The data you provided were not scientific. They defied the most basic rules of conducting a scientific study. They were antidotal at best - a testimonial even. “Wow - go to Jim’s school of homophobia, and you too can be straight!”
Most people where?
Fine. I’m the King of Spain. If you can’t disprove that statement, then it must be true, despite the fact that I am neither spanish, nor a man.
Personally, I’ve seen tonnes of evidence provided that disproves your theories. Matt_mcl has thoughtfully provided links to other studies that disprove your study.
You are basing your entire argument on one flawed study that has yet to go through peer review, or be published by anyone. You are refusing to consider the information that has been provided to you that contradicts this study.
Your logic is flawed. Basic scientific method suggests that one makes a hypothesis, they then test the hypothesis and accept or reject it based on the evidence they collect. You are accepting a hypothesis based on a single, contradictory peice of evidence, ignoring all of the evidence to the contrary.
Exactly now you are starting to get it. People are taught in this society that to be attracted to a member of the same sex is “gay”. They therefore describe themselves as gay and tell other people they are gay. But a great many people who are attracted to members of the same sex are still also attracted to members of the opposite sex. That does not matter in how they think of themselves though. In the paradigm they are in ANY desire for members of the same sex makes you “gay”
I get better knowledge of their sexual ORIENTATION than they by understanding how being indoctrinated in a world view effects their perceptions and the way they are able to think about the world. Just like you they think it is an either/or proposition. Just like you they are wrong. Just because they are wrong for themselves and you are wrong for others doesn’t change the basic wrongness of the conviction.
I’m a sexual psychic, and I know what you’re fanaticizing about!!!
The study has not been proven wrong, it has been dismissed because people have their minds have been made up and they do not want to be confused with the facts.
The contentions made about the study have been that it is invalid because:
It had a biased sample- This I hope to have shown is completely impossible because there was no sample.
Some of the members were located using ex-gay groups- This is completely irrelevant to the study. The interviews were not conducting in public meetings but alone over the phone so that there would be no group pressure.
The members of the study were not anonymous because someone had their phone number. This is silly, anonymous mean the results could not be traced back to the people in the study which was clearly the case.
That there was no control group. Again this is an objection that shows a lack of understanding into the nature of the research. A control group would be totally superflous in this kind of research.
That the researcher was biased. There is no evidence to support this at all. In fact there is evidence of the opposite.
That this research should never have been done because it might be misused. If this invalidated research, no research would be done.
That it was released to the press. All kinds of studies are released to the press, good and bad. The study must be considered on its own merits.
That it has not been in a peer reviewed journal. This is the only valid criticism. But remember that it was only presented at the conference last week and while it has been submitted to a journal that process can take months or longer.
That there was another study that found lower success rates. This study in no way invalidates the other it merely suggests that the success rate is low, something that was never even addressed in the study. However both studies found that succesful cases do exist.
There, since this is a long thread and people may not have read all of it I have debunked all the objections in one post.
What we are left with is the conclusion that some highly motivated gay people become happily straight and that a mental health professional may be of service to help achieve this. All the pseudo-scientific objections have not damaged that conclusion in the least.
And it is valid because you say so. And every other argument is invalid, no matter what proof is provided or how many provide the proof, because you say so.
You refuse to even acknowlege your own very apparent bias and defend a study that has been shown to have shoddy methodology and sample bias. You only respond to the posts that you feel you can refute(which you haven’t been successful with) and ignore all others.
What do you have to gain from this? Does it give you some personal satisfaction? There has to be a reason for you to continue in the face of the disagreement that most on here possess.
Your agenda is obvious, but the question is: why do you have this agenda?
Indeed, you do seem to have a marked inability to understand the facts.
Tell us, puddleglum, exactly what has been proven by this study? Could this study have proven something other than what it actually proved, had the collected data been any different? Why or why not?
By the way, dear, I do not have any objection to well-formulated studies of the efficacy of “conversion therapy” in improving the lives of individuals who are dissatisfied with their sexual orientation. I do, however, have problems with people who formulate sloppy studies and then announce them to the media as having proved something which the study, as conducted, could not possibly have proved no matter what the data collected had been.
It is the only valid criticism of the study not because I say so but because the other objections are invalid for the reasons I have previously stated. I have based nothing on personal opinion but rather on logic, hard data, and sound scientific methodology.
Your question about my motivation seems slightly out of place in this forum, but I will answer it as this is likely to be my last post in this thread for at least the next couple of days.
I would like this study to be a prod to more research so that one day this whole area sexual preference will be better underestood. Because we know that a certain number of homosexuals are dissatisfied with their lifestyle. Contrary to some who are convinced that they do, we do not know why they find this lifestyle unfulfilling, but they do. Currently the myth that sexual preference can never be changed leaves them with no hope of ever becoming the people they desire to be. Once we know who can change and how they can go about it these people can then follow the path that they beleive will lead them to personal fulfillment. Isn’t this what we all want, to be able to go through life on the path of our own choosing, pursuing happiness in the matter we see fit. I understand that some people feel threatened by this prospect, but think about it. Just because they are happy in the gay life and want to stay in it, does that mean they should get to make that choice for others? Not in my opinion, an if that opinion makes me unpopular than so be it.
There is no “gay lifestyle”. Repeat after me, please. THERE IS NO “GAY LIFESTYLE”. Thank you. My lifestyle probably bears almost no resemblance whatsoever to Esprix’s or matt_mcl’s. And yet all three of us are gay. There are lots of gay people who would find my lifestyle utterly perplexing.
The fact that you talk about the “gay lifestyle” as if all gay people have the same lifestyle (do all straight people have the same lifestyle?) is a telling sign that you are (a) a homophobic bigot (b) a clueless idiot. Anyone with any real experience with homosexuality and sexual identity issues knows this.
**
“Myth”? That’s not a very scientific name to apply to a theory which has (a) not been proven false and (b) is supported by the preponderance of the evidence.
I’m not surprised to hear that you’re running off. It has to be hard to pretend not to be a bigot while spouting off such endlessly bigoted crap. What scares me most is the possibility that you actually work in a mental health field. The idea that you might be involved in any way with the treatment of people with mental illness frightens me intensely.
Funny, the APA (among many, many others, including Masters & Johnsons and Kinsey) has been studying human sexuality for decades, and they consistently come up with results contrary to the ones you hold so dear. How do you explain that?
On the contrary - if someone is motivated enough to change their sexual behavior, as misguided I personally may think they are, they have every right to do so, and obviously there are resources available for them; however, don’t be surprised if, as even your “study” confirms, the vast majority of them will fail, and probably be much worse off because of the effort. Knowing this, I’m certainly not going to encourage anyone to deny their inherent sexual orientation, be it hetero-, homo-, bi- or asexual.
I still maintain that wanting that desperately to change your inherent sexual orientation, or going the extra mile to deny it and change your sexual behavior, is more indicative of outside forces not of your own choosing. If you’re gay and you lived in a bubble, it wouldn’t matter one whit.
Please - some ill-fated, flawed “study” isn’t a threat to anyone, except maybe the credibility of two people I can think of - the author of the study, and you.
Ok, puddleglum, I assume you are being purposely obtuse for effect or something.
You insist on quoting “science” when there is no science present. The study you are hanging your hat on is pseudo-science at best. There are phrenology studies that could put this study to shame. Handwriting analysis has more credence. If you want people to believe your science, please produce some.
Clearly they were biased. All of the other studies, many of which appeared in peer reviewed journals, that showed that orientation could not be changed were done by researchers biased to that viewpoint. Dr. Spitzer, on the other hand, is doing real science. He has no agenda, no bias. He is the perfect scientist. Therefore, he has no need to wait for the peer review process, since that would only waste time looking for errors he didn’t make.
And you believe all that I have a bridge I’d like to sell you.
You have produced no such data. You have produced a study, unpublished and un-peer-reviewed, whose scientific flaws have been amply demonstrated by the people in this thread. We have gone up and down to demonstrate the errors, poor methodology, and mistaken assumptions included in this study. If you’ve missed all of this, it’s really your own lookout. I personally am not interested in repeating myself for the third time to someone who is going to ignored me.
In what bizarre world did you learn statistics? Allow me to clarify: a sample is a portion less than the whole. Unless you contend that either (1) every gay person was telephoned for this study, and those who post here have charitably avoided mentioning this, or (2) every person who has ever gone through this form of therapy, whatever the result, was telephoned for this study – and I believe I can guarantee that there are in excess of 200 people who have done so, then you have a sample. It was not a randomly chosen sample, but it was indeed a sample. In fact, I can assert that the 66% referral from ex-gay ministries makes it a biased sample. They are clearly going to refer “success stories,” not “failures” (by their standards).
It is quite relevant, for the precise point that the question of what proportion, if any, of the general gay population might be enabled to “turn straight” is key to the proposition you have advanced numerous times. And those who participate in “ex-gay groups” are clearly those who were troubled by their homosexuality (or bisexuality). Peer pressure is irrelevant – the sample (it was a sample) was biased by the source.
I could design a double-blind study that would be completely anonymous – have a questionnaire made up and sealed in envelopes by firm A, have these sealed envelopes delivered to firm B and addressed and posted there, and enclose a letter detailing how this was done in order to ensure participants’ privacy. Employ firm A or a different firm C to tabulate results, with some means of ensuring that any external markings identifying the respondent was removed before tabulation.
If, say, your name is John Smithers, and your phone number is (800) 555-9346, then when I telephone you I am not preserving your anonymity. Regardless of whether I promise to publish only the results.
Explain your point. This may be valid, but I would be more inclined to say that a control group would be important – testing the efficacy of the supposed “cure” by measuring it against, say, a group of people referred by GLAAD, some of whom “tried to quit and found they couldn’t.”
Switzer was instrumental in getting the mental illness tag removed from homosexuality, true. I would, however, be very suspect of a professional conducting a study where the data source is largely provided by a group with an axe to grind – on either side. Would you consider a study where 2/3 of the population was provided by referrals from the Gay Liberation Front (fictional) to prove that most gays live happy, well-adjusted lives and don’t need this program?
This is a valid point. However, the publication of the results as they stand, biased source and all, in a popular media source without peer group review provides the ex-gay ministries contingent with a wonderful source of ammo. in their allegations. I’ve sought for years to see research that provides some objective numbers on this question. Switzer did not do that research, unfortunately.
Also, note in particular the comments made by andygirl about young people placed in such programs involuntarily. It happens: she, I, and matt_mcl can provide numerous anecdotal instances of such occurrences if you need proof. If any gay youth suicides as a result of their parents’ reliance on this flawed study, their blood is on your hands, puddleglum. I cannot make it any more emphatic than that what evil can be done with this.
True. Unfortunately, the study is irretrievably flawed, as noted above.
And so it was wise to be released to the public before peer review. My impression of most people trying to do serious science is that they get peer review before presenting their findings at a conference – to avoid major embarrassment to themselves when they overlooked some significant point. Only scam groups trying to pass off biased evidence as “scientific” pull the “conference and press release first” sort of dodge. Are you accusing Switzer of being this sort of unethical scientist?
If two studies come up with widely divergent results, beyond resonable margin of error, then the methodology of one or both is flawed. No one has raised the objection that nobody ever has been able to transition from a state where his/her predominant attraction was homosexual to one where he/she was reasonably content in a heterosexual relationship. In fact, everybody posting to this thread is aware of one such case: the Paulks.
Now, I have been responding to you above in this post in accordance with your posts, particularly the last one, and have gone along with your tacit assumptions to ease communication on debating the numbered points you raised.
But let’s take a moment and examine precisely what is being said in this thread, and where there is “rupture” – failure to communicate – between you and the other posters.
From your OP, puddleglum:
First point: Distinguish between orientation (attraction) and behavior. This has been repeated so many times that I think most people who post to “gay” threads have it built in as a macro. The study did not prove that “gay people can go straight with enough motivation” – it proved that some people who identified as gay, i.e., had some homosexual content to their libidos, could form relatively satisfactory heterosexual relationships under adequate social pressure. That is not changing orientation, it is engineering a re-emphasis in preference among bisexual people.
Second point: Why would a mental health professional be concerned about one’s sexual orientation? Only if one is neurotic about one’s orientation should a mental health professional care, and then only to enable one to make an adjustment and remove the neurosis. Charlatans masquerading as professionals might bring their personal agendas into play, and attempt “conversion,” but professionals would not.
Third point: “Sexual fascists” is an interesting hate term. I will concede that there are a couple of gay activists who tend to get bent out of shape at the idea that anyone could possibly have a problem with people being gay, for any reason whatsoever. But I’d tend to apply the term to those who cast hatred and demonization on gay people for having the temerity to admit publicly that that is who they are and that they’re happy and comfortable being it. In short, people like you appear to be, puddleglum. (That is not a direct insult – it’s an inference from your statements to date. If you do not think as you appear to, make that clear, and I will be happy to retract it.)
Fourth point: “Gay people who are unhappy in their lifestyle choices” covers a wide range of points. Does this mean a gay person who is single and unhappy because he has not found a buff young lover? Or is it a convenient way to say “who are unhappy being gay” without coming out and saying that?
Fifth point: If the latter, what’s the cure? Attempt to “change” them to better fit your idea of what society ought to be, at a miniscule success rate? Or help them adjust to becoming happy being gay? As a trained psychologist, you know the answer to that.
Sixth point: “Lifestyle choices” again. If you are trying to paraphrase “gay lifestyle,” then define exactly what you mean by the term. As people have pointed out, there is no one “gay lifestyle” any more than there is one “straight lifestyle.” You clearly mean something by it; explain what. You might even find a person or two who agrees with you, strange as that idea may sound right about now.
Seventh point: “Allowed to try to change” – Let me make this perfectly clear. Best evidence to date prior to these recent studies is that anyone attempting to change their sexual preference is in for a long hard effort with no guarantee of success.
There is one former poster here who is doing exactly that, with my blessing and encouragement, because he finds his sexuality in conflict with his religious beliefs, and prefers trying to change the first over changing the second. But that is his choice to make. And he’s going into it eyes open, with complete awareness that he has a tough battle and may well fail. I and several gay posters here made sure he knew that going into it. And stressed to him that self-acceptance, accepting his present gayness as who he is, was a necessary first step. Psychological denial will get him nowhere.
I would like to think that everybody who has posted to this thread would do likewise for anybody else who faced a similar conflict in his or her life – try to put him or her at ease with his/her sexuality, stress the difficulty of making such a change if it is possible, then with compassion stand by him/her as he/she tries it. And be there if and when he/she fails, supportive and caring. Would you be, puddleglum? Or would you be too busy peddling your own agenda on how others should behave?
You repeatedly assume that I hold homosexuality to be an irrevocable characteristic, which I defend from attack by misguided psychologists. You find my incredulity to be proof that I oppose the practice of scientific inquiry. That is your fantasy for why I find Spitzer’s study unconvincing. The facts fall almost as far from this view as do the facts in the case of your characterization of this absurdly unscientific study.
Selection of study subjects is a very important element of the proper design of a study into human psychology. You claim that there was “no sampling” in this study. You say that as if it were a defense of the reliability of the study. You are incorrect in both the fact, and inference of your own statement. The level of understanding (or lack thereof) this demonstrates does little to improve your position. There was a sample. The sample was selected by Spitzer, entirely on advice of persons engaged in the practice for profit, of the therapy under study. That is a biased method of selecting participants. It is a sample. It is a sample chosen entirely based on bias. Your inability, or (as I suspect) unwillingness to understand that is not supportive of your credibility.
The criteria of selection are only the initial failing of the study. Definition of subject characteristics is primarily important in establishing any applicability of the “findings” obtained by a study. This study doesn’t define its loose terms such as “happy adjustment” or even homosexual. It ignores the fundamental difference between incidents of behavior, and sexual orientation. It fails to define the criteria for original introduction into the programs or the criteria whereby these participants, or any other participants were considered to have succeeded or failed. It does not examine the “happy adjustments” of the program participants who did not alter their sexual behaviors. It does not allow for any bias of the participants to characterize their adjustments in accordance to any perceived bias by Spitzer. It does not examine the criteria used by program personnel to recommend the participants to Spitzer, for inclusion.
No corroboration was available at all of any element of the data, or any correlation among the data. The anecdotal report is the extent of the information taken. No attempt was even made to compare some objective criterion in corroboration. These guys told Spitzer that every thing was groovy and hetero now. He believed them, and in that spirit we are to believe him. You call that science. You call anyone who objects to that characterization an anti-science obstructionist. This sort of pretense at science is more harmful to real research and its acceptance by society than the most active anti research demonstration ever practiced.
I am a lot less than convinced that psychological, or sexual orientation is as involuntary as it is often claimed to be. I have a much more respectful view of the human spirit than that outlook requires. But that doesn’t support the absurd claims of this public demagogue you think of as a scientist. The choice of mass media publication before peer review alone might not be sufficient reason to dismiss the study, but it does cause me to approach it with a critical view. It fails on that review. I suspect it shall get short shrift from the professional community as well.
But those with an existing agenda of social preferences will use it as “well known scientific proof” to bludgeon the unwary for decades. When you get a scientist to lie for you, you don’t have to worry about honesty any more.
