# 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:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2001, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-gays-go-straight-science-says-yes/64878/21 "2001-05-09T16:16:48Z")
Considering the parameters of the study (participants were referred by organizations that appear to have an anti-gay bias), I’m surprised that only 66% of men and 44% of women acheived “good heterosexual functioning” It is possible that these successful people were not “10s” on the “gay-straight continuum” (where 5 is solidly bisexual and 10 is the opposite sex is absolutly sexually unappealing. One of course is straight people whose response to gayness is “oh, gross” or at least as “oh, gross, not for me.”) ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2001, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-gays-go-straight-science-says-yes/64878/22 "2001-05-09T16:18:02Z")
Thanks for the fix, **tracer** ---
**Author:** ![Beadalin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3be4f8/32.png) [@Beadalin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beadalin)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2001, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-gays-go-straight-science-says-yes/64878/23 "2001-05-09T16:32:44Z")
> [@](#): > > Anonymous self report is the basis for most social research and I see no reason why this study is invalid because of that. Wait. Are you trying to say that this study employed anonymous self reporting? Because all indications are that it most certainly did not. The sample used was not random. The people contacted were contacted because of the groups they associated with, which to me says that specific names were known. Furthermore, how do you initiate a 45-minute phone call without knowing at least the phone number you’re calling? Hardly anonymous, and the less anonymous a survey, the more skewed the results will be towards people giving the answers they think are expected of them. Moreover, it cerainly sounds like there were questions phrased in such a way as to lead the respondants answers. I mean, look at how this is reported: > [@](#): > > That term was defined as being in a sustained, loving heterosexual relationship within the past year, getting enough satisfaction from the emotional relationship with their partner to rate at least seven on a 10-point scale, having satisfying heterosexual sex at least monthly and never or rarely thinking of somebody of the same sex during heterosexual sex. Sustained and loving heterosexual relationship? How do you define that? Furthemore, what is “satisfying” when it comes to sex? Orgasm achieved by one partner? By both? That the act happened at all? And if I was to claim to have been converted from gay to straight and then was asked to rank my level of emotional satisfaction with my partner, wouldn’t I want to give a pretty high number? And the last “indicator” is just completely ridiculous. I am straight, but I think of all kinds of crap during sex. Depending on my mood, it could be anything from eating out another woman while my husband watches to the fact that I really need to change the kitty litter. So. Am I still straight? Or am I gay because I indulge in flights of fantasy during sex? How would I report this to someone I’ve never talked to before? Even trained researches can have axes to grind, especially on loaded topics like this one. Don’t think a sense of professionalism or ethics will stop a scientist from trumpeting results on hot-button issues if it will get his name in the press. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2001, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-gays-go-straight-science-says-yes/64878/24 "2001-05-09T16:35:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dangerosa \* > \*\*Considering the parameters of the study (participants were referred by organizations that appear to have an anti-gay bias), I’m surprised that only 66% of men and 44% of women acheived “good heterosexual functioning” > > \*\* I think this is evidence of the researchers integrity. I think if he was trying to prove a point one way or the other the numbers would be skewed on way or another. Clearly more research needs to be done on how to best help people who want to change their sexual preference, however this research shows that it is possible. The objection in the article that the subjects were lying to the researcher because of guilt does not hold water. People who do social research are trained how to get people to speak honestly on intimate subjects and since Dr. Spitzer seems to have been in the field for at least 30 years he would probably be able to design a study taking embarrasment into account. ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2001, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-gays-go-straight-science-says-yes/64878/25 "2001-05-09T16:54:48Z")
All this study proves is that people who want to believe something hard enough can convince themselves that whatever they want to believe is true, and that a therapist can help them do that. We already knew that from our experiences with iatrogenic multiple personality disorder. In any case, I question the ethics of therapists helping people erect self-deceptive structures. I suspect that most people are “capable” of having a fairly satisfactory sexual relationship with either sex. This doesn’t change the fact that, absent some external or interal pressure, most people have a natural preference for one or the other. The so-called “treatments” do not change this preference; they just help the individual curb his or her desire to have sex with members of his or her own sex. Homosexuality is viewed by these people as if it was an addiction. While I do not contend that homosexuality is never harmful (one could be a sex addict who is also homosexual), I do not believe that it is inherently so, any more than everyone who occasionally has a drink is an alcoholic. Certainly, it should be the free choice of an individual who feels homosexual urges whether or not to act on them. But I don’t think this study furthers that free choice, or even was ever intended to do so. Given the rather evident sample bias, it seems quite clear that the entire purpose of this study is to justify holding out homosexuality as a curable disorder, thus justifying not accepting homosexuality as normal human variation. It was scientifically and morally irresponsible to publish this study at all, in my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2001, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-gays-go-straight-science-says-yes/64878/26 "2001-05-09T16:55:41Z")
> [@](#): > > Clearly more research needs to be done on how to best help people who want to change their sexual preference, however this research shows that it is possible. **Puddleglum** , when this “study” is published in a peer-reviewed journal, and verified with actual research (preferably some studies without such a huge number of confounds), I’ll agree with you. Until then, since you undoubtedly understand all the flaws in this study, you’ll agree that it’s extremely premature to make such blanket statements. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2001, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-gays-go-straight-science-says-yes/64878/27 "2001-05-09T17:03:25Z")
Anonymous means that the identity of the participants was not known by the person doing the questioning. It doesn’t mean that no one knows the identity of the people. Presumably everyone participating in social research is known because you have to get them to sign informed consent papers which would mean someone would get to see their names. However reseachers take precautions so that specific answers can not be traced back to specific people thus insuring anonymity. Also doing the interviews by phone is good design because not having to look at the interviewer face to face would make candor easier and make for better results. I can not speak to all the design questions because the paper has not been published yet, but good researcher would try to get the best results he could on a controversial topic since he had to know the thought police would be all over him. Since satisfaction is a subjective term the best way to measure it is with self report. If the participants in a relationship define it as loving I think that it should qualify as a loving relationship. We all share a common language so even if there are gradations not accounted for a person own definitions of loving and satisfaction should be satisfactory. ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2001, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-gays-go-straight-science-says-yes/64878/28 "2001-05-09T17:16:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by puddleglum \* > \*\*I think this is evidence of the researchers integrity. I think if he was trying to prove a point one way or the other the numbers would be skewed on way or another. > \*\* How would you tell if the numbers are skewed? I find the following quote far more relevant to evaluating the researcher’s integrity: > [@](#): > > A psychiatrist at Columbia University who contends that the mental health profession has “totally bought the idea that once you are gay you cannot be changed” will report today that some “highly motivated” gays can become heterosexual. ([New York Times article)](http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/09/health/09GAY.html) I’ve deleted the rest of your _argumentum ad authoritatum_. Fallacious arguments have no place in Great Debates. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2001, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-gays-go-straight-science-says-yes/64878/29 "2001-05-09T17:31:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by KellyM \* > \*\* > > Certainly, it should be the free choice of an individual who feels homosexual urges whether or not to act on them. But I don’t think this study furthers that free choice, or even was ever intended to do so. Given the rather evident sample bias, it seems quite clear that the entire purpose of this study is to justify holding out homosexuality as a curable disorder, thus justifying not accepting homosexuality as normal human variation. It was scientifically and morally irresponsible to publish this study at all, in my opinion. > \*\* You assign motives to a scientist you have never met because his results do not agree with your preconceived notions of what they should be. Shouldn’t science be a search for truth no matter whose sacred cows get gored? This researcher was one of the people who spearheaded the APA’s decision not to list homosexuality as a disease. This would seem to indicate that he is not biased against homosexuals but rather a disinterested scientist trying to illuminate a part of human behavior cloaked in mystery. Such PC thuggery as attacking his motivations while discounting evidence showing the contrary seems out of place on a board dedicated to fighting ignorance. Also your use of “sample bias” seems to indicate that you do not know what that means. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2001, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-gays-go-straight-science-says-yes/64878/30 "2001-05-09T17:38:41Z")
> [@](#): > > Fallacious arguments have no place in Great Debates. Nobody’s kicked me out yet. ---
**Author:** ![jmonster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/dbc845/32.png) [@jmonster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmonster)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2001, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-gays-go-straight-science-says-yes/64878/31 "2001-05-09T17:53:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by VarlosZ \* > **Hell, I could go on a year long boy-fuckery tour, but no amount of buttsex (to use the technical term) would make me magically turn gay.** Would that be the _Arthur C. Clarke’s Guide To Sri Lanka_ tour, **VarlosZ**? ---
**Author:** ![Beadalin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3be4f8/32.png) [@Beadalin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beadalin)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2001, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-gays-go-straight-science-says-yes/64878/32 "2001-05-09T18:12:57Z")
Look. People will have sex with anyone and anything if the situation is constraining enough. Prisoners have sex with other prisoners. Farm children may have sex with animals. Prostitutes and porn stars have sex with many people in rapid succession. So, are the prisoners homosexual? Do the farm kids have a bestiality fetish? Are the prostitutes and porn stars nymphomaniacs? My point is that people can and do engage in sexual behaviors when they have no other options. Gay people desperate to be straight in effect have no option but to engage in heterosexual behavior. That means both having the straight sex and reporting some satisfaction with it, and for a broad range of reasons. I think it’s foolish to assume that the non-random sample of people reported themselves accurately and honestly in the interest of science. I think it’s more than possible that they simply continued to demonstrate the behaviors of the identities they wished for themselves. These people have an emotional, spiritual, and physical investment in heterosexuality; asking them to objectively report their success at it unrealistic. ---
**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 9, 2001, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-gays-go-straight-science-says-yes/64878/33 "2001-05-09T18:14:58Z")
Sorry, but I’ll take the [American Psychological Association](http://www.apa.org)’s 35 years of research into the matter over one researcher’s limited study: > [@](#): > > **Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?** > > No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed. > > **Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?** > > No. Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable. However, not all gay, lesbian, and bisexual people who seek assistance from a mental health professional want to change their sexual orientation. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people may seek psychological help with the coming out process or for strategies to deal with prejudice, but most go into therapy for the same reasons and life issues that bring straight people to mental health professionals. > > **What About So-Called “Conversion Therapies”?** > > Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report that they have been able to change their clients’ sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of these reports however show several factors that cast doubt on their claims. For example, many of the claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective which condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly documented. For example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported overtime as would be the standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention. > > The American Psychological Association is concerned about such therapies and their potential harm to patients. In 1997, the Association’s Council of Representatives passed a resolution reaffirming psychology’s opposition to homophobia in treatment and spelling out a client’s right to unbiased treatment and self-determination. Any person who enters into therapy to deal with issues of sexual orientation has a right to expect that such therapy would take place in a professionally neutral environment absent of any social bias. Anyone can change their sexual _behavior_ with enough motivation, but their sexual _orientation_? Don’t think so. (The APA says, “Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept. Persons may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors.”) But, hey, nice try - better luck next time. Esprix ---
**Author:** ![KellyM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/57b2e6/32.png) [@KellyM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KellyM)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2001, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-gays-go-straight-science-says-yes/64878/34 "2001-05-09T18:26:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by puddleglum \* > **You assign motives to a scientist you have never met because his results do not agree with your preconceived notions of what they should be.** No, I assign motives to a scientist based on my evaluation of what he has said. My conclusion that he has a motive beyond scientific exploration is drawn not from the results of the study itself, but rather from the methodology used in the study (and especially the manner in which subjects were selected), the manner in which he announced the results of this study and the language he used in doing so. I do know exactly what “sample bias” is and it is quite clear even from a cursory evaluation of the announced study results that there is a high probability that the sample group used in this study is biased. Dr. Spitzer, in my opinion, behaved in an unprofessional manner (a) when he formulated this study and (b) when he announced it to the media prior to peer review. It is possible that Dr. Spitzer, while lacking any specific motive to recategorize homosexuality as a “curable illness” was unwittingly used by others who do have such a motive. If this is the case, then he has acted carelessly, which is also an unprofessional manner in which to behave. I have no problem whatsoever criticizing Dr. Spitzer’s performance as a research psychiatrist. He volunteered himself for such criticism when he announced his “findings” to the press. The fact that Dr. Spitzer was involved in the campaign to remove homosexuality from the list of recognized mental disorders proves little and offers no support at all for the accuracy of his research methodology. After all, “Jane Roe” is now a pro-life activist. Finally, I would ask you to refrain from characterizing your debating partner’s position as “PC thuggery”. In so doing, you have added another fallacy to your repetoire (_argumentatum ad hominem_). This fallacy also has no place in Great Debates. ---
**Author:** ![Mockingbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c68b51/32.png) [@Mockingbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mockingbird)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2001, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-gays-go-straight-science-says-yes/64878/35 "2001-05-09T18:27:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by puddleglum \* > \*\*When I use the term sexual fascists I mean only those who would seek to preclude psychologists from helping those gays who wanted to go straight. When I was studying psychology in the early 90’s there were many who said that it was unethical of psychologists to do this because it was impossible and that psychologists who attempted to help gays go straight were endangering their clients’ mental health. > As for objections to the study parameters, he was not trying to prove that such therapy is not 100% effective but that changing is possible. Also if you were trying to interview ex-gays who would you go to for interview subjects except organizations which help them. It would be a waste of money to try to get interview subjects from the Rosie O’Donnell fan club. > How else would you define sexuality other than who people have sex with? Attendance at Oscar parties? Enjoying the WNBA? > As to why someone would choose to be gay, I think it is beyond the scope of this study. Maybe there are benefits that are not readily apparent that some people value more than other people do. People choose actions and associations all the time based upon motivations which others would not understand. \*\* See, and I term sexual facists as those people so entrenched in the hegemony that they don’t consider that they are forcing compulsory heterosexuality on people different than they are. Have you considered that the reason gay people would want to become straight is not because they cannot find good relationships, or that they are not sexually satisfied, but because of the harassment and judgement they experience by those who call it a choice and tell them that they can change? Some gay men find it unendurable to have family members and other people close to them in a constant position of judgement and criticism. This is what leads people to want to change, and that is sexual facism. That heterosexuality is supposedly what we should all want for ourselves, and that any deviation from a socially constructed norm is wrong, bad, sick, et al is sexual facism. Being disgusted by those who would have us change is not sexual facism. But of course, I doubt you will see it that way. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2001, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-gays-go-straight-science-says-yes/64878/36 "2001-05-09T18:54:02Z")
> [@](#): > > What About So-Called “Conversion Therapies”? > > Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report that they have been able to change their clients’ sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of these reports however show several factors that cast doubt on their claims. For example, many of the claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective which condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly documented. For example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported overtime as would be the standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention. So now we have a study that does not come from and ideological perspective which condemns homosexuality, is well documented and is reported after a long period of time. I hope the APA will change their website to reflect this. “Sample bias” would mean that his sample is different from the population he is generalizing about in such a way that his conclusions are invalid. But look at the study. He studied highly motivated people who used to be gay and are now happily straight. His conclusion is that highly motivated people who used to be gay can be happily straight. In other words his sample and his population were the same people. In such a case “sampling bias” is definitionally impossible. If you are going to criticize his methods you should know what you are talking about. Having demonstrating your lack of knowledge about social research methods you go on to criticize him for releasing the study in the media. The reason people do scientific studies is to enlighten the public and to prod more scientific inquiry into the topic. Releasing his study to the media serves both these purposes. The fact that the thought police will not like his results should not enter into his considerations. \*\* Hastur\*\* it does not follow that because you are gay you know the motivations and thought processes of those who have decided to give that life up. The researcher talked to over 200 ex-gays so he would probably know a little about this. ---
**Author:** ![Myrr21](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Myrr21](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Myrr21)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2001, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-gays-go-straight-science-says-yes/64878/37 "2001-05-09T18:56:32Z")
This has all the signs, warning flags, and unpleasant smells of a horribly flawed study. It’s been shot down here by people both gay and not, and in the news by trained professionals. You can believe it if you want, but even common sense (to sy nothing of actual scientific methods) dictates that it be filed in the large, circular bin that most of us call “garbage”. ---
**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 9, 2001, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-gays-go-straight-science-says-yes/64878/38 "2001-05-09T19:16:59Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by **puddleglum** _ > > So now we have a study that does not come from and ideological perspective which condemns homosexuality, is well documented and is reported after a long period of time. I hope the APA will change their website to reflect this. No, what we have is _one_ “study” (more like a telemarketing survey if you ask me) by _one_ mental health professional of a _limited_ number of _pre-disposed_ participants. Stack that up against the research that’s been going on in the same field for the past 35+ years that has all unequivocably reached the opposite conclusion, and I’m not sure how you can wonder why his results are being questioned. This thread should have more aptly been titled, “Can gay men fuck women? Science says yes.” Esprix ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2001, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-gays-go-straight-science-says-yes/64878/39 "2001-05-09T19:48:41Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by puddleglum \* > \*\* But look at the study. He studied highly motivated people who used to be gay and are now happily straight. His conclusion is that highly motivated people who used to be gay can be happily straight. In other words his sample and his population were the same people. In such a case “sampling bias” is definitionally impossible._\* Well, actually, you’ve just defined sampling bias. If, for example, I have a theory that says “Black people tended to vote for Bush in the 2001 election.”, and I interview members of the “African-Americans for Bush” club, it’s going to skew my results. ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2001, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-gays-go-straight-science-says-yes/64878/40 "2001-05-09T19:52:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Esprix \* > **This thread should have more aptly been titled, "Can gay men fuck women? Science says yes."** Sorry, Esprix, you still go to far. “Can men who previously claimed to be gay subsequently claim to fuck women? Science has presented no evidence to the contrary.” More than that is simply conjecture, not founded on evidence. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-gays-go-straight-science-says-yes/64878.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-gays-go-straight-science-says-yes/64878.md?page=3)