From Screw Bronze via A Tenable Belief via Some Guys Are Normal:
In 2001, a peer-reviewed study by Drs. Ariel Shidlo and Michael Schroeder measured the harm caused by exgay programs to 202 former participants.
Some Guys Are Normal observes:
Study subjects: 202
Number that were no longer struggling and were fully heterosexual: 8
Of those 8, number that were not employees or volunteers of ex-gay groups: 1
Number that felt they had failed: 176
Number who felt conversion had done long term harm: 155
Number who attempted suicide during therapy: 23
Number who attempted suicide after therapy: 11
Number who reported spiritual harm: 100So, according to this study, 1 person (arguably 8) of 202 were turned straight through therapy–a result I’d imagine was the goal of the people that entered the ex-gay therapies. At the same time, 100 had their faith dramatically harmed by therapy (if you’re Christian, we’re talking about their salvation here). And nearly 4 times the number that turned straight tried to kill themselves during therapy.
The study was buried by the exgay movement, which should have publicized the results if Exodus, NARTH and PFOX (for example) were concerned about therapy clients providing truly informed consent to future therapy — or if these organizations were truly concerned about helping future exgays avoid whatever mistakes were made by the therapists of those who were found by the study to have been harmed.
Instead, these organizations exaggerated the results of another study — that of Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, who in the same year studied a pool of approximately 200 exgay activists to determine the extent to which any of them had experienced “change” in sexual orientation.
I’m imagining Exodus in any other business:
Try our new Exodus laser surgery – we have a 4% success rate!!
Join Exodus gym – only 77% of our customers are harmed!!
Try Exodus Nasal Spray for a Clear Day (some side effects in a double-blind study using a placebo include suicide attempts – reported by less than 17% of participants)
Try our new reorientation program – it costs tens of thousands and takes years of constant effort, but with one documented non-paid success, it’s worth it!!
Number of years to find 176 people who said they failed: 5
Type of sampling: Convenience
Funding: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, National Lesbian and Gay Health Association, H. van Ameringen Foundation
For fun comparisons with Spitzer’s much maligned study, go here.
I just read the Bronze Screw article. Where does she get that 7 of the “successes” were paid ex-gays? I didn’t see support for that figure.
Hi Warren
Thanks for the link to the fun comparison piece. It was pretty biased – but then again, so are we.
Although the S&S study was not intended to determine a “success rate” of reorientation, it was certainly structured to be more likely of that than the Spitzer report. At least S&S included a wider population from which their sample was drawn.
It looks like they started with some pretty blatant researcher bias but corrected it before 10% of their sample was selected. We can’t completely discount it, or that fact that they had an point to prove, but results from research are still acceptable if performed properly – and I haven’t heard critcism of the methodology.
So I’d say that results of 1 out of 202 (or 8 of 202) is certainly more likely to be consistent with what we, you, and pretty much everyone else has observed.
Hey, any thoughts on the new lesbian smell test?
Ooops… sorry, just saw your post there
Sorry, I seem to have misplaced my original source quote but this is another one:
“Only eight of their 202 interviewees claimed complete reorientation, and seven of those eight were counselors in change therapy organizations (four paid staff, three volunteers).”
Cleveland K. Evans, Ph.D.
Lecture given May 23rd, 2003 entitled: Gay to Straight: Bad Theology, Bad Medicine
Elizabeth,
Thanks. To be fair, Mike, we shouldn’t say that all 7 were EMPLOYED by ex-gay ministries. That three were volunteers does suggest their strong motivation for self-identifing as heterosexual, but not as strong as the four paid.
Timothy, that sounds more accurate, but I was quoting Some Guys Are Normal, so this would be a three-way correction.
Hi Warren. Have some questions if you are willing to answer honestly on them:
1) Why do you choose to focus on reorientation therapy?
2) How many people have been turned from full homosexuality to full heterosexuality under your care? How do you measure that? Can it be done apart from religious belief?
3) How do you define homosexuality? Do you think all or most homosexuals should be in reorientation therapy?
4)What harm have you seen come from reorientation therapy?
I saw I Do Exist, and I was far from convinced by the documentary, so I am trying to get more information from you on these subjects to see if I can get a different view than what I saw on the film (which seemed pretty shallow in presentation).
Aaron: I don’t mean to be evasive, but I have addressed these issues on my blog and website and probably here a time or two.
Timothy- you are right, that would be more accurate.
Mike- you can find the correction on my blog, so if you want to update this post, we can all be in line…
Did not even Spitzer remark that many of his 200 were involved in further ex-gay activities either as volunteers or paid workers?
Hi everyone…for a comprehensive summary of the Shidlo and Schroeder study, see pp. 64-72 of our “Youth in the Crosshairs” report. For a summary of the Spitzer study and its critiques, see pp. 60-62.
The report also includes analyses of the “research
” cited by speakers at Love Won Out conferences, which they use to support their claims that most gay and lesbian people are sexually abused (see pp. 42-47).
A PDF of the report can be found here: https://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/crosshairs.pdf
Thank you very much for the info and link, Jason.
Frankly, I cannot fathom why any of these “christian” researchers should expect the gay community on any level to have any trust in them or their intentions. Their interest in studying us seems to be generated in direct proportion to their political intentions, and most of that seems to be based on their anger that gays were removed from the list of mental illnesses back in 1973. And yet the very community in which they attempt to frame their studies is supposed to trust them today?
I’m gonna sound cynical here, but I’m always skeptical of the efforts of anyone associated with right wing evangelical “christian” movements that have suddenly discovered an interest in gays. They might carry more weight with me if they’d spend their time trying to figure out how heterosexuals determine their sexuality “choice”. . .
Also, Mr. Throckmorton, I take some degree of offense at your statement concerning the funding of the S/S study. Why shouldn’t gay organizations be funding studies about our lives? After all, for too many years, very few others found any profit (or career development recognition) for doing so, and that lack of funding and interest perpetuated myths. Perhaps because that perpetuation served as an effective means of endorsing or complementing religious doctrine, conservatives had no reason to bother with much research – and with most everything else, the gay community looked after itself.
The assumption that we operate here on two “competing” opinions is, frankly, hogwash. This work is about the lives of real people. And the only real opinions that should matter are those of the people directly affected, not someone else’s foundation in a willfully chosen “religious” belief.
Warren, and I don’t mean to be pedantic…Aaron has asked you those questions on your blog, several times. Referring back to the places where you have already not answered those questions is, frankly, evasive. Specifically, please. You may as well have said “You’ll find my exact opinions here.”But we can piece it together, and you may reject or confirm as you see fit…G.O.K.Personally we think you see it as a religious duty.None.I don’t.No.Don’t know, but I know it’s not biblical heterosexuality.Yes, and COULD be. But their choice (and suffer the consequences if you chose wrong)I do not concern myself with that — there are bigger fish to fry.All very well… but we also had one question we’ve asked you three, no now four, times — when was the last time you were invited (and accepted) a dinner invitation to the house of a gay couple? I mean, surely, an expert has to know their subject; right? How many openly gay adults do you know and mix with — socially?Nobody learns much by selective reading of journal extracts over the web…
Also wish to add one very big difference between the two studies:Shidlo and Schroeder did not spend “5 years” searching. They placed some rather obscure ads in community papers, got a web page (where we first found them, urgh in the late 1990’s), and wrote to some organisations that didn’t do much for them at all. They dealt with people as they rolled in.Now… Spitzer collaborated with Joseph Nicolosi. From that, people were pested throughout NARTH, Exodus and every other exgay organisation to make their (untested) claim to have changed. It even went so far — as Daniel from here knows first hand — to “suggest” that clients begin to falisfy their connection. Exodus claims to know of (take your pick) “thousands” or “hundreds of thousands”. Nicolosi has seen probably close to 1000 by now… and he provided only 9, yes NINE, people.It’s also worth noting that amoung the first responders to Shidlo and Schroeder were… professional exgays.Regardless, the aim of such studies should be to firstly establish what harm is being done. At least, that’s how everyone but the psych. profession seems to work. Shidlo and Schroeder were able to document some real concerns, most of which come done to the very basis for the “therapy” in the first place — prejudice.And don’t try and argue, say, abortion and exgay therapy with some people on a same basis of “client choice”…If you do, you rapidly discover that personal choice has little to do with why people are pushing both barrows in different directions.
Guys, to be fair to Warren, we can be a bit inclined to inundate him with 25 questions every time he visits here.
I am grateful that he does show up and give us some indication of his position or interpretation of a study. I don’t generally expect him to justify his existence each time.
I find his positions to be more thought provoking than many in the ex-gay crowd who frankly care little about science and seem to operate under a constant state of expectation of the miraculous.
Warren acknowledges research – he just finds the tiny possibilities within a study that could be consistent with ex-gay theory and champions those possibilities. And that’s fair. He serves a very useful purpose in keeping our interpretations within the realm of supportable. And, after all, I’d rather have factual useful information from a study than have another piece of political fodder.
But (and I do hope you see this Warren) I wish he would disassociate himself from some of the shadier folks in the ex-gay crowd. Regina Griggs and PFOX are about as slimy as you get – and the “information” they use on their brochures sometimes contradicts what Warren has said on this site.
Timothy, while I agree with you about the questions being overdone, I think that it is fair to ask questions to someone who has made an advertising DVD to promote reorientation therapy (it felt like a real estate seminar DVD personally). My problem is that you can go to the blog and website, but the answers are always conflicting and unclear. I am starting to wonder if Warren is leaving things in unclear answers on purpose. For example, he states on his website that he does participate in some form of reparative therapy (according to religious beliefs) but that he does not consider himself a reparative therapist. I don’t understand these unclear distinctions. He suggests that attractions are something that can’t be helped, but then he promotes videos that suggest the opposite. I am not clear as to anything he says because he is never very clear. He seems constantly to be walking both sides of the fence. I would like a clear answer from him on all these things. He presents himself as neutral on many issues, but then he actively engages and promotes in others. If he is truly neutral in these regards (as he frequently presents himself), why does he have political issues, such as gay marriage (which he clearly opposes by his Jesus answer), on his website? If he had a clear FAQ, that would be great, but I feel constantly that Warren is never clear on anything.
I appreciate what Dr. Throckmorton posted on the two studies.I wish; however, that Dr. Throckmorton, PFOX, Exodus, NARTH, and/or the AMA, APA (Psychiatrists), APA (Psycologists), or any other organization would fund a study in the model Dr. Spitzer suggested.Dr. Spitzer (professor of psychiatry at Columbia University and chief of the New York State Psychiatric Institute’s Biometrics Research Department) stated in Christianity Today “The study that ought to be done is a controlled study where people go into the therapy, and then you initially evaluate them, and then you evaluate them later and see how many actually changed.”Then Spitzer added “But that study is not going to be done, unfortunately.”I chanllenge you, Dr. Throckmorton, to fund, or at least call for, that study to be accomplished and funded.
Hmm. Christianity Today may not be allowing a direct link. The page webpage where Spitzer made his comment on what kind of study should be done is at https://tinyurl.com/rmxsd and/or https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/004/20.94.html.
Since I am probably as dense as they come, I want to challenge someone to answer those questions for Warren based on his website and blog (and past answers on here) so that we can have a clear statement on Warren’s views. Anyone up to the challenge? I don’t know if it is possible or not, but it would be an interesting challenge.
Posted by: grantdale at May 9, 2006 11:37 AM
when was the last time [Dr. Throckmorton was] invited (and accepted) a dinner invitation to the house of a gay couple?
I’m not going to jump into the studies debate yet, since I haven’t read them. That is tonight’s plan–and jump in I will, since we’re finally talking about lesbians. Sheesh–I know we’re scarce, but c’mon, scientists!!
As far as grantdale’s question, I invited Dr. T to my house during LWO and he had a prior engagement. I was a tad slighted by the fact that he didn’t drop all of his plans and come meet my partner and I for dinner–but I would bet $100 that he would have accepted the invite.
Can’t we turn the question around on ourselves, and ask how often we’ve invited people like Dr. Throckmorton or others to our homes?
Just a bit of devil’s advocacy here.
Not to imply that Throckmorton is the devil, since I’m advocating for him on the dinner thing. Er, never mind.
Aaron,
Based on some of what Dr. Throckmorton has written at this site, I’ll try to give you some answers (Warren, please correct me if I’m wrong).
Dr. Throckmorton believes that there are probably different paths that lead to sexual orientation. In at least some of those paths, biology (genetic and/or hormonal) plays a roll in the determination of orientation.
However, confusingly Warren views orientation as socially-constructed – sort of a self-label. he acknowledges same-sex attraction exists and that genetic/hormonal factors come into play but that they are more associated with and resulting from identification and reinforcement.
For example, I think he has indicated that younger sons with older gay siblings may have a biological inclination towards homosexuality. However I think he would say that these inclinations were towards effiminancy and that the resulting socialization of an effiminate boy pushes him towards sexualizing the same sex. The effiminate child romanticizes masculinity which eventually can result in same-sex sexual desire.
However Throckmorton also believes that the brain is greatly malleable and that homosexual orientation may not be the end result but rather a train stop on the way to heterosexuality. Or at least is avoidable or reversable if caught early.
Warren is greatly invested in the possibility of change in orientation. However, he may not think that it is possible for all people (I can’t speak conclusively on this point).
I think it would be fair to say that Warren believes that for at least some same-sex oriented people change in orientation can be achieved to the point where they can find a satisfying relationship with a person of the opposite sex. Further, he believes that this viewpoint has been systematically eliminated from the discussion.
My problem with Dr. Throckmorton is not with any of his beliefs as I know them. I find much of his theory implausable. But my problem is with what he does with these beliefs and with the authority that comes with his position.
He affiliates himself (he’s even a spokesman for PFOX) with organizations that suggest – especially in a political or educational setting –
1. that NO genetic or biological factors are EVER present (using the confusing terminology “there is no gay gene” and stating that “such feelings stem from temperament and deeply rooted underlying emotional factors”);
2. that reorientation is always at least partially effective (“This therapy will reduce his unwanted same-sex attractions”);
3. that gay people are emotionally disturbed other than because of societal pressures;
4. that 32% of condoms break (this one is so bizarre that I can hardly believe PFOX prints it – all they would have to do is ask ANYONE gay or straight that uses condoms regularly and they would know that claiming that 1/3 of condoms break is beyond unbelievable);
5. and actively campaign against basic equalities and rights for gay people and even trys to stop schools from implementing anti-bullying programs that are inclusive of gay kids.
Thank you Timothy!
Just for the record, I do have problem with Dr. Throckmorton, and it has to do with his mixing his faith into science when he draws conclusions. For example, this is from Transgender: Nature, Nurture and When It All Goes Awry:“Differences appear to occur much earlier than previously thought,” he says. “I tend to agree that God could hardwire our genes for gender – not for sexual orientation or attraction, but by the fact that He had in mind male or female from the beginning. Tainted by sin, is it possible that someone gets hardwired with a female brain but gets a testosterone bath? I don’t know. I don’t want to go beyond the research, [but] mice are not humans. Gender is probably impacted by how we are raised and our genetics but we may also be able to override that. We have no way of knowing for humans how that process might operate. However, we certainly don’t have any research that would support the kind of dogmatism that says people are born that way – and certainly not to tell that to someone on Oprah.”He’s talking faith and he’s talking psycological study in the same breath; he doesn’t seem to draw a distinction between the two at all.
For ck: 3 days ago :)As, I think you were, pointing out… it’s rather hard for “us” to avoid running into such people/opinions. At work. Out socialising. Sitting at a football game. Sometimes even within ones own family. We grow up surrounded by both heterosexuals and anti-gay attitudes. None of it is a mystery.On the otherhand “they” can avoid us, quite easily, most of the time. And can avoid actually knowing us, really knowing us, all of the time if they so chose.
Very true, grant/dale. I thought about that after I posted the comment. I wasn’t trying to imply that the two sides were “equal” in the sense of social structure. Mostly, I just try to apply everything to myself first, and challenge others to do the same (though here, it is preaching to the choir, with the kinds of commenters there are).
For example, I think he has indicated that younger sons with older gay siblings may have a biological inclination towards homosexuality.
Well, if that is true, it contradicts the available evidence. The “older brother” phenomenon is well known – but is in the opposite direction – the younger brothers are more likely to be gay than the older ones, not the other way around. As I understand it, that phenomenon holds no matter what the family structure, including the sexual orientation of older siblings.
More importantly, there is a key piece of data that is commonly ignored by both sides of this “debate” – the experiences of gay and lesbian people. We have all often commented on the relative dearth of publicly “ex-gay” people, and in fact a complete absence of any “ex-gay” people from prior to about 1980, although thousands of gays and lesbians were in “treatment,” both voluntarily and against their will, during the 50s, 60s, and even into the 70s. However, we also have the “testimony” of hundreds of thousands of gays and lesbians living all over the country who attribute their emotions to organic processes, not choice or “mental illness.”
I would also like to hear Mr. Throckmorton’s explanation as to why homosexuality, of all human characteristics, would be non-organic ever, given the underlying genetic contribution to personality characteristics that seem less stable – like favorite color, choice of occupation, introversion vs. extroversion. IIRC, the Minnesota study of twins reared together and apart (both identical and fraternal) demonstrated a pronounced genetic influence on nearly every facet of human behavior.
Finally, if Mr. Throckmorton really did make the statements attributed to him about gender, what is his explanation for the intersexed?