The following is a copy of a letter we sent to the editor of Christian Today (not Christianity Today). It was about an article they published by Paul Huxley, the communications manager at Christian Concern. These are both Christian organizations in the UK. Mr. Huxley was wrong in his reading of a study recently published by The Guardian and wrong on multiple issues of fact.
The article is misleading and a good example of when bias and ideology cause one to hastily evaluate new data. Unfortunately, when met with the facts in a twitter exchange, he simply stopped responding. The article is still on their site, though it has dropped from #1 to last place overnight which I find interesting.
Dear Xia-Maria Mackay,
I write in response to Paul Huxley’s article, “The ‘born gay’ myth is dead.” While the piece offers a thought-provoking perspective on sexual identity fluidity, it conflates sexual identity with sexual orientation, which are distinct aspects of sexuality.
Sexual identity, shaped by personal, societal, and cultural influences, refers to how individuals label their own sexuality. It’s not uncommon for this label to change over time as individuals navigate self-discovery.
Conversely, sexual orientation, an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions, is an ingrained part of one’s personality. It emerges independently of any prior sexual experience and is not a matter of choice nor subject to change.
The article’s conflation of these terms will most certainly lead to misunderstanding. A change in sexual identity does not equate to a change in sexual orientation. Moreover, the fluidity of identity should not be used to argue that sexual orientation can be altered through interventions like conversion therapy, a practice discredited by major medical and psychological organizations due to its potential harm.
For accurate and nuanced discussions on sexuality, it’s crucial to understand and respect these distinctions. Please consider removing, or at least amending, this article as it currently does not represent the facts and will most certainly mislead readers.
I understand that such a provocative subject, particularly in its current errant form, will likely bring you increased traffic, but at what cost to the integrity of your publication?