Homosexuality, Science and Present Myth of Ex-Gay Movement
Homosexuality, Science and Present Myth of Ex-Gay Movement
Why is the scientific method more valid a tool to find out truths about our world, both internal and external, as opposed to purely emotional reasoning? As rhetorical as this question might sound to many, it still remains a valid and confusing question in the minds of many others. All most all of us go through the phases of emotional reasoning, especially when we encounter something counter-intuitive or plain contradictory to our most cherished and strongly held beliefs.
In the interest of my article I would very briefly explain the difference between science and interpretation of science via emotional reasoning. The major difference is that in scientific approach, regardless of the emotions accompanying a hypothesis, an individual constantly tries to challenge and falsify his own theories as opposed to primarily an emotional approach to reasoning, where the individual insists on maintaining the old theories (sometimes even to a level of prejudices) regardless of the contrary evidence being provided to his rational faculties, largely because of the following reasons; they don’t “feel” right or it goes against everything else they have “believed” in or “that” had been “taught” to be right in social contexts or, the classic, it has been believed to be true by “so many people for so long.”
Emotional reasoning on the face of it seems to have a logical process, but it merely is a way of rehearsing one’s prejudices and strengthening them over time, sometimes by gaining support from other similar minded individuals.
Why would we rather maintain our old ideas even in the face of new ones that are supported by evidence?
Accepting a new idea requires us to leave the familiarity of the old one and whenever we encounter something new, be it an idea, a person or a situation, we require new mental skills to deal with it. Acquiring new skills is mentally a harder and more inconvenient thing to do as opposed to just staying with the familiarity of events, ideas and people. Since with humans, thinking is automatic but critical thinking is a chosen skill, subconsciously we end up choosing the easier path and show resistance to change and to new ideas and different people, more often then we would like to admit.
As a gay man, I too can succumb to emotional reasoning when I am out there defending my political and social rights. I may, too, accept a scientific theory that supports my instincts or my political agenda despite the lack of conclusive evidence. The same is possible to those with contrary views, when they encounter overwhelmingly conclusive evidence regarding homosexuality being natural and normal variation of human sexuality, because it doesn’t agree with their religious or social views.
Since in scientific approach the beliefs follow from reason and not the other way round, scientific method always give room for assessing and reassessing the present theories and hypothesis. However, for the one who places the emotional cart before the horse of reason, no evidence is ever enough or substantial to even rethink their position on homosexuality.
Whether or not homosexual orientation can be changed is perhaps one of the most burning questions of our time, the answer to which appears in the affirmative only in the minds of the ex-gay evangelists. These ministers have made it their sole purpose to “change and reorient” homosexuals, because they see it as a disorder of mental and social nature. Even though the question of possible reorientation therapies has a social implication, the answer to it largely falls under the domain of the medical and biological sciences.
Exodus international and NARTH (National Association for the Reparative Therapy for Homosexuality) are the two fat cats in the business of sexual reorientation “therapies”. Even though neither have been able to come out with a consistent form of therapy or revealed the name(s) of any particular drug that they might have come across which can be tested for the validity of its claim.
Before discussing anything more about the Exodus International and NARTH, I would like to talk about the curious case of Robert Spitzer, a former Columbia Professor and eminent psychiatrist. Spitzer was among the pioneers who spearheaded the declassifying of homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973. It was seen as a welcome change, especially by the homosexual community and its social impact was larger then the ripples it created in the world of psychologists and psychiatrists, because just four years before the declassification, the LGBT community had kick started their political rights from revolutionary Stonewall movement.
Spitzer being a true scientist again conducted a study, almost three decades after the de-pathologizing of homosexuality, about whether change in an individual’s sexual orientation is possible; and the study confirmed the hypothesis. Even though the sample size of 200 telephonic interviewees was large enough, the study did not make any claims about the rates of success of any kind of “reparative or reorientation” therapy. 43% + 23% of the participants were provided by ex-gay ministries and NARTH respectively and most of the data was in the form of self-report.
The study stated that for a group of highly motivated individuals the efforts at changing sexual orientation worked. There was no substantial data regarding the time period the “change” lasted in the tiny number of individuals that it occurred in the first place.
The way the above results were interpreted in the larger socio-religious environments was: Spitzer, the man behind the de-pathologizing of homosexuality, a man who could not have been biased against the gays and lesbians, has validated ex-gay therapies.
What was actually biased was the understanding and interpretations of the results. Claiming that change might be possible is one thing and claiming that I have found out the therapeutic way to do it is quite another. Especially when there are no researches available and no objective way of testing how long the changes lasted, if there were any at all, in the sexual orientation and no clear distinction between behavior (what you do?) and orientation (what you desire?).
Spitzer himself concluded that change might be possible but it is probably very rare. He also was skeptic about the participant telling the truth.
The problem is that ex-gay associations and therapy clinics still cite Spritzer’s study on sexual orientation change, even thought the study itself was criticized and disavowed by APA (American Psychological Association).
So coming back to NARTH and Exodus International; the problems that occurs with their claims to changing people’s orientation are the following
- Almost all of these instances of changes are self-reports and not objectively testable data, so a client there is almost no protection against a client lying about the alleged change (such data is generally extremely hard to get in similar research anyway)
- The fact of clients’ “past” bisexuality and its percentage is seldom highlighted.
- No clear and prominent distinction made between behavior (what you do?) and orientation (what you desire). So one might be successfully having intercourse with the opposite sex and have developed friendly feelings for them, but still deep down may desire the touch and romantic company of the same sex partner.
- Kinsey scale existence of sexual orientation is almost neglected; which consistently shows that human sexuality exists on a spectrum.
- Based on researches, which have no substantial evidential backing.
So it’s not surprising that the drop out rates of their clients with no apparent change is way above 90 percent.
In a recently published article called My So-Called Ex-Gay Life in The American Prospect, excerpts of the interview with Robert Spitzer were published, referring to the supplying of sample for his 2001 study, he said, “In all the years of doing ex-gay therapy, you’d think Nicolosi (the then President of NARTH) would have been able to provide more success stories. He only sent me nine patients.”
In the interview Spitzer made it very clear that he never wanted anyone to go for “reorientation” therapies. His goal was only to figure out the truth of the negative hypothesis that no one has ever changed his or her sexual orientation. Note he nowhere claim to have found out any means through which one could change their sexual orientation.
Now octogenarian Spitzer expresses his worries, which he shares with the APA official paper about the present efforts to changing sexual orientation of people and says that they “can be quite harmful.”
It turns out that in this particular case, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence against them, the ex-gay movement seem to not pay heed to it and more often then not, completely deny it. They seemed to be mired so much in their hatred towards homosexuality, regardless of how they express it, that they fall prey to emotional reasoning and blind themselves to the obvious biological facts.
I quote some astonishing excerpts from the above-mentioned article regarding the on goings within some of these ex-gay organizations “John Paulk, Love Won Out founder, chair of the board of Exodus International, and husband of Anne Paulk, was spotted and photographed at a Washington, D.C., gay bar. Richard Cohen, the founder of PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays)—intended as the ex-gay counterpart to PFLAG (Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays)—was expelled from the American Counseling Association for ethics violations. Michael Johnston, the founder of “National Coming Out of Homosexuality Day,” was revealed to have infected men he’d met on the Internet with HIV through unprotected sex.”
All of that would have been still been less incriminating and no focus of public interest, if in the process of their sometimes well intentioned efforts to change sexual orientation these organizations did not end up instilling guilt, shame and self-hatred among its clients. These programs run the risk of increased danger of pushing the client into clinical neuroses like anxiety, depression and recurrent suicidal thoughts.
APA in their longitudinally conducted review noted the following about the ex-gay movement. “It provided false hope, which can be devastating,” it also said. “It harmed self-esteem and self-regard by focusing on the psychopathology of homosexuality.” APA strongly desists people from going for such therapies and hormone treatments for changing their sexual reorientation.
LGBT people do not require an absence of a reparative therapy for their political rights to be ensured, what they require to fight for their political rights is the basis of self-ownership. The philosophy that says, I and not the government owns my body and my heart, so they don’t get the right to tell me whom I can have sex with or/and love and marry.
If tomorrow we do discover the most unnecessary methods to change sexual orientations then too, no body can be forced to take the therapy or stay away from the therapy. People would still be and always should be left with a choice, to do what they want to do with their bodies and minds. This would ensure the human rights of all, gay and straight alike, cause I know a lot my straight male friends who’d rather be gay but are not, I am sure they too would quite happily opt for a “reorientation” and become gay if they could.
Up until then, let’s all know that there no therapy or method which we know of that has produced any results that are lasting or worth considering.
So I guess the only two choices we have now is to accept and enjoy who we are or sit and moan about what you can’t be. Pick your choice.
Rational Psychology 