In keeping consistent with their anti-gay, pro-ex-gay agenda, the Washington Times has another non-news article about the Spitzer report. The excuse for this article was coverage of a forum by teachthefacts.org’s, the group arguing for accurate sex education in Maryland. Nothing at the forum was reported but rather reporter Jon Ward blathers on (incorrectly at times) about the Spitzer report, instead:
Interviewing 200 former homosexuals, Dr. Spitzer conducted the study in response to a request by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in 2000 to determine the risks and benefits of “reparative therapy.”
My understanding is that there was no request by the APA to determine the risks and benefits of reparative therapy. The study was made at the request of ex-gay activists Spitzer had met. I don’t have a link for that, so feel free to correct me.
The majority of the article was dedicated to how reputable Spitzer is and how his study found that some homosexuals “can and do change.” The sole argument against the findings in the study, as reported, was:
But speakers at a Sunday forum sponsored by Teachthefacts.org dismissed the Spitzer study.
Dr. Paul A. Wertsch of the American Medical Association (AMA) said the study was biased because it drew most of its subjects from ex-gay therapists or ministries.
“I don’t think it’s a very good study,” said Dr. Wertsch, who heads the AMA’s committee on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Matters.
There was no further elaboration on how biased the study was with many of the “successes” actually having employment dependant on being a success. No mention was made of the methodology (a single phone call, no face-to-face, no follow up) or how Spitzer is unhappy with the inaccurate reporting of his survey.
Tucked into the middle of the discussion about Spitzer and his report was the following:
Earlier this year, PFOX and the county parents group Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum filed a lawsuit against the county school system, saying its sex-education course discriminated against certain religions and promoted homosexuality.
A federal judge ruled in favor of the lawsuit, and schools Superintendent Jerry D. Weast scrapped the course and the citizens advisory panel that helped develop it.
Without saying so, the Ward suggests that the judge validated Spitzer’s report, which is deceptive, at best.
And Ward gets in his parting shot:
Dr. Wertsch did not mention any other studies of ex-gays at Sunday’s forum on Sunday.
In 2002, researchers Ariel Shidlo and Michael Schroeder recruited 182 men and 20 women for a study on the negative effects of reparative therapy. They found that 176 subjects said reparative therapy was harmful, while 26 said it was successful.
Ward actually reported in his “news” article the details of a report that wasn’t discussed at the meeting he was covering. It isn’t often that a legitimate news report tells you what WASN’T discussed. Not unless, of course, it is a hopelessly biased article trying to make a point.
Well, here’s a start to the misreporting:Jon Ward (a google rapidly finds his interests…) states that a “federal judge ruled in favor of the lawsuit”.No, the judge did not. He ruled that PFOX/CRC may bring their lawsuit to the Court. The suit itself — and the merit or otherwise of the PFOX/CRC case — was never ruled on. The parties agreed to drop everything (the suit and introducing the curricula) and it was never bought forward.The Spitzer study has been well and truly covered here at XGW, but then we get to Ward’s claims about the Shidlo & Schroeder study. Ward states:
This is utterly wrong and completely misleading. And I don’t need to quote a “gay activist” for this. How about Throckmorton…
Did you all get that? Those 26 had in fact only said that they had not been harmed — they did not say that their “reparative therapy” had been successful.Only 8 (that is, 4%) claimed it had been successful, and these people were largely recruitment agents for exgay groups… Of interest, the 4% that claimed success is in line with Spitzer’s own estimate that such potential for change only applies to about 3% of people.
Bugger. Pressed Post instead of Preview. The concluding lines were to be…And please don’t point out that Throckmorton used the word “successful”. That’s his use of the word, not Shidlo & Schroeder’s.Of the 26 only 8 claim a “heterosexual shift”. Whether enough to actually live a heterosexual lifestyle /snort they don’t say. 12 are (one may safely assume) still “acting out” from time to time — hence their “struggle”. The 6 others no longer are, but they haven’t seen a change in their sexual orientation.
Today, Laura Miller of salon is analyzing another book on the Salem witch trials of 1692 and how it figures into current religious cultural attitudes.
http://www.salon.com
There are also links to previous articles on similar books and subject.
It’s amazing, but not surprising.
I went to Salem in 1988 to check out the history of those trials and to see for myself just how something could explode into such a tragedy.
What came to my mind then, was the firebombing of the house of three little hemophiliac brothers, infected with AIDS from transfusions.
They had been banned from school and they were inside the house when it was burned by their neighbors.
Imagine, children being attacked that way for having the ‘gay disease’.
Thankfully, they weren’t injured in the attack.
One of the brothers died at age 22, another at age 16 from AIDS. One I think still survives.
Schools (led by religious zeal) and churches think nothing of banning children just because their parents are gay.
This intimidation by ostracism, is easy to commit on the most vulnerable among us. Children, women…or young homosexuals.
Take your pick.
When I ask certain questions of pastors committed to homophobia, many denying all the while that they hate gay people, they become very hostile and their true meaness has a way of showing itself.
As well as the obvious and cheap hypocrisy.
The Salem witch trials have implications we see to this day and it’s very chilling and makes me wonder why it’s so hard for people to not learn from past mistakes.
We do have evidence of what this sort of religious dogma does to whole societies that isn’t good at all.
One of the article links points out that although the judges were biased, it was the neighbors of the accused who were so dangerous.
Something that Jews who survived the Holocaust can relate to, as well as gay men and women who lost their jobs and families for the same reason.
You’re absolutely right, Timothy…the APA DIDN’T ask for or have it’s own interest in the Spitzer study.
His focus group was awfully tiny to begin with and contacted by phone.
Which is pretty remote. None of his subjects were his own clients for that matter.
The APA has had far more range and funding for their own studies.
Indeed, a common protest of anti gay or ex gay groups is that homosexuality is studied by the APA at all and with federal or public funding.
The APA is a reality based organization, and their research and peer review is stated and clear. They can’t afford it to be otherwise, let alone influenced by the faith based. Bias compromises studies after all and results can’t be conclusive.
Which is what leads me to ask this basic question of anti gay religious leaders who stick their noses into research: how could they possible know about what they really don’t want to know about homosexuality?
Unless it validates a stereotype or prejudice, they are uninterested or hostile.
If they want to maintain their beliefs and opinions, regardless of evidence and empirical data-then they have to be challenged on just how little they really know or want to that is real and undisputable.
Even on the ‘intelligent design’ theory. How about the intelligent design of homosexuals?
Since the presence of gays and lesbians is enduring, universal and indigenous to all human life: then this isn’t about the limits of gay people. But the limits of the intelligence of those who insist that gay people ‘aren’t supposed to exist’.
The talent and compassion of gays and lesbians isn’t a theory, and it’s real old having any discussion about gay people treated as if it is.
We know who easily arrogates themselves with holy writ and how it’s done. Not always through intellectually gratifying discussion and legal due process, but brutality, if not hostility.
We’ll never know enough about our fellow gay citizens, if gay people aren’t allowed to be honest about themselves, their feelings and intentions.
Equal standing and protection would fill a lot of gaps that way, that’s only common sense.
I have to ask also, if those who say so, have so much faith in god…why is that faith so invested in speaking for a hard sell of god and god’s intentions, rather than letting god speak for itself?
Their faith seems to go only as far as how much they can dictate the terms of it to others and how those others are stigmatized and governed by it unequally.
Instead of said faithful, governing only THEMSELVES by the terms of their declared (and freely chosen)religion.
You can see why I would offend some people just by these questions.
And that is EXACTLY why I do it.
Because there wouldn’t be any offense taken if their agenda was on the up and up.
Since we’re all only human beings here…I’m not testing god or challenging god…just the human beings who declare they speak for god.
Fair?
grantdale, you said “Of interest, the 4% that claimed success is in line with Spitzer’s own estimate that such potential for change only applies to about 3% of people.”
Not to quibble, but that’s actually 3-4% of people WHO ARE GAY AND ARE MOTIVATED TO SEEK REORIENTATION THERAPY. We are talking small percents of small percents of small percents.
Assuming 2.3% of the male population is gay and that about 1% of them seek therapy and that 2-3% of them “succeed”, the real percentage of people who can actually change their sexual orientation from gay to straight may be truly miniscule.
(Conversely, I guess it could also be true that there are those who don’t need therapy and can just magically change on their own making the percentage that can change larger than 3-4%, but I think that is unlikely).
In any case, we can certainly agree that it’s a very small number of people.
The Teachthefact.org Forum was presented to help educate the community about the issues facing the Mongtomery County, Maryland, Public Schools as the school system revises its health education curriculum.
The Washington Times article states that in “2002, researchers Ariel Shidlo and Michael Schroeder recruited 182 men and 20 women for a study on the negative effects of reparative therapy. They found that 176 subjects said reparative therapy was harmful, while 26 said it was successful.”
The day before this article, the Times had another article on the Teachthefacts.org Forum, in which it quoted reparative therapy survivor Robert Rigby as saying as saying that if HE had been asked years ago if it reparative therapy had been successful for him, he would have said yes. https://washtimes.com/metro/20050925-104445-4214r.htm
So one should be quite skeptical about the 26.
But even assuming the usefulness of the Shidlo study (and that none of the 26 were Robert Rigbys), it suggests that if someone is put into reparative therapy, there is an 87% chance they will be harmed by it. If parents wish to play such dice with their children’s emotional well-being, that is their choice. But the public schools should not be complicit in such extremely risky notions.
David, thanks for the link.
In the Washington Times’ never-ending quest to get it right-wing, one paragraph from that story is:
“One speaker, David Fishback, said conservatives see the county’s sex education debate as “the next Kansas,” referring to the debate over evolution versus intelligent design.”
Ummmm, no. The Scopes Monkey Trial was about evolution versus CREATION, not intelligent design. While “intelligent design” is a sloppy enought concept to include Creation in it (see the discussion elsewhere here), the debate was not about whether God directed the design of all that is, but rather whether God created the world in 6 day exactly as is described in Genesis 1.
Funny how the Wash Times’ agenda gets in the way of their reporting. I almost feel bad for the reporters, it must be like working for Pravda used to be.
Timothy — I didn’t read Spitzer’s comments that way.I see he suggested that 3% of people were “flexi-sexual” (is that a word? it is now). Not bisexual, but with a malleable sexuality that I guess moves about to whatever they want or others expect of them. Of course, that’s just his opinion and we have nothing to back it up.Given Spitzer is inclined to use higher gigures than 2.3%, I’d probably go with guessing he’s suggesting maybe 3% of 5% x 145 million = a few hundred thous. If it is 3% of 2.3% x 145m x 10% (the % that seriously “wish” to really change at some time) then we only have 10,000.
Uh, Timothy? The Scopes trial took place in Tennessee, not Kansas. What they’re referring to is the battle going on now in Kansas over whether or not to teach I.D. in the classrooms.
Skemono….
The red glow you see on the horizon is due to me blushing. whoops
my track record for accuracy has taken a few hits this week
grantdale…
Is the percentage that wish to change at 10%? I thought I had read that only about 1% seek help to change. Oh well. In either case the numbers are small.
Hello. Thanks for the criticism–always healthy.
I can respond to the APA bit. I included that simply because Spitzer says in his study summary that this was the reason he did the study.
On page 405 of the October 2003 “Archives of Sexual Behavior,” Spitzer quotes the 2000 APA “Position Statement on Therapies Focused on Attempts to Change Sexual Orientation,” which said, “there have been no scientifically rigorous outcome studies to determine either the actual efficacy or harm of ‘reparative’ treatments…APA encourages and supports research…to further determine ‘reparative’ therapy’s risks versus its benefits” (p. 1719).
In Spitzer’s reply to the 26 peer reviews (page 469 of the same issue of “Archives of Sexual Behavior”), he writes that “the impetus for the study” was the APA’s 2000 position statement.
I thought that was strong enough evidence to put it in the newspaper.
On another note, I think it’s unfortunate that you label anyone who even discusses the possibility of ex-gays as “anti-gay.”
Jon,
That’s how these people are…you don’t agree with everything they say, you are automatically a bigot.
It’s the hyper-dramatized, “poor me” victim mentality. Gay or not, it is sickening
No, Mr. Ward, I don’t label anyone who discusses the possibility of ex-gays as “anti-gay”.
However I do label as anti-gay:
1. any newspaper who refuses to use the word “gay” and insists on using “homosexual”, even though it has long since become industry standard (just as I would label any newspaper that insisted on using “Negro” as being racist)
2. any newspaper that puts “gay marriage” in quotes (as though it is not really marriage, just called marriage), even when the marriage is recognized by the government issuing the license, by the church in which it took place, and by all parties in attendance and there’s no one at all disputing that it’s a marriage
3. any reporter that writes a whole article about Spitzer’s report without discussing the extremely flawed methodology or revealing that Spitzer reported his findings to ONLY APPLY TO 3% OF GAYS (see above).
4. any reporter who turns 8 people into 26 when reporting on a survey when discussing “success” of ex-gay ministries (see above).
Not all those interested in the possiblity of changing sexual orientation are anti-gay. But if any of the above apply to you or your paper, you are anti-gay, whether or not you recognize it.
Further, you did NOT report that Spitzer was reponding to a general encouragement that the APA had that research be done. What you said was “…in response to a REQUEST by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in 2000…”, which is quite something else. The APA did not request that Spitzer do this study and no, the above quotes do not suggest that this interpretation is close enough.
Either you were sloppy in your reporting (for which an apology would be accepted) or you deliberatly distorted the story to advance a position.
I don’t mean to be hostile to you, Mr. Ward. You may be a fine person that simply is repeating what he’s told by certain anti-gay activists. But since your reporting has presented the public with a skewed view of the results of ex-gay ministries, it is your responsibility to correct it.
My objection, Mr. Ward, is to lies and deception. If you or your paper want to champion ex-gays, fine. Just do so truthfully.
Timothy re: Is the percentage that wish to change at 10%?For the web page I’m preparing I am delib. using a NARTH quoted study (King 2003). My wording is:
So… you’re correct that it is in the low percents, and I’m correct that around 10% could be targets and respond to a well crafted (ie dishonest) exgay message. I’ll actually be using 20% as my base case for the U.S., and presenting both the lower scenarios on the page.For Jon Ward — your wording is misleading, as Timothy has pointed out. You wrote:
The APA made no such request of Spitzer. Your wording reads that the APA specifically asked Spitzer to conduct this study. They did no such thing. The APA has called for further research into the subject of change and harm — but Spitzer’s study didn’t do that (as any cursory reading of the letters and responding articles would show). Spitzer’s “study” is a collection of exgay testimonies — for which you only need trawl through the exgay sites to find. He did nothing more than tabulate these predictable claims into a standard format… and that tells us nothing we didn’t already know.(I’ll spell it out for you… we already know that exgays claim to have changed from gay to straight. Closer examination of the claims reveal rather more nuanced findings; such as, they’re still as gay as a gay man in gaytown on gayday but they now call themself “a heterosexual who struggles”.)And face it — the Wash.Times is anti-gay. The use of quote-marked “gay” in 2005 is but one example. The slanted reporting with selected quotations, and the untested use of seemingly any exgay claims are others. That the paper is prevasively anti-gay is it’s own affair, but please don’t insult us.As to your motivation (or that of the paper) — who cares? I’m not about to permit anti-gay people to decide for me what is or is not anti-gay. I’m well able to decide that for myself.
Jon, not everyone here believes that the suggestion of some people being exgay is anti-gay. I have never had a personal problem with someone being exgay. I have suggested ministries for gay people I know are unhappy being gay. Who cares if someone chooses to be exgay? I don’t and I don’t know a lot who do. I do think, and have seen, that it can be very dangerous for some people, but if that is what they want, fine. I have known straight women who have been in lesbian relationships for political reasons also. They aren’t gay, but do I have a problem with this? No.
What I have a problem with is lies and manipulation. Many of these exgay groups deliberately distort facts and make up info (90% of gay men eat feces, for example). I have a problem that these groups are often more political than they are about the well-being of the individuals involved (why is it that many exgays become superhuman Republican conservative clones?). I have a problem when my rights are threatened by exgay promoters saying that no gays should have rights since they can change. I have a problem when I am constantly told that gay people are intolerant of exgays because we challenge some of the things they say. I have a problem when exgays (and cohorts) descend on gay activities and meetings to tell us that we are hellbound. No gay group ever stopped or protested the activities when I was with an exgay group. It is really not heard of (you will get much fewer gay protestors at Love Won Out than the exgay protestors at parades).
The exgay postition has increasingly become less about sexuality and religion and more about political stances. The only time it is antigay is when exgays assume everyone should follow their lead.
Regan DuCasse at September 28, 2005 12:40 PM
I agree with most of this post, but I would point out that
Indeed, a common protest of anti gay or ex gay groups is that homosexuality is studied by the APA at all and with federal or public funding.
is probably based on a misconception. The APsychiatristA (the relevant one, not the psychologists’ APA) is a membership operation. I’ve been involved in membership operations in the past, and they have been funded by member’s dues, sales of publications, fees at conferences, and the like. There was no federal or public funding at all.
BTW, I will reveal to you a dirty little secret. (I’ve discussed this on other web sites) The “Intelligent Designer” apparently loves mollusks more that he/she/it loves humans. From someone who actually knows something about biology (Kenneth Miller, professor of biology at Brown University) Life’s Grand Design https://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/lgd/index.html
The eyes of homo sapiens have an inferiour design to those of mollusks. As Prof. Miller describes in the cited article.
Also, btw, Prof. Miller is a devout christian, who has apparently had no problem reconciling his christianity with his science. He has been testifying in more than a few of the “ID” cases over the last few years attempts to get ID in public schools, against the IDers, and his side has always won.
NB: if you are interested, Prof. Miller’s evolution web site is worth researching in detail https://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/
>>they’re still as gay as a gay man in gaytown on gayday but they now call themself “a heterosexual who struggles”.)
>>they’re still as gay as a gay man in gaytown on gayday but they now call themself “a heterosexual who struggles”.)
Funny!! Just last night a friend told me about vacationing in Cape Cod with his family. They decided to visit Provincetown because there “was a local festival going on”.
So yes, there he was a gay man in gaytown on gayday… but he was stuck with his family and couldn’t be very gay at all.
>>they’re still as gay as a gay man in gaytown on gayday but they now call themself “a heterosexual who struggles”.
I believe they have coined another word for it: MetroSexual.
Well, Tim, I don’t mean to suggest that words don’t matter. They do. But it does seem like you’re quibbling over the word “request,” given the alternatives.
Writing that Spitzer did his study in response to “general encouragement from the APA that that research be done,” doesn’t quite roll off the tongue, and is pretty much the same thing as saying that Spitzer did his study in response to a “call for studies,” which is, at most, fractionally different from saying the APA made a “request” for such studies.
Still, point taken, and understood. You don’t want it to seem like the APA specifically asked Spitzer to do the study. I’m not married to the phrase, I didn’t use it to try and distort anything, and perhaps in the future I’ll just write he did it in response to a “general call for studies on the risks and benefits of reparative therapy.”
Thanks for the input!
Anonymous at September 29, 2005 06:40 PM
You don’t want it to seem like the APA specifically asked Spitzer to do the study.
As far as I’m concerned, the psychiatrists and psychologists, at the time, were both nothing but witch doctors. You might be able to persuade me otherwise (I have a background in a real science) but I doubt that you will be able to do it.
So, what is your evidence that the APsychiatristA specifically asked Spitzer to do the study. Unless you are able to cite chapter and verse, actual documents, you really should refrain.