# Can gays go straight? Science says yes **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 9, 2001, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-gays-go-straight-science-says-yes/64878 "2001-05-09T14:50:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2001, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-gays-go-straight-science-says-yes/64878/261 "2001-05-16T19:06:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by puddleglum \* > **I find it far likelier that good psychologists and psychiatrists will be spurred on by this study and reevaluate their attitudes in this area in light of this study.** I find that unlikely. This study proves nothing and provides no new information that can be applied to the development of clinical treatement protocols for dystonic homosexuality. The fact that people can change their sexual behavior if sufficiently motivated is not new, and there is a large mass of existing research supporting the conclusion that “conversion therapy” is unlikely to be effective, is likely to be harmful, and probably offers overall no better results than “no therapy”. Thus, a competent psychologist’s procedures and practices will not be altered by the information presented in this study. ---
**Author:** ![Pabitel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbce88/32.png) [@Pabitel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pabitel)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2001, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-gays-go-straight-science-says-yes/64878/262 "2001-05-16T19:20:23Z")
Well I guess I did my job too well. The puddle won’t even reply to me anymore. Well it’s been fun but since I don’t go in for necrophiliac sadomasochistic bestiality I think I won’t be back. ---
**Author:** ![MrVisible](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@MrVisible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrVisible)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2001, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-gays-go-straight-science-says-yes/64878/263 "2001-05-16T19:21:45Z")
> [@](#): > > Because it is my belief that an over 5 page thread smacks of self indulgence this will be my final post to this thread. You’re right. Starting a debate on a subject you don’t understand, using evidence from questionable sources, and then refusing to listen to any perspective that challenges your firmly-established viewpoint is self-indulgent to an extreme. > [@](#): > > If anyone would like to start a seperate thread on any of this issues raised in this one please go ahead. There have been no issues raised in this thread. The content of the thread, if you care to review it, consists of well-informed, erudite people trying to persuade you that your information is pseudoscience with an obvious and harmful political agenda. There has been some excellent information presented, some cogent analyses of psychological methodology, and some brilliant repartee. If only you’d been able to appreciate the effort that’s been taken to disabuse you of some particularly pernicious ignorance, you might be grateful. Whatever your motivations for dropping out of the discussion you started, doing so in the course of a post which attempts to refute others’ points in the debate is impolite, at best. If you wish to withdraw, fine. What you did is an attempt to get the last word in. And thanks for providing the NARTH links; your political agenda has been obvious throughout the discussion, but linking to those sites as if they were potential sources of reliable information calls into question your entire perspective on objective scientific research. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2001, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-gays-go-straight-science-says-yes/64878/264 "2001-05-16T22:52:01Z")
I just looked at the NARTH website. I’m straight and what I read there pissed me off. According to them, gays are people who “fail to function according to design.” I guess celibates and anyone who uses birth control would fall into that category too. ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2001, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-gays-go-straight-science-says-yes/64878/265 "2001-05-17T13:15:17Z")
Puddle, So, you are going to stop claiming that this report you love is science? Good! Our work here is done, Tanto. Triskasabe. Hi Ho Silver, away! ---
**Author:** ![Tominator2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e36b37/32.png) [@Tominator2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tominator2)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2001, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-gays-go-straight-science-says-yes/64878/266 "2001-05-17T17:44:40Z")
> [@](#): > > _andygirl said:_ I know these things because I have done research on many of the “ex-gay” sites. I have read accounts and interviews and spoken to many ex-ex-gays. I’ve been researching therapy out of curiosity as well as for a play that I am writing for over a year now. You neglected to provide any cites. ---
**Author:** ![andygirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a9adbd/32.png) [@andygirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andygirl)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2001, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-gays-go-straight-science-says-yes/64878/267 "2001-05-18T00:27:59Z")
Might I ask how I can prove that I’ve been doing research, if you don’t accept that I am knowledgable about conversion therapy through my previous posts and actions? Actually, I’m not even sure what you want me to prove. That I’m a lesbian? That I have written plays? That I know what I’m talking about? If you want me to prove that I have done research… well, I’m afraid that the best I can do is give you a bunch of links about conversion therapy. And no, I have no way to prove that I’ve read them. :rolleyes: **ex-gay websites** [http://members.aol.com/stndgstone/Stones/StndgStone.html](http://members.aol.com/stndgstone/Stones/StndgStone.html) [http://www.exodusnorthamerica.org/](http://www.exodusnorthamerica.org/) [http://www.stonewallrevisited.com/](http://www.stonewallrevisited.com/) > **[Courage](https://couragerc.org/)** > > Encounter Christ. Discover yourself. Grow in holiness. A Roman Catholic apostolate for men and women who experience same-sex attractions and those who love them. [http://whole-man.org/renew\_intro.htm](http://whole-man.org/renew_intro.htm) [http://www.narth.com/](http://www.narth.com/) [http://www.gaytostraight.org](http://www.gaytostraight.org) [http://www.straight.org](http://www.straight.org) [http://www.evergreen-intl.org](http://www.evergreen-intl.org) In particular, you might want to look at: [http://www.messiah.edu/hpages/facstaff/chase/h/articles/regenera/books.htm](http://www.messiah.edu/hpages/facstaff/chase/h/articles/regenera/books.htm) [http://www.narth.com/docs/threatto.html](http://www.narth.com/docs/threatto.html) > **[Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) - Help, hope & community...](https://www.pfox.org/)** > > Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays (PFOX) is a national non-profit organization committed to helping ex-gays and parents and friends of gays who want help, hope and community. [http://www.freetobeme.com/](http://www.freetobeme.com/) **Sites that discuss repairative therapy from a secular perspective** [http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom\_exod.htm](http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_exod.htm) [http://www.aglbic.org/](http://www.aglbic.org/) [http://www.findarticles.com/m1175/2\_32/53985474/p1/article.jhtml](http://www.findarticles.com/m1175/2_32/53985474/p1/article.jhtml) [http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts\_changing.html](http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_changing.html) [http://www.sfweekly.com/extra/beyond/nicolosi1.html](http://www.sfweekly.com/extra/beyond/nicolosi1.html) [http://www.truluck.com/](http://www.truluck.com/) I’m sure that you’ll find any news source has many articles about the recent study and it’s criticisms, so I’m not going to bother linking any. And while you’re at it, go watch _But I’m a Cheerleader._ Happy reading. ---
**Author:** ![486](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/ecccb3/32.png) [@486](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/486)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2001, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-gays-go-straight-science-says-yes/64878/268 "2001-05-18T06:43:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Esprix \* > Anybody have links to some of the tragic failures of the ex-gay movement? This probably isnt exactly what you were looking for, but found a few pages about failures of ‘Conversion’ and ‘ex-gay’ groups…interesting thing is most of these pages seem to be on what appear to be gay related sites. Anyone who thinks that these so called ex-gay groups can ‘cure’ gayness should take a while to visit some of these links…you may find them interesting: - [Why Reparative Therapy And Ex-Gay Ministries Fail](http://www.hrc.org/pubs/exgay_ministries/change.html) - [exgay’s story](http://www.rixartz.com/exgay.html) - [The “Ex-Gay” Fraud](http://www.truluck.com/html/the __ex-gay__ fraud.html) - [The Ex Files: Not Your Usual Gays](http://www.indegayforum.org/articles/pietrzyk1.html) - [Those Not Very “Ex” Gays](http://www.indegayforum.org/articles/varnell65.html) A joke I found, but it shows how ridiculous ‘conversion therapy’ is: -[Straight to Gay Conversion](http://www.dogwomble.worfie.net/stgct/main.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Tominator2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e36b37/32.png) [@Tominator2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tominator2)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2001, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-gays-go-straight-science-says-yes/64878/269 "2001-05-18T14:15:04Z")
> [@](#): > > Actually, I’m not even sure what you want me to prove. I only ask that the same criteria that have been used in this thread be applied to your posts. > [@](#): > > That I’m a lesbian? It would most likely be impossible to prove that to yourself, much less me. According to Pyrrho12, you could have a case of confused sexuality. According to Degrance or KellyM, you could be hetero, but in denial. According to hansel it’s possible you may not know your sexual identity. According to Triskademus you’re using ill-defined words and unsubstantiated personal anecdotes. According to Myrr21, you could be giving misinformation. In fact, now that I’ve read this thread, I’m half-convinced no one knows what their sexual orientation is, could figure it out, or could tell anybody else what it was. But dammit! it can’t be changed. > [@](#): > > That I have written plays? Sounds like fun. Good luck. > [@](#): > > That I know what I’m talking about? Given the impossibly high level of scholarship demanded in this thread, there’s no way you could prove that. After seeing Dr. Spitzer, an established professional in the field, accused of the basest incompetence (sampling bias, misuse of statistics, failure to control for misrepresentation, inability to recognize a false positive), it would appear that nobody could possibly know anything. How could anybody, as even a highly competent professional is a moron within his own field? And this is a paper that has been accepted at a (peer-reviewed) conference. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2001, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-gays-go-straight-science-says-yes/64878/270 "2001-05-18T14:31:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tominator2 \* > \*\*And this is a paper that has been accepted at a (peer-reviewed) conference. \*\* It has been accepted **for** peer review. This does not mean that it’s good science. It simply means that it appears to fit the criteria for a study of this type. This doesn’t mean that a similar study done to test the hypothesis will come out the same way. That’s unknown yet. The OP and the title of the thread make assumptions about this study that aren’t givens yet. The peer-review hasn’t been completed; in fact, it’s barely begun. Spitzer just presented this for review a few days ago. No reputable scientist would accept a fellow scientist speaking about his recently-completed and currently unreviewed study as if it were absolute truth and a done deal (I’m not saying Dr. Spitzer has talked about it like that, but Puddleglum has certainly characterized it as such, albeit with later backpedalling). jayjay ---
**Author:** ![Pyrrho12](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b2d939/32.png) [@Pyrrho12](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pyrrho12)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2001, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-gays-go-straight-science-says-yes/64878/271 "2001-05-18T15:55:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tominator2 \* > After seeing Dr. Spitzer, an established professional in the field, accused of the basest incompetence (sampling bias, misuse of statistics, failure to control for misrepresentation, inability to recognize a false positive), Two points, Tominator. First of all, I do not think that any of the items that you list count as “basest incompetence”. Study design in psychology is a very difficult field, as I have noted above. I’m not even sure that it is possible to design a study that would be immune to methodological criticisms. All of the problems you mention are major issues in research psychology; none of them are mere trivialities that can be whisked completely away by any second year grad student on the street. Secondly, I don’t recall actually accusing Dr. Spitzer of any of these things. What I have stated is that given the amount of information provided by the article in the OP, it is impossible to determine what checks were in place to guard against such things as sampling bias, misrepresentation, false positives, and so on. If you disagree with this statement, please point out where in the article these aspects of the survey protocol are detailed. Without knowledge of the methods used by Dr.Spitzer, I have no way of personally judging the validity of his results. Or do you think I should judge these results by the man’s title rather than by his methods? See the link I provided for **puddleglum** regarding genetic fallacies. It is the methods, and not the man, that I am interested in. Right now, let’s deal with specifics. It appears that you object to my contention that, given the details of the study that were presented in the article linked by **puddleglum** , sufficient data regarding the original sexuality of the subjects was not collected. Is it correct that you object to this? I stand by my contention. All of the subjects in the study claimed that they were gay at some point in the past. However, from what I read, the study did not define “gayness” at all. According to other researchers (Masters and Johnson I believe), human sexual prefrence ranges from strongly heterosexual to strongly homosexual, with many people falling in between. The results of Spitzer’s study might not be so suprising if it turned out that none of the subjects were strong-homosexual to begin with. Since this data does not appear to have been measured, there’s no way of knowing. **Tominator2** , what is your take on this? Do you think that this knowledge is important for the purpose of interpreting the study? If not, please let me know where you disagree with me. Here’s another point about the design of this study, one which I didn’t properly articulate in my previous post. The study doesn’t appear to control for too many variables. There are people who claim to have gone from gay to straight, they have all been involved with conversion therapies, and that’s about it. This isn’t a problem, _per se_, since this study was never meant to be strictly controlled. However, it does mean that there are very real limits on how far we can interpret the data. As I postulated in my last post, the change enacted by the survey participants may have been the result of their conversion therapy. It may also have been the result of the innate characteristics of the participants themselves. It may have been because of environmental factors. Since this study lacks controls, there’s no way of telling which variables are affecting which other ones, or even if there are commonalities which bind all the participants together (other than the obvious two). Do you agree that because of the way this survey was designed, it is impossible to use it as evidence to support certain conclusions? I hope, **Tominator2** , that after reading this you will understand my opinion of the survey and my objections to **puddleglum** ’s interpretation of it a bit more. Oh, and with regard to **andygirl** ’s lesbianism… if I were in doubt as to how she was using the term, I suppose I could simply ask her “So… I guess that means you like chicks, eh?” That question should provide sufficient information for my prurient curiosity. ---
**Author:** ![Tominator2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e36b37/32.png) [@Tominator2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tominator2)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2001, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-gays-go-straight-science-says-yes/64878/272 "2001-05-18T18:55:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*jayjay sez:\*It has been accepted for peer review. It was my impression that it had been accepted to a peer-reviewed conference, although not to a refereed publication. If not, my mistake. > [@](#): > > \*Pyrrho12 sez:\*Secondly, I don’t recall actually accusing Dr. Spitzer of any of these things. What I have stated is that given the amount of information provided by the article in the OP, it is impossible to determine what checks were in place to guard against such things as sampling bias, misrepresentation, false positives, and so on. If you disagree with this statement, please point out where in the article these aspects of the survey protocol are detailed. It’s not that I disagree with the statement, it’s that I disagree with the conclusions drawn from it. To wit, that, since the article does not state what checks Dr. Spitzer had in place, that he did not have any. It’s entirely possible he had none, and his study is as flawed as some have claimed. But given that he’s an expert in the field, I think it’s sensible to assume that he gave it the old college try. Is this logically airtight? No. Is it a reasonable assumption under the circumstances? IMHO, yes. > [@](#): > > Right now, let’s deal with specifics. It appears that you object to my contention that, given the details of the study that were presented in the article linked by puddleglum, sufficient data regarding the original sexuality of the subjects was not collected. Is it correct that you object to this? Not exactly. I’m willing to suspend judgement on whether he got this right, pending further peer review. What I object to is the argument that he couldn’t possibly have gotten this right. These arguments came out to be:[ul][li]the respondents were lying[_]they were deceiving themselves[_]hi opal! (I never get to do that)they experienced a failure of introspection[/ul]Any of these failures could be levelled against pretty much any psychological study in order to invalidate it (including the studies that oppose Dr. Spitzer’s). At this point the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater - no research into these issues is possible. That’s the heart of my issue - that the thread has raised the bar for knowledge so high that no study could clear it, while also claiming to have that knowledge.[/li][quote] As I postulated in my last post, the change enacted by the survey participants may have been the result of their conversion therapy. It may also have been the result of the innate characteristics of the participants themselves. It may have been because of environmental factors. Since this study lacks controls, there’s no way of telling which variables are affecting which other ones, or even if there are commonalities which bind all the participants together (other than the obvious two). [/quote] This is an excellent analysis of a possible flaw in the experiment. I wouldn’t be surprised if something of the kind were the case. Of course, any followup study would be virulently opposed by this thread, and any conclusion it might draw would be invalidated using the same criticisms used to attack this study. > [@](#): > > Do you agree that because of the way this survey was designed, it is impossible to use it as evidence to support certain conclusions? Certainly. My issue is simply that, as this thread has defined it, knowledge of the relevant sort is impossible. For example, let’s analyze your attempt to determine andygirl’s lesbian status. You call andygirl up and… > [@](#): > > I suppose I could simply ask her “So… I guess that means you like chicks, eh?” That question should provide sufficient information for my prurient curiosity. According to the analyses presented on this thread, it is impossible for andygirl to give an accurate answer about her sexual orientation to either you or even to herself. ---
**Author:** ![Pyrrho12](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/b2d939/32.png) [@Pyrrho12](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pyrrho12)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2001, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-gays-go-straight-science-says-yes/64878/273 "2001-05-18T21:31:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tominator2 \* > It’s not that I disagree with the statement, it’s that I disagree with the conclusions drawn from it. To wit, that, since the article does not state what checks Dr. Spitzer had in place, that he did not have any. I don’t believe that I drew that conclusion, personally. > [@](#): > > It’s entirely possible he had none, and his study is as flawed as some have claimed. But given that he’s an expert in the field, I think it’s sensible to assume that he gave it the old college try. Yes, it’s reasonable to assume that there were certain checks in place. But it is not reasonable to assume that this study was carried out in conditions of pristene rigorousness. Given the nature and history of conversion therapy, the presence of false positive reporting among a certain percentage of the subjects is almost assured. By what means did Spitzer estimate the number of false anwers he recieved? He may not even have done so. Qualitative studies such as this one tend to be heavy on data collection, and light on rigorous analysis. Again, this is not nessecarily a flaw, it’s an element of the study design. But for the purposes of this discussion (and the politics of certain posters) it does make the study less useful. If there was estimation done of erronious reporting, it’s important to remember that reasonable people could well dispute the numbers. A perfect estimation of error is, after all, an impossibility. Any psychologist who comes up with a perfect method for determining the truth of a subject’s answers will have invented the world’s first working lie detector. > [@](#): > > Not exactly. I’m willing to suspend judgement on whether he got this right, pending further peer review. What I object to is the argument that he couldn’t possibly have gotten this right. Again, I don’t believe this is something I argued in any of my posts. What I have argued, based upon what I have read so far, is that the past sexual prefrences of his subjects appear to have been taken for granted. In the article, criteria were listed for what constitutes current heterosexual behavior. No criteria were listed to describe the subjects previous homosexual behavior. I personally find this to be a glaring omission. > [@](#): > > At this point the baby is being thrown out with the bathwater - no research into these issues is possible. That’s the heart of my issue - that the thread has raised the bar for knowledge so high that no study could clear it, while also claiming to have that knowledge. **Tominator2** , I find it somewhat distracting that you have chosen to personify “this thread”. I think it might be helpful to this discussion if you could pinpoint your arguments to specific posts and/or specific users. I do not believe that I have been unreasonable in my own analysis of this article. ---
**Author:** ![Beadalin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3be4f8/32.png) [@Beadalin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beadalin)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2001, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-gays-go-straight-science-says-yes/64878/274 "2001-05-18T21:42:40Z")
This thread is almost hypnotic. I can’t tear myself away, even though I find it aggravating, to say the least. > [@](#): > > According to the analyses presented on this thread, it is impossible for andygirl to give an accurate answer about her sexual orientation to either you or even to herself. Don’t be obtuse. andygirl, by all accounts including her own, is content to be a lesbian. She digs chicks, has come to terms with this in the face of gross prejudice, and is now in a loving relationship with another (are you ready for this?) girl. As well she should be. The key difference between andygirl or Esprix or any of the other gay posters to this thread and the subjects of the “study” is this: andygirl, et. al. **have never tried to convert to heterosexuality**. Therefore we have no reason to doubt her when she says she digs chicks and will continue to dig chicks as long as she lives. If, on the other hand, a poster was to come into this thread and claim that they’d once been gay but, through the magic of conversion therapy, now were hetero, we might doubt them because of, in case you missed it the other ten thousand times it’s been mentioned, **35 years of scientific research and documentation which states that sexual orientation is genetic and cannot be changed**. Do you automatically believe everyone who claims to have been abducted by aliens? How about those who swear they’ve increased their breasts two full cup sizes via hypnosis? People are not necessarily their own best witnesses, but it’s pretty easy to spot the ones who have a vested interest in presenting one story over those who stand to lose nothing by telling the truth. ---
**Author:** ![andygirl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a9adbd/32.png) [@andygirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andygirl)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2001, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-gays-go-straight-science-says-yes/64878/275 "2001-05-19T00:52:23Z")
Thank you, Beadalin. That was a marvelous response. I did try on my own to be straight in my early teens. After a point I realized the absurdity and started chasing skirts. ---
**Author:** ![Esprix](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/esprix/32/7899_2.png) [@Esprix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esprix)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2001, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-gays-go-straight-science-says-yes/64878/276 "2001-05-19T01:16:28Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by **Beadalin** _ > > … we might doubt them because of… **35 years of scientific research and documentation which states that sexual orientation is genetic and cannot be changed**. Minor quibble - homosexuality has never been determined to be genetic. Best working theory right now is that it is a complex combination of nature and nurture, i.e., genetics, biology, sociology, physiology, neurobiology, environment, etc. The key, however, is that it is too complex a combination, and so different for each individual, that it could never come close to being “figured out.” Sorry, let’s be specific here. Esprix [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-gays-go-straight-science-says-yes/64878.md?page=13)