rights decisions and such, and I’m glad to see that mainstream America sees this. You should check out http://www.queerbychoice.com. These people make some great points regarding civil rights for queer people, and how such rights need not be enmeshed within biological reductionism.
Also, PFLAG takes no official stance on the origins of homosexuality, instead urging parents to love their children as they are, the point being that whether something is biological or not is irrelevant.
Everyone deserves love, respect, and equal rights, whether it be employment policies or marriage rights.
PM,
Indeed sexualit is complex but ex-gays have a way of oversimplifying things which is easily used against them. Let’s not forget Stephen Bennett’s mantra is “Complete Change is Completely Possible!” I’d say you could spin that to include my physical-sexual response tests.
err make that second word “sexuality”
Why is the footnote in small, unreadable text? Just wondering.
haha, it’s readable on safari and IE so try adjusting your text scale on your browser. It’s small because it’s really a tangent justifying my passionate disdain for the WorldNetDaily that has nothing to do with my actual post and pretty much is only there to backup my harsh choice of words.
Everyone is responding to everything EXCEPT what the letter was proposing.
Doonan’s point, to paraphrase, is: so you say you are ex-gay… well, then, let’s see. Does your brain respond to same-sex or opposite sex stimuli?
Sure there are folks who are “functioning” as hetero. But if their body is still turned on by same-sex stimuli (be it by a test of pheremones, blood flow, pupil dilation, etc.) then that’s not the kind of “change” that the ex-gay groups promise.
We can dither about the exact test, or the origins of orientation, but his main point is still valid: OK, ex-gays, put up or shut up.
Tim, that’s why I have consistently insisted on differentiating between “gay” and “homosexual.” As far as I’m concerned, “gay” really does refer to a lifestyle, and “homosexual” to an attraction. That was brought home to me a number of years ago when I was reading posts by a young bisexual man who was engaged in–a gay relationship. With another man.
We’ll never be able to get the larger culture to differentiate between the two. But we can.
It would be interesting, if the Swedish study continues to hold, to measure pheromone response response pre- and post “ex-gay” therapy. We could then put Throckmorton et.al to the test and see if their therapy really does anything other than separate depressed people desperate for acceptance from their money.
Timothy,
“Sure there are folks who are “functioning” as hetero. But if their body is still turned on by same-sex stimuli (be it by a test of pheremones, blood flow, pupil dilation, etc.) then that’s not the kind of “change” that the ex-gay groups promise.”
I think the key is in what kind of change ex-gays promise. Some promise that complete change is possible for everyone. And this would be incorrect, since recurring same sex attractions usually do occur in ex-gays, and very rarely (and I do mean very rarely) do individuals experience a complete change from a Kinsey 6 to a Kinsey 0.
As I mentioned many times before, the “successful cases” most likely aren’t complete conversions from gay-straight. They are most likely conversions from gay to some form of bisexuality. That would explain the recurring same sex attraction, but also the newly “acquired” taste for hetero sex (without having to resort to homo-erotic fantasies).
Is it a change? In my opinion yes. Could a person live happily and comfortably this way? In my opinion yes. But is it the type of change that is promised or even suggested by the religious ministries?
No.
A study HAS been done, but maybe you missed it. It was performed by Dr. Robert Spitzer, who intriguingly is one of the key psychiatrists who led the battle to have homosexuality removed as a dysfunction from the APA guidelines. The details of the study are: “Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? 200 Participants Reporting a Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation” (Archives of Sexual Behavior, October 2003, p.403-417 ). Because his findings were not what he expected and not exactly ‘politically correct’ (i.e. he found evidence of a shift in people’s orientation and behavior), it has received little coverage in the press. So don’t feel bad if you haven’t heard about it.
Yes Susan, we’re well aware of Spitzer’s study of hand picked Exodus and NARTH members. It was a very poor sampling for any serious study of ex-gays.
A brief analysis can be found here:
https://www.eindtijd.com/item13.html
Susan, the Spitzer “study” was a farce. The methodology was ridiculous. Some of us actually have a science and math background.
The fact is, these people exist. They have names and stories. I know some of the ones included in the study, and I know others who haven’t been but whose stories would echo those included. To say to these people, “You don’t exist–your story is not true” is disrespect and discrimination and a sad form of denial.
For those of you not up-to-date on research methodology (I’m currently finishing up my doctorate at Oxford), there is quantitative research and qualitative research, and then combinations of the two. Qualitative tends to be considered a bit more ‘post-modern’ in that it takes into account narrative and often has a smaller sample. Both are legitimate forms of research. If the question posited is “Can people change?” then it is redundant to examine the claims of those who say that they couldn’t–we already know that they exist and their statement to the negative still begs the question, “Yes, I know you didn’t, but can anyone change?” The fact that one person or many persons have NOT experienced any sort of shift in sexual preferences or behaviours does not answer the question if ANYONE actually has. So, why not study those who claim to have experienced some sort of change and see if there is any evidence to that effect? As for the issue of ‘sampling,’ that is a moot point when one is only trying to study those who claim a change of some sort. Sampling IS a serious question if one is studying the distribution of change over the entire population, or over the subset of the population that could be defined as those ‘seeking change.’ That sort of broader analysis wasn’t the purpose of Spitzer’s study, although some try to make it out to be that and thus find fault with his methodology.
As for PM’s comments above… Actually, there ARE ‘religious’ groups that acknowledge the wide spectrum of attraction and behaviour and that some shifts are gradual or subtle or a question of where one puts one’s focus. They would NOT see it as ‘all or nothing’–as being either a 1 or a 7 (in the Kinseyian terms), either ‘hetero’ or ‘homo’, full stop. I’m sorry if all you have encountered from ‘religious’ (which would be primarily Christian, I would imagine) groups is that sort of black and white thinking. Yes, there are some people who seem to have had a ‘complete change’ and hold that up as the goal. Others, though, are happy just to see some sort of lessening of ambivalence toward the opposite sex, or increase in interest in the opposite sex, or a decrease in attraction to the same sex. There’s a wide range of experiences out there–let’s acknowledge them fully.
Susan, I think the trouble here is truth in advertising. These groups do not clearly state WHAT change to expect (decreased homosexual attraction or increased heterosexual attraction? Both or just one?) and pretty much leave the user to think that it is from gay to straight. Also they do not state that the majority do not shift at all nor have there been studies about how much sift occurs in the general population vs. how much shift occurs in these group. Also frankly his definition of proper heterosexual functioning isn’t most peoples definition of heterosexuality. Given the religious nature of these groups I don’t think Exodus will ever advertise itself as a group that promotes bisexuality.
Susan,
I’m not going to be hard headed and stupid as to assume that “nobody has ever change,” or that “any change in orientation is impossible.”
The thing is, what the Spitzer study “showed” was something which I’ve always known, and which the bisexual community acknowledges: that sexual orientation can change for some individuals. I don’t know about you, but to me, that sounds like a very modest, and un-exciting conclusion.
As for the methodology of his study, his intent was to investigate the claims of ex-gays to see if they would hold up, so I agree, the issue of random sampling here is irrelevant, given the purpose of his study. But the fact remains that his conclusion isn’t anything new to me. It doesn’t strike me as if I were to suddenly discover that the earth is indeed flat.
What is not known, though, is whether religious ex-gay ministries were really the cause in the individual’s change, because for all we know, the individual’s orientation may have naturally changed without the ex-gay therapy.
Nor is it known why anyone’s orientation would change at all. Some people say that it is due to getting older and relating to the same sex differently, whereas others would say that it was Jesus who made them change.
Susan,
The sampling method ALWAYS matters.
If the question is “Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation?” then you have to have some reliance that the answers to the polling have validity. If you use primarily individuals that are pursuing a political agenda or individuals that are paid to be ex-gay, then you have a biased sample. And you cannot rely on verbal telephone conversations. We will never know if any of those individuals claiming change were not professional ex-gays and (as there was no follow up) if their “change” was long term.
So we really don’t have an answer to the question.
That, Susan, is why no one gave Spitzer’s study much attention: because the results were not reliable.
As a side point, wasn’t Spitzer’s “result” something like a success rate of 17% of participants anyway (actual conversion in orientation)? And that’s including those paid to run ex-gay ministries.
Timothy sez:
“If you use primarily individuals that are pursuing a political agenda or individuals that are paid to be ex-gay, then you have a biased sample.”
Timothy, the point WAS precisely to investigate those who have a political agenda and those claim that they have changed.
Spitzer’s purpose was to interview them and to see if their story would hold up.
A random sample is irrelevant to this sort of study.
Imagine that a drug company claims that their drug is a miracle cure.
Spitzer’s job would then be to interview them and to look for inconsistencies and/or patterns in the story that may indicate something “scientific.”
Somehow, puting quotes around scientific does not seem appropriate here. Nathan, your grasp of grammar seems to be the major issue here. Could you rephrase your comment in standard US English with some concern for antecedants? It is not clear to me who this ‘them’ is. Thank you, Dale
I apologize that my grammar is inferior, Dale.
I will repeat what I said earlier so that even someone like YOU can comprehend it, bueno?
a) My main point is that Spitzer’s purpose was to investigate those who claim to be ex-gay and who are in the ex-gay industry. He wanted to see if what they said would hold up under what he thought was “rigorous” investigation.
THEREFORE,
b)to say that his sample was skewed because it was drawn from those in the ex-gay industry is a criticism that totally misses the point, since his purpose WAS to investigate those in the ex-gay business.
Got it?
The real criticisms of his study lies in how he evaluated the interviews (relying on retrospective data), and the lack of a good thorough follow up and/or outside verification of the interviewees’ claims of change. In fact, even the much worshipped Shidlo and Schroeder study suffers from some of these weaknesses too, but I will refrain from going into that since I’m thoroughly bored by this topic.
N.
Susan, Spitzer’s methodology was ludicrous.
Point one: a question of definition. Change from what to what? Change from gay to straight? Change from homosexual (or bisexual) to heterosexual? There is a difference.
Point two: data points. What were his subjects’ orientations from the beginning? We’ll never know, and neither does he. Most of his data points might have been bisexual. He only had 200 or so data points. He did not examine them to determine their relative sexual response to various stimuli before they entered into gay relationships, nor did he examine them to determine their relative sexual response to various stimuli after they entered into straight relationships. That would have been required for a proper scientific study–but a study like that will never be carried out. In the absence of such information, we have no idea what Spitzer’s study purports to mean.
Point three: actually, Spitzer never did test his data points (test subjects) to determine what their responses to various sexual stimuli. All he did was to interview them over the telephone. That alone should be enough to show that Spitzer’s study was methodologically flawed. That’s about as dumb as interrogating aboriginies to determine whether the earth goes around the moon.
And, btw, Spitzer must have been an idiot to believe that the anti-gay forces who supplied the “ex-gays” would not use the results of his “study” to bash gay people.
Raj says:
“Point two: data points. What were his subjects’ orientations from the beginning? We’ll never know, and neither does he. Most of his data points might have been bisexual.”
I’d say that this is one of the biggest problems with the Spitzer study, or ANY study that purports to investigate sexual orientation.
Often times researchers never take the time to evaluate the subject’s sexual orientation from the start, instead relying on self reporting of the subjects.
So it could be that in a sample of “homosexuals,” a significant percentage of the sample may actually be bisexuals who self-identify as “homosexual” because of a leaning for the same sex.
This is hugely important, because bisexuals tend to fare much better in sexual re-orientation efforts than exclusive homosexuals.
Biological studies also suffer from this critical flaw, that is, they rely on the subject’s word regarding his or her sexual orientation. There is no distinction between exclusive “obligate” homosexuals, and homosexuals that have bisexual potential.
As I mentioned again and again and again and again, the conclusion of Spitzer’s study was something that was already known in the LGBT community: that SOME people’s sexual orientation change over time. To me this is nothing special, nothing worth going ape-shit over.
N.
Nathan,
It seems we all have differing reasons to dislike the study. Fine. So you don’t like the testing methodology; and I don’t like the methodology OR the sample selection.
We’re both saying the same thing.
It might be possible to come to some conclusion from a telephone study, provided that you selected selected your sample properly (note: i didn’t say “random”). It might also be possible to come to some conclusion doing some objective testing on the group he selected.
However, I think we agree that when you select a group that has a vested interest in lieing and then do a telephone interview, you’ve basically wasted your time.
It’s like asking a small child if they took a cookie from the cookie jar. Whether he did or didn’t the answer is still going to be “no, Mommy”.
“However, I think we agree that when you select a group that has a vested interest in lieing and then do a telephone interview, you’ve basically wasted your time.”
Uhh…no, his point was to find out if they were lying, or if their accounts held up to “rigorous” testing. His point was to evaluate the claims of a very specfic group of people (those in the ex-gay business).
His whole point was to examine those who are often suspected of lying, and to see if what they say holds up.
As I mentioned again and again and again and again, the conclusion of Spitzer’s study was something that was already known in the LGBT community: that SOME people’s sexual orientation change over time. To me this is nothing special, nothing worth going ape-shit over.
Um, no. I have no idea what “sexual orientation” means. Neither do you. Neither did Kinsey. Kinsey tried to infer “sexual orientation” from self-reported sexual behaviour. But sexual behaviour and the desire to have sex with someone of the same or opposite sex appear to be two separate issues. There are methods by which sexual response can be measured. They will never be used in longitudinal studies, in large part because they would need to be used over almost a lifetime to achieve reasonable results.
BTW, you can scream what you want from the mount if you want. Spitzer must have been an idiot to not know that the results of his “study” of self-selected individuals would not have been used by anti-gay forces to try to suppress equal rights for gay people. That’s the point, as far as I’m concerned.
Talking about innate preferences won’t get you anywhere with people who are trained religiously to separate nature from behavior. As a gay man, I’ve successfully had sex with women. I know straight men who have successfully had sex with other men.
Behavior can change, and that’s the only thing ex-gay proponents are concerned with. Desire doesn’t matter to them because desire is selfish and evil. All that matters is *behaving* in a manner pleasing to God.
Kinsey demonstrated that straight people can engage in situational same-sex intimacy and that gay people can likewise have opposite-sex encounters without changing their core sexual preferences. It seems clear to me that arguing the nature of sexuality with people who deny sexuality as an individual right is a waste of time.
Re Behavior can change, and that’s the only thing ex-gay proponents are concerned with. Desire doesn’t matter to them because desire is selfish and evil. All that matters is *behaving* in a manner pleasing to God.
John, you have hit the nail squarely on the head. Good for you! 🙂
The entire moral code of Christianity is about conforming one’s behaviors to what is good and pleasing to God. Unfortunately, arguments break out among denominations when trying to figure out what constitutes “good and pleasing”.
All of this talk about science or “science” is but a charade among proponents of conversion therapy (or conversion “therapy”). In the end, these attempts are religiously based, their methods are religiously based, the motivations are religiously based — everything. And no quantity or quality of science will ever change that. As I said, if science were to prove conclusively that there was a gay gene, they’d simply turn to gene therapy to further their ends.
This would neatly explain their persistent and nearly universal quest to pursue political means against gays and lesbians. By denying protections against hate crimes, discrimination in the workplace, safe schools, marriage, domestic partnerships, etc., they seek to set up an environment in which “bad behavior” is punished, despite their claims for saying that gays and lesbians who do not wish to change should not undergo conversion therapy. There political stances, after all, have no therapeutic value whatsoever.
This is the mindset of people who are obsessed with the text-proofing of scritpure while ignoring “the good news”. As a gay man, I’m tired of being a target of their bigotry, and as a Christian, I’m tired of their hijacking my faith to further their bigotry.
So getting back to the main point of this thread, that “ex-gays should have to provide more proof than just their word on the efficacy of conversion therapy”, what more proof do they need than the change in behavior? It may not be good enough for us, but it is EXACTLY good enough for them.
Sorry for the rant. I got spun up!
Your missing the point Raj.
If you are hung up on the word “sexual orientation,” how about we use the phrase “desire for romantic and sexual relationships with the same or opposite (or both) sex?”
Given this, some people do have changes in the above. If you don’t see that as a change in “sexual orientation,” that’s fine. But I firmly believe that change in what we desire to love and have sex with can happen on its own (for some individuals), usually WITHOUT the NEED for religious interventions (or homophobia).
Usually, as what’s happened with the Maryland school board sex ed curriculum, the neo cons and religious conservatives don’t want government money spent on comprehensive and realistic educational materials, studies or information regarding homosexuality.
Or the range or aspects or reliability of contraception for that matter.
The FRC, FOTF and CWA have constantly been critical of funding, and they certainly don’t fund or have limits to what THEY can do when it comes to studies.
They refer to books by Jeffrey Santinover or Joseph Nicolosi as the gold standard on homosexuality.
Which are blatantly biased, and at their foundation-claim religious scripture as the text,
and their treatment (exclusively) of gay men and women with socialization problems as their guides.
They don’t balance their findings with healthy, well adjusted gay men and women-and they don’t want to know WHY gay men and women ARE well adjusted and function successfully.
Now, what would anyone with a brain think of a doctor that DIDN’T want to know any other data, but what feeds his or her prejudice?
Whose studies are extremely limited and underfunded and aimed literally, at ONE subject with no corroborating or contrasting information?
And experiment of any kind requires it.
Why bother if you’re only looking for a single conclusion and don’t want any other kind of outcome, or optimum outcome…then you won’t get it.
SHurrrrrre I can change my Sexual Orientation if I strap myself down to a table drill a hole to the CENTER of my brain, YANK out my FEMALE hypothalimus and surgically replace it with a MALE hypothalimus! Then of course provided I SURVIVE the procedure I’ll be able to live a nice, happy productive HETERO “lifestyle”. Sexual ORIENTATION is UNchangeable people! Accept it! There is NO biological basis for BI-sexuality! Never has been nor will there ever be! Nature and evolution do NOT work on such misguided avenues! Gay men are responding to male pheromones because deep inside of our brains WE ARE BIOLOGICAL FEMALES!!!!! Is it that fucking hard to acknowledge!