Response to Part 2 of Dr. Patrick M. Chapman’s Review of “Ex-Gays”, posted on Ex-Gay Watch, November, 2007, by Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse.
Response to “Part 2: A Focus on the Results — Examining if Change is Possible”
Here in Part 2 Dr. Chapman’s criticisms turn more severe. First he asserts that ours is not a long term study. Again, his logic is questionable, and the problem of incomplete citation of our argument is significant. Chapman says “In the opening chapter Jones and Yarhouse honestly and correctly state this study cannot establish if long-term, permanent and enduring change occurs because that would require a long-term study (p. 17).” What we actually say on page 17 is that “this study will not establish that permanent, enduring change has occurred; only a very long-term study can demonstrate that.” Our point was not that our study was not a long-term study, nor that our study was inadequate to produce evidence suggesting that change was not impossible. Our point instead was that if you want to show that change is permanent, then logically you have to study subjects throughout their lifespans to death to insure the change was permanent. So our study cannot show that change is permanent, but even so a three to four year span of time is scientifically meaningful and qualifies as “long term.”
Chapman’s subsequent criticisms share a common characteristic that must be noted: Chapman imagines that he blunts our argument that change is possible for some by pointing out contrary pieces of isolated evidence that change did not happen for certain people or did not happen in certain ways he considers important. Science, in contrast, operates by examining all relevant data for trends, and then applies that data to the evaluation of hypotheses.
Our hypothesis regarding change was that “change is impossible.” The relevant data for falsification of that hypothesis is evidence that change is possible for some. Imagine the argument that “it is impossible to sustain life through heart transplant operations.” A scientist studies 100 heart transplants, and finds one year post-operation that 67% of transplant patients are still alive. Does the death of 33% constitute evidence in support of the argument “it is impossible to sustain life through heart transplant operations”? Of course not: If heart transplants are not supposed to help people, then the relevant data is data that falsifies the hypothesis, i.e., evidence of people surviving. Chapman’s selective citation of our data is the equivalent of focusing on the negative cases in this example. This is explicit, as Chapman argues that our conclusion that change is possible for some “is unwarranted because . . .” and then cites a series of evidences of incomplete change.
It was very surprising for Chapman to build the core of his argument around selectively citing the 3 tables (7.4 through 7.6; pp. 239-240) that show no change (which we openly admit) while completely ignoring the other tables on the related variables that show significant change (7.1 through 7.3; pp. 238-239) AND while completely ignoring all of the other variables measured (the balance of Chapter 7) on which statistically significant change and effect sizes ranging from small to large were demonstrated. It was in response to the broader pattern of evidence that we concluded that “change is possible for some” again and again through the book. Chapman says that “This study is littered with biased and sloppy scholarship,” but actually provides no evidence of this. Chapman and others who want to engage this work fairly need to respond to the overall pattern of our findings which, in contrast to the hypothesis that “change is impossible,” found many statistically significant changes and meaningful effect sizes on almost all of the measures of sexual orientation. How can an exclusive focus on those few instances where statistically significant change was not found be justified?
Chapman then turns to a rebuttal of our qualitative categorization of outcomes, focusing first on those we termed “Success: Conversion.” His core complaint is that some of these individuals report various forms of recurring homosexual attraction even as they also report satisfying heterosexual adjustment. Should individuals who report any sort of continuing homosexual attraction be considered to have changed? We discuss this matter throughout the book, but focus on it on pages 235-237 and 373-374, concluding that it is an unreasonable standard to deny that an individual has changed significantly if they experience any residual of homosexual desire. Chapman takes the stance that any signal of homosexual attraction indicates full and enduring homosexual orientation; this strikes us as a naïve and dichotomous understanding of sexual orientation. Further, such standards are not applied to other efforts at psychological change, and we believe they cannot and would not be so applied. Marital couples continue to struggle with conflict; persons with addictions continue to experience cravings. Put differently, the same sorts of standards that recognize significant change with other psychological patterns that are the subject of change attempts should hold for the area of sexual orientation as well.
Chapman then dismisses our conclusions about those who experienced a decrease in the potency of their homosexual desires and were able to embrace chastity, and who themselves considered this a successful outcome to the change process. Chapman suggests that we “accept asexuality as a functional opposite of homosexuality. Based on the depression analogy it appears that Jones and Yarhouse would declare a person ‘healed’ from depression if they ceased to have any and all emotions, for the person would no longer be intensely and persistently sad. I suspect the psychological community would define success in other ways.”
This is an important argument, to which we would respond in two ways. First, these individuals did not find themselves to be either devoid of all emotion entirely nor to be utterly asexual in the sense of being emotionally dead. Instead, their common testimony was of experiencing a diminishing of unwanted, powerful same-sex attractions, and that that decrease enhanced their experiences of satisfying emotional and relational connections with God and with other persons in non-erotic relationships. These people typically felt themselves more emotionally alive and healthy as a result of experiencing a decrease in homosexual attraction. Second, we must ask who has the authority to deny these individuals the opportunity to make their own choices about what they find satisfying in life? These individuals regard their adjustment to be successful; is Chapman positioned to assert his view of their lives over theirs? Yes, some of the subjects reported experiences discordant with their desires and hopes for complete change. But these individuals (except for the one who retracted his claim to change) did not see these experiences as negating the reality of positive change in their lives.
Chapman’s concluding paragraph deserves careful attention. We quote him, and then comment on each of his challenges:
- “Despite explicitly stating that this study cannot demonstrate whether long-lasting change is possible. . .” As stated above, this is NOT what we said. What we said was that our study could not prove change was permanent.
- “despite admitting that individuals in ex-gay ministries misreport their condition . . .” This is NOT what we said. Rather, we report in the book how some Exodus ministries urge their clients to reject the notion that their same-sex attractions mean that their identity is that of a homosexual person.
- “despite knowing that previous testimonies of change were untrue . . .” Rather, we recognize that some previous testimonies of change have proven to be untrue.
- “despite knowing that one of their own ‘Success: Conversion’ participants later recanted his proclaimed ‘conversion’ to heterosexuality. . .” As we say in the book, we report the data as it presents itself, as the experience of one person does not invalidate that of another. The experience of change of Alan Chambers, President of Exodus, does not invalidate Dr. Chapman’s experience that he did not change, and it is for this reason that we insist that the implication of our research is that change appears possible for some, specifically that “change is not impossible” (p. 365), and that our data does not prove “that everyone (or anyone) can change” (p. 372).
- “despite the fact that ‘Success: Conversion’ and ‘Success: Chastity’ participants retain a homosexual orientation (using Jones and Yarhouse’s own definition). . . ” Chapman has inadequate basis for this claim. He selectively picks counter-examples to the evidence of significant change, and ignores the direct evidence of change such as the reported changes summarized in the bar graph on page 296.
Given Chapman’s selective engagement with the data of our study—specifically by focusing only on a series of small slices of the results congruent with his skepticism about change—he responds incredulously to the fact that “the authors claim that homosexual orientation is changeable! Clearly their conclusion is not consistent with the evidence.” In contrast, Dr. Chapman; you appear to have reached your conclusion that our evidence proves that change is impossible by selective engagement with only those pieces of evidence that fit your conclusion. We, in contrast, engaged all of the data as a whole.
—
Following the organization of the original series, the final part of the response will address a focus on the results, examining if is is harmful (covered in the last part of Chapman’s critique).
“It was very surprising for Chapman to build the core of his argument around selectively citing the 3 tables (7.4 through 7.6; pp. 239-240) that show no change (which we openly admit)”
Really? You “openly admit that”? You mean when you say those results present a “more modest portrait of positive progress”? That’s openly admitting no change? Wow, I guess we all need to start taking such a literal understanding when we read your statements! Moderate positive progress = no change. You really should have provided a dictionary to help those of us who don’t speak your language.
I can only think the Lord for websites like this.
Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse, you shouldn’t have bothered to respond, we see through your lies.
Jones and Yarhouse:
That sounds so much easier than my ministry, which urges me to reject the notion that my physical body means that my identity is that of a human being.
I’ve enjoyed reading the initial response by Chapman and the rebuttals by Jones and Yarhouse. Thanks for setting this up, guys.
Also, Nick, good point. That’s a very good pick up if that’s the area in the book they are referring to.
Brieuse, we appreciate your kudos but please remember that debate is a necessary part of getting at the truth. We are glad to have had both Dr. Chapman’s critique and the response from Jones and Yarhouse. If you feel the information presented or the conclusions are incorrect, you are invited to point that out. Having the opportunity to do so in such a forum is a big part of what XGW is about.
Nice, Emproph. 8)
Given Chapman’s selective engagement with the data of our study…
Excuse me?
“Selective engagement” would well describe a study being marketed as proof of change in sexual orientation, when the study itself produces no such evidence; let alone long term evidence.
“Change” is as obviously devoid of ex-gay meaning as, apparently, “homosexual”.
How can an exclusive focus on those few instances where statistically significant change was not found be justified?
Quite obviously, because Jones and Yarhouse have chosen to themselves focus on the few instances of “statistically significant changes and meaningful effect sizes”.
Jones and Yarhouse are selectively crowing about sub-sets of data — sub-sets that are often contradicted by others of their own measures and contained in their own results.
“We got contradictory results” is the very best that could be claimed: hence, no proof.
we must ask who has the authority to deny these individuals the opportunity to make their own choices about what they find satisfying in life?
Oh yes, that new ex-gay myth.
(along with another variation of a new and utterly invented accusation of holding a “naïve and dichotomous understanding of sexual orientation”; and that coming from people who think of sexual orientation as a singularity — heterosexuality. eg)
Frankly this is not a accusation that may be made by someone such as Jones, with a long history of anti-gay activism, without irony. And Jones wasn’t being ironic.
Nobody is preventing anybody being as heterosexual as they can be. Go ahead, knock yourself out; if it so pleases you.
Compare this falsehood to what we do see from pro-conversion people : a load of bloated, manipulative claims about being able to turn homosexuals into heterosexuals.
I was very struck by some of the phrases J&Y quote from Chapman’s critique:
J&Y maintain these statements misrepresent what they actually admit, know, or state in their book. Not having read the book, I can’t speak to that question. But as a former ex-gay, I can certainly affirm that I frequently misreported my condition, overstated my testimony of change, and eventually had to recant my proclaimed conversion.
If I had taken part in a study like theirs 25 or 30 years ago, I would definitely have been counted in their Success: Conversion group: happily married, a father, and able to accept some “recurring homosexual attraction” without undue distress.
Had my orientation and attractions changed? Beyond my relationship with my wife, absolutely no. If an attractive man and woman walked down the sidewalk in bathing suits, there is no question on which my eyes would have stayed. Yet I never dwelled on that fact when I told my story.
That’s why I have trouble acknowledging even the most successful results of ex-gay minstries as evidence of any real, fundamental change in orientation. And why nothing I’ve read about J&Y’s findings makes me believe that they have documented even “some change.” Their description of change seems hedged with exactly the same qualifications I applied to myself 25 years ago.
Perhaps a second apology campaign is due. We’ve already had a number of former ex-gay leaders making public apologies for their past statements. Maybe some of us who stood up to say “I’ve changed” also need to come forward and admit that we weren’t telling the whole story.
THe Jones and Yarhouse position in a nutshell
I do not doubt that some of their participants are happy with their abilities to better align their behaviors with the doctrines of their faith. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with the APA’s claim that sexual orientation is not mutable.
It’s providing apples to argue against oranges.
Timothy,
Thank you for your succinct summing-up of the Jones and Yarhouse position.
I certainly didn’t choose to be gay, and it took me some years to come to terms with it, but I’ve now long been happy with my sexual orientation. Even if I weren’t, I would still much prefer to be a straightforward, honest-to-goodness homosexual rather than a quasi-heterosexual.
“persons with addictions continue to experience cravings.”
Excuse me, I used to be a smoker and a drunk and 3 years later I get no cravings whatsoever.
After the first 6 months, I sometimes wanted to smoke, and sometimes wanted to drink.
After the first year I was finally comfortable in a bar.
After 2 years I started dating a smoker: still no cravings!
After 3 years, I can use Listerine mouthwash without worrying I’ll start drinking again. Swish, spit, and no guilt.
Honestly, if we’re going to compare these “ex-gays” to someone with an addiction, let’s make the comparison fair.
These people are like smokers. They haven’t quit smoking, but they have certainly reduced their smoking to an acceptable level that makes them feel good about themselves. They don’t hang around other smokers, they don’t smoke in front of their children, they can even enjoy jogging and so forth without hacking up a lung, but they are still smokers. They smoke fewer cigarettes, that they rarely finish, they don’t buy cartons anymore, and they don’t carry lighters anymore.
But they are still smokers.
Let’s get this straight (perhaps the first thing that’s been straight in this post?) GAY PEOPLE DO NOT DEFINE THEMSELVES BY WHAT THEY DO, IT’S WHO WE’RE ATTRACTED TO.
SO, the only way to can demonstrate “change” is to change the definition of homosexuality to suit the premise.
People are “capable” of having enjoyable sexual contact with anyone who’s interested, that doesn’t make them gay or straight.
Having sex with a man doesn’t make me gay, WANTING to have sex with a man does!
So face it, until you can get a decent sample of people who have gone 180 degrees from completely gay, to completely straight. Until someone has lost any and all interest in the same gender, and is a ravenous water buffalo of desire for the opposite sex: you have no proof. You have no successes, you merely have people who have changed their minds about how they view something, and what they do about it.
There’s nothing wrong with someone wanting their behavior to line up with their beliefs, but this is bait and switch. This is like in advertisements when you see the word “Free*” with that asterix next to it and you read the note at the bottom in tiny print to find out that you have to do a bunch of things that cost time and money, negating the notion of “free” altogether.
So, you’re happy to declare they changed even though you don’t know if it’s permanent or if it’s them just saying they’re straight even though they experience homosexual attractions powerfully and exclusively. And people here don’t believe you? Strange.
And how do you know your testimonies are true?
Okay, considering ALL of this, HOW can the ex-gay industry at all use this as “proof” that gays can change? if anything this is a simple cheerleading tool to rah-rah on self-loathing homos on their ultimate journey of celibacy. Nothing in this text is at all groundbreaking. It would be easier for the ex-gay industry to just ignore this book and stick to using anecdotal evidence.
In response to David Roberts,
It’s quite difficult to debate the rubbish in the response by by Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse, however I can try…
In the many study cases involved, only a few seemed to have a complete reversal from homosexual to heterosexual. This they claim makes their case that change is possible. However what allowed that change?
Was it God or was there another reason? I’ve tried to change, I prayed most of my life to change. Why did God select these few out of the thousands? Surely my faith which is bigger than a mustard seed was sufficient?
My opinion that God is not part of the equation, so what would it be then?
a. Sheer fluke.
b. They weren’t homosexual to begin with.
or c. Confusion around the definition of “ex-gay”?
My feeling is that these “recovery” programs are actually promoting asexuality. Their sales pitch is obviously implying complete reversal from homosexuality otherwise nobody would approach them. ie. A money making scheme driven by implanting guilt in the victims. Is that biblical? Isn’t celibacy a personal choice and not a requirement?
It’s quite obvious that nobody is “healed” if you consider that many of their leaders have “fallen”, God doesn’t seem to want to “heal” homosexuals if you take the statistics into consideration. On the other hand, is celibacy for everybody a healthy decision? Doesn’t the APA talk about mental problems arising from removing your sexuality from yourself? Would God approve of that?
“Rather, we report in the book how some Exodus ministries urge their clients to reject the notion that their same-sex attractions mean that their identity is that of a homosexual person.” – what on earth are they trying to suggest here? Obviously not all people who have SSA are homosexual, many are bisexual and many have Sexual Identity Disorder. However, the majority ARE homosexual. To say that because a few fulfill the aforementioned cases that all do, is deceptive and wrong.
“First, these individuals did not find themselves to be either devoid of all emotion entirely nor to be utterly asexual in the sense of being emotionally dead. Instead, their common testimony was of experiencing a diminishing of unwanted, powerful same-sex attractions, and that that decrease enhanced their experiences of satisfying emotional and relational connections with God and with other persons in non-erotic relationships. These people typically felt themselves more emotionally alive and healthy as a result of experiencing a decrease in homosexual attraction.” – Of course they won’t be devoid of all emotion – as emotion and sexuality are two different things with close ties with each other. In being fooled into thinking they are better with God they feel happier. Unfortunately that bliss doesn’t last long when you realise that you are now 50 years old and are lonely.
“Second, we must ask who has the authority to deny these individuals the opportunity to make their own choices about what they find satisfying in life? These individuals regard their adjustment to be successful; is Chapman positioned to assert his view of their lives over theirs? Yes, some of the subjects reported experiences discordant with their desires and hopes for complete change. But these individuals (except for the one who retracted his claim to change) did not see these experiences as negating the reality of positive change in their lives.” – I’d like to ask who has the authority to force people via mental bribery to “change” what they find satisfying in life?
“These individuals regard their adjustment to be successful” – of course they do, they have been so brainwashed into believing they are living in accordance with God’s Will, that they feel “success”. I really feel for those as that feeling of bliss doesn’t last long as sexuality is an inherent part of everybody.
So their sexual feelings decreased. Period. There was NOT an increase in sexual feelings of the heterosexual variety. ONLY a decrease in sexual feelings altogether.
In other words, people got closer to becoming asexual, as was stated previously in the comments.
J&Y, there’s no other way to “spin” it without simply omitting information. People stopped being sexually attracted to other humans. Period. I’ve heard this several times from ex-ex-gays who’ve described what they thought was their “healing” process, when really ultimately it was their numbing process.
Just a random thought I had reading the critiques and the rebuttals.
Studies in ‘change in sexual orientation’ at the least should be performed in another few angles, such as from bisexuality to asexuality, or heterosexuality to homosexuality.
But by using the word “ex-gay” as an approach to the studies and having its subjects from Exodus, it already destroyed the credibility of any of the research development here, because the perceived and hoped results would be ‘HAVING REDUCED HOMOSEXUAL DESIRES’ or ‘STOPPED HOMOSEXUAL TENDENCIES’ as a absolute definition of CHANGE.
Therefore when Jones and Yarhouse said…
… to place neutrality into the study hypothesis, their expression of the results seemed rather….
… annoyingly all too common a dogma?
I don’t know why this is being debated – the study is too flawed to pass the peer-review process of a major publisher; academic debate ends there. That is why they went to a religious book publisher – Inter-Varsity Press. If Jones and Yarhouse really wanted to demonstrate the veracity of their claims, they would have submitted their findings and book to the greater academic community through a medium that allowed honest and frank criticism. Since they didn’t, their findings must a priori be treated as suspicious – what are they trying to hide? I think they didn’t submit it to an truly academic publisher because they knew that their findings would have been vitiated due to their sloppy methodology and meager results. Their refusal to participate in the culture of science, despite couching their “study” in the language of science (i.e., our hypothesis), is a further demonstration that the exgay movement’s claims cannot stand up to close scrutiny by qualified reviewers. So they resort to spouting fluff and smoke, making baseless statements of change when their own study finds no significant change. Delusion is a powerful master.
Peter B,
I agree. True science is self-correcting. Each new bit of information helps define the edges, the middle, the parameters.
Real scientists publish their results in a peer-reviewed journal specifically to find the things they may have missed. Real scientists can remove their ego and have the introspection enough to know that they are blind to their own flaws, so they need others to search them out, all so that at the end of the day what scientists are doing is answering questions effectively, not simply supporting their own selfish agenda.
A great example:
We test automobiles for flaws in the design so that people don’t get killed. We don’t come up with a new car design, produce and sell it without testing it. In those crash tests they are looking for flaws in the design, imperfections that need to be addressed before you put real people behind the wheel. The idea is to break the car, not so they can make fun of the designer, but so they can refine the design so that it becomes safer, stronger, more durable, and therefore a better car for the consumer.
Anyone can do a survey, study, or gather research. But a real scientist, a real researcher, someone who is honestly interested in getting at the truth does not skip peer-review.
By skipping peer review, they are essentially suggesting that their study is without flaws, that all issues are handled and bullet-proof. The fact that laymen at ex-gay watch and box-turtle bulletin have been able to highlight the flaws in this study certainly shows that J&Y purposefully avoided peer-review. If Laymen can find the flaws and point them out, there’s no way it would survive peer review. They are more interested in getting their names out there, getting people to believe their faulty conclusions than they are at finding any scientific proof of their claims.
So J&Y have metaphorically put a car on road before it’s been tested, and none of us should be surprised by the spiritual carnage that results.
Jones and Yarhouse claim that they were unable to find a secular publisher and so resorted to InterVarsity Press. I don’t doubt that they did try for more wide-reaching publishers – if nothing else, better editing would have caught many of the typographical errors.
Well not finding a secular publisher could suggest many things.
1) It did not fit within the scope of the journal in question.
2) Publisher was unwilling to publish for whatever reason.
3) Publisher would taking longer than desired to include in journal (delayed publishing).
4) The publishers in question might have standards and guidelines that J&Y either failed to meet, or their research fails to meet.
5) Some other reason.
Do they include any evidence in the book directly dealing with the “why” or do they simply say they couldn’t find one?
It’s good that they are responding, but the responses sound rather…..shifty. They sound an awful lot like “I didn’t say he was guilty, I said he was not innocent.” I call this semantic gymnastics.
Jason,
The reason given by Jones and Yarhouse is that secular publishers were afraid of being a target of an attack by homosexuals and their supporters.
Incidentally, they were looking for a book publisher, not a journal publisher.
“Incidentally, they were looking for a book publisher, not a journal publisher.”
Ah, so they did skip the peer-review process intentionally, then. Interesting.
Jason,
As critical as I am of the conclusions of the study, I think you are drawing conclusions that are not necessarily accurate. There are a great many reasons one might write a book rather than a journal article.
Timothy, I agree, there are a lot of reasons.
But as I stated above, science is self-correcting, and real scientists, people interested in furthering our knowledge and understanding of the world do not skip the peer-review process, they rely on it. They utilize it to further refine and perfect their data, research, experiments, and most importantly — their conclusions.
J&Y chose not to have their work peer-reviewed. At first you made it sound as if they were not able to, but then explained that they didn’t even try.
You said yourself that they were looking for a book publisher, not a peer reviewed journal. That is skipping the peer-review process.
I don’t care what their motives were, but it’s quite obvious what their motives were NOT, it was not in the interests of furthering our understanding of the world around us. I’m not a scientist, I flunked physics in college the first time and barely passed on my second attempt. But even I know how important it is to scientific progress to have others look over your work. It’s part of the scientific method, for crying out loud.
It was unethical of them to release this into the public square where it can do untold damage. As I stated in my example, it is the equivalent of putting a car on the market without testing the safety and effectiveness of it’s design.
I’d agree Timothy — there are indeed many reasons why anyone may legitimately prefer to write a book rather than an article for an established paper journal.
Perhaps, in this case, as in so many others, the most salient could be because it gave complete control over what got said; without the annoyance of running the gauntlet of a hostile or sceptical peer reviewer. Journal editors can be (and, generally, rightfully so) a rather jaundiced group, particularly with those subjects or authors already known to be contentious. Journals are generally attempting to find resolution to questions, rather than courting — first and foremost — publicity for a cause. There’s always a bit of room for controversy, or a bit of gingering people along, but that’s very different to getting a reputation for publishing nonsense, or promoting basically unsupported advocacy of non-science.
(Your highlighting of the uncaught typographical errors being one of such clues etc).
Many great scientists have written books that proved to be enormously influential. The format can give free reign for a wide-reaching summation of a body of work by an (initially) idiosyncratic but also thoroughly insightful author.
Jones and Yarhouse are not, and “Ex-Gays” is not.
(I’ve been trying to think of a case where such a breakthrough book wasn’t written by an already highly respected scientist, and that didn’t crumble to pieces with even a layman critique. I cannot. There must be, surely, but I cannot name one at the moment. Anyone?)
aaah, me too slow… meant to add:
On the Origin of Species together with The Descent of Man being two perfect examples of breakthrough books by an established and highly respected scientist.
I had a dream about this thread. There wasn’t much to remember but the format of the logic it contained unsurprisingly reflects what I’ve been thinking of late about this whole “exchange.”
This story line is made up, but this is the gist of what I dreampt,
*Jones and Yarhouse*:
Normally my dreams are not so plain.
~~~
*PS, again, that is not a Jones and Yarhouse quote, nor does it have anything to do with Patrick Chapman. It is completely made up by me, Emproph. And yes that is my real moniker.
From what I understand, the APA has (repeatedly) asked reparative therapists to produce acceptable studies for their claims of change; one could almost see the APA daring Exodus and NARTH to back up their claims with evidence. Instead, Jones and Yarhouse publish their “book” through a religious publisher. This doesn’t automatically de-legitimize their research, but certainly casts a cloud over their results. One has to wonder who the audience of “Ex-Gays?” really is. Given the venue, I don’t think that they are trying to convince the APA or any other person qualified to comment on their “finding”. Instead, like much in the Ex-gay industry, this book is geared to increase the PR value of the religio-political affiliations of the authors. As a scientific text, I would suggest that “Ex-gays?” is practically worthless. As a religious and political tract, it is quite the opposite.
Concerning finding a publisher…
As my supervisor once said (a paraphrase): the degree of confidence you have in your work will determine who you seek out to disseminate your results. Go for the best publishers because you should be doing good work.
Most publishers will publish just about anything – provided it is of high quality (even then…). I just feel that Jones and Yarhouse automatically precluded that a “secular” publisher would not be interested in their work. While there may be reasons for why a publisher may not want to put out a book on this type of research (i.e., backlash), I am a firm believer that good evidence has the power to convince even the most severe critic (provided they are a true scholar and scientist, i.e., open to correction). I have believed many things in the past that I don’t anymore because I have been persuaded by evidence. If Jones and Yarhouse could demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Psychological community that they have documented “change”, I would hope that the APA (and the rest of us) would be satisfied that change is possible. That is a big “IF” however. Instead of producing the evidence to support their claims, they produce a tract without much substance. The peer-review process, which many respectable book publishers already do, makes sure that your claims match your evidence. Maybe that is the real reason they didn’t go to a respectable publisher, and the claim of a publisher’s fear of release such a volatile book is just a red herring.
As a transgender, asexual myself, who lived years assuming I was heterosexual, I can personally confirm that people around us can easily sway our mind to accept heterosexuality if all others are labeled nonexistent. Ex-gays certainly label “Christian homosexual” as nonexistent. But there’s nothing like sitting down with a clear picture of aroused genitalia of the opposite sex to set you straight. Er, not-straight.
Regarding long-range vs permanent, somehow, I haven’t heard any press , let alone Exodus, say “temporary change is possible!” Do J&Y really mean this study is only “longitudinal” in the sense of the three years which it covered? The scientific community, Exodus, gays in counseling, and critics of ex-gays won’t get that impression.
There a several groups who will buy this “book.”
1. Political leaders looking to “prove” that gay people do not have to exist and therefore should be ignored or marginalized.
2. Religious leaders who are ignorant about science and want “cover” for their religious preconceptions.
3. Parents and grandparents who want desperately to believe that their gay kids or grandkids can “change back” into heterosexuals. i.e. the people who go to the “Love Wins Out” dog and pony show.
4. People who love to collect junk science.
It’s a book published inside a bubble for people who wish to remain inside that bubble.
I may find their claims of martyrdom a bit hystronic, but I suspect that they did engage David Vigliano. I have no idea of his competence or what the real reasons for not getting a secular publisher, but I also have no reason to think they didn’t try.
Everything you need to know about whether the study is being used in a fraudulent way can be found in this statement from above
Tables 7.1 through 7.3 are based on the question “what do you call yourself”. Tables 7.4 through 7.6 are based on a question “Because some people don’t identify with their orientation, what is your orientation” (paraphrased)
THe tables that J&Y like, 7.1 – 7.3 report that participants changed what they call themself.
This is where they got the figure that 33% reported improvement. I notice that in the press release, and even above, they are hiding the fact that the improvement was ONLY in labeling.
Tables 7.4 – 7.6 report that while they called themself something new, they recognize that their orientation had not changed.
J&Y are “surprised” that Chapman based his observations on orientation rather than identity? No, I dont’ think they are surprised about that at all.
All the comments about peer review and secular publishing seem to be missing the point that J&Y’s work is not essentially a secular work. It is a study about the effectiveness of religious ministries to affect a change in sexual orientation. Would we really expect peer review for a study that essentially rates how often God chooses to intercede in people’s sexuality? It is one thing to study the effectiveness of reparative therapy, but something else again to scientifically evaluate the efficacy of religion.
Howller, peer review is one of the most important ways to determine accuracy. If anything religious can’t be under that blanket, there is a problem with the truth.
Very good point.
I’ve also been wondering, what exactly do those “religious” therapy sessions consist of?
And if a simple lack of libido is considered a “religious” success, aren’t there drugs that can take care of that?
Anyone who has actually submitted work to “peer review” knows how political that process ALWAYS is.
Jason and Peter B are clearly not scholars or scientists, and this is why they have such a mythological view of scientific process.
There’s a large literature in the sociology and anthropology of science and intellectuals that you might want to consult–Bruno Latour is a good starting place.
Scientists and scholars who “peer review” are, before they are anything else, human beings involved in moral interaction with other human beings, where values and biases and conflicts are omnipresent.
The bunch who think the APA’s professional stance is somehow the God’s eye view of the matter and the end of the discussion are just demonstrating that they don’t know very much about what they’re talking about.
I can’t speak for the co-accused, but my view may be Idealized, yes; tentatively Realist (as opposed to a committed Social Constructionist?), yes; but Mythological,… hmm.
Instead of making ad hominem attacks (you don’t know me, so I will let your accusation pass unanswered), what is your opinion of Jones and Yarhouse’s study? Are you impressed? Why, or why not?
I won’t say that Rationalism (which science is a participating member of) can “evaluate” religion, but it can certainly make judgments concerning its claims. By studying the phenomenon of “ex-gays” and their claims of change, researchers are not judging religion. Understandably, if a particular religion or group makes a demonstratively false claim, or a claim that lacks sufficient evidentiary support to be considered probable, then its credibility is naturally suspect. The inability of the Ex-gay movement to produce results of an acceptable standard (the “peer-review”) impinges upon its ability to make the authoritative pronouncements that it is prone to do concerning the efficacy of Reparative (or any other kind of reorientation) therapy.
Look, tell me if I’m wrong about this:
the peer review process doesn’t judge whether J&Y’s results are credible, or whether or not they are to be believed. It judges the methodology by which the data was obtained. This isn’t like the results of the study would be presented to the APA board with a note that said “am I credible to you? Tell me, yes or no!” The process is meant to critique the means by which the results and conclusions were reached.
Stanton and Mark:
You stated, “we insist that the implication of our research is that change appears possible for some, specifically that “change is not impossible” (p. 365), and that our data does not prove “that everyone (or anyone) can change” (p. 372).”
I’m trying to wrap my mind around the above.
Let us suppose that the APA was considering the following statements for issuance:
1. Change from fully heterosexual orientation to fully homosexual orientation, and vice-versa, is not possible.
2. Change from fully heterosexual orientation to fully homosexual orientation, and vice-versa, has not been proven statistically significant, and is therefore deemed very highly unlikely.
3. Change from fully heterosexual to mixed heterosexual orientation (occasionally attracted to same-sex) is possible.
4. Change from fully homosexual to mixed homosexual orientation (occasionally attracted to opposite sex) is possible.
Are you then saying that your study shows that #4 occurred, and therefore that #1 should be suspected of being too broad of a statement?
Are you implying that the APA should be making a more circumspect statement, perhaps such as #2 above?
What still bothers me is how the results of these kinds of ‘research’ represents us, especially when the test subjects may not be homosexuals to start with. For example, I am a Chinese. I have this bright yellowish pigmentation on me. Then someone researches on Michael Jackson and comes out with this study, concluding African Americans may be able to ‘change’ and become Whites.
But even though it has nothing to do with me, people would think I too have the ‘choice’ to become all White, even though I am biologically born a Chinese. Disturbing philosophy is it not? Worse of all, people who believe is such studies would tell me, ‘It is okay. You can be Chinese. Just stop behaving like one and you would be a normal White.’ It is like telling me to forget about my own being.
I have the same concerns whenever people make the argument that “sexuality is fluid.” oftentimes this comes from a socially liberal person open to their own bisexuality – but occasionally you’ll hear it as an argument from an ex-gay describing themselves.
The thing is, maybe sexuality is fluid for YOU – but why should that apply to me? And, if sexuality is indeed fluid, does that mean it’s acceptable for straight people to explore any gay feelings they might have?
The ex-gay would say “no.”
Good point. I see a lot of ex-gays also describing something about their own life, perhaps issues they had that distorted their view of sex, etc. and what they did to help get past it. They then bottle this up and claim to know that you have a problem, and here is the cure.
Sharing a personal story of change or improvement is perfectly valid – enforcing the same template on others is not. Misusing data to make it sound effective is even worse.
If Jones and Yarhouse were going to publish this study in a journal, it would have to be a whole lot shorter. This would eliminate much of the tortured reasoning about how people who are still attracted to the same sex are not homosexual or bisexual.
The other thing that Jones and Yarhouse would have difficulty doing in a peer review journal would be to publish results that say one thing, but claim that they mean something else. Peer reviewers in general are very skeptical, regardless of what claims are made in journal articles. I can’t imagine that any peer reviewer with any backbone would read the results of this study and allow Jones and Yarhouse to present this data and claim that these subjects went from homosexual to heterosexual.