Lisa Diamond: NARTH distorts my research
Today’s Salt Lake City Tribune published an article which brings the private feud between University of Utah professor Lisa Diamond and the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) into public view. Diamond went on camera for Wayne Besen in October to complain about NARTH’s use of her research but this article brings the dispute out of the advocacy realm and into the Salt Lake City community. An added significance of the SLC Tribune raising this issue is the presence of NARTH’s Dean Byrd and Dave Pruden in Salt Lake City.
The article begins:
A national group that advocates “treatment” of homosexuality is being criticized for allegedly distorting a Utah researcher’s work to advance the theory that people choose their sexual orientation - a controversial notion rejected by mainstream psychology.
To be sure, at least one NARTH document I have reviewed does use Diamond’s research to mislead readers, but I do not think NARTH as an organization promotes the idea that sexual orientation is a conscious choice. Rather, the reparative notion is that same-sex attraction derives from faulty parenting and not conscious choice.
I suspect the position paper on female homosexuality I critiqued is at issue when reporter Brian Maffly writes:
Lisa Diamond, a University of Utah psychologist whose sexual identity studies suggest a degree of “fluidity” in the sexual preferences of women, said in an interview Tuesday that the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, or NARTH, misrepresents her findings. Position papers, some penned by NARTH president A. Dean Byrd, an adjunct professor in the U.’s Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, point to Diamond’s research as evidence that gays’ sexual orientation can be straightened out through treatment - much to Diamond’s dismay.
The NARTH position paper on female homosexuality says this about Diamond’s work in a section on the “Fluidity of Homosexuality Attraction.”
These findings support the research of Dr. Lisa Diamond who concluded, “Sexual identity was far from fixed in women who aren’t exclusively heterosexual.” After following 80 non-heterosexual young women (lesbian, bisexual and unlabeled) over a two-year period, Dr. Diamond found that half of the women “reported multiple changes in sexual identity, and nearly one fourth of lesbians pursued sexual contact with men.”
The NARTH author confuses matters by first saying,
As mentioned, many researchers attest to the reality of female sexual fluidity. This does not directly translate into proof that any woman can easily change or alter her same sex attraction.
However, following the Diamond reference is a statement that twists the concept of spontaneous sexual fluidity for some women in a way that has Diamond upset.
The degree to which a woman can or will experience change will be uniquely determined based on her history and motivation to do so.
This is a non-sequitur. While fluidity has been described over time by research participants, the cause for the fluidity is an open question. The research identified by the NARTH “fact sheet” does not allow this conclusion. We have no idea for any given woman why change occurs. Diamond correctly criticizes NARTH for misusing her work in this way. Maffly continues,
Diamond, who has never met [NARTH president Dean] Byrd, said in an interview that NARTH “cherry picks” findings or references from her work that appear to support their position.
NARTH’s responds as has become typical. They claim they are just interpreting the data differently.
[NARTH founder and past-president, Joe] Nicolosi did not respond to an interview request and Byrd claimed he did not know why Diamond, a fellow U. faculty member, took umbrage with NARTH’s citation of her work.
“NARTH’s view is that people can adapt any way they want and there is freedom of choice,” Byrd says. “If it says ‘fluidity’ it says ‘fluidity.’ How you interpret it is something else.”
The reporter Maffly can be forgiven for his opening lines about NARTH promoting choice given Byrd’s way of discussing the matter. I suspect Byrd means choice of behaviors. Whatever he means by freedom to choose, he is wrong to say there is no guidance from Diamond’s research about how to interpret ‘fluidity.’ A review of her most recent book, Sexual Fluidity, makes clear that some of the women retained their same-sex attraction while discovering opposite-sex attraction. Some women actively fought the change of attraction but resigned themselves to heterosexuality. Her work does not support the statement about change being associated with history or motivation.
You shouldn’t bash NARTH, Dr. T. Are you perfect? Don’t you realize that NARTH has helped some people?
Whoa whoa whoa. Talk about “misleading!” Dr. T, are you a kettle or a pot?
To wit:
This is not the case. Your comment is incorrect, and misleading. Here’s how:
Your statement “following the Diamond reference is a statement that twists the concept …” implies that the following comment is a direct response/conclusion to the Diamond quote, when indeed it is not. There are 4 doctors with quoted research here, and the “statement that twists” follows that of Dr. Kristine Falco, not Dr. Diamonds as you imply.
Taking all 4 research items together, as they are presented, it is certainly fair to conclude as NARTH has:
Which just happens to be the sentence between the two you quoted. The statement you replaced it with is misleading, at best.
Diamond may not approve of the conclusion drawn from her research, but nobody is misleading anyone into thinking that the conclusion was hers.
Cheers!
Marty - Neither kettle nor pot.
If NARTH had left off this sentence,
they would have been on safer ground. The NARTH “fact sheet” attempts to build a case for fluidity and provides several references on point. However, it does not follow that fluidity derives from history and/or motivation. It may, but nothing in the references cited lead to that conclusion. And for the person who prays earnestly and follows her workbook and goes to meetings yet without change, this sentence is a huge shame inducer.
RE: your last point, NARTH does mislead readers into thinking that the conclusion is based in part on her work. Why cite her work if NARTH did not want readers to be influenced by it?
A person’s work or research can be used in application to other treatments they do not support. Unfortunately, I also read some of Diamond’s work and get out of it things she would wish I did not.
That is too bad. When the research shows potential for other uses - it will be used. Sort of like the post it fiasco, or the velcro debacle. Things which were intended for one purpose were put to good use for another.
No doubt, Diamond does not support NARTH nor the interpretation it made of her research.
And I am glad the NARTH has read her research and sees value in it.
NARTH does mislead readers into thinking that the conclusion is based in part on her work. Why cite her work if NARTH did not want readers to be influenced by it?
But it’s not misleading. NARTH’s conclusion IS based in part on her work. But it’s NARTH’s conclusion — not hers. I find nothing in the PDF that would lead anyone to think the conclusion was hers.
She may disagree with the conclusion, which is fine. But the only thing I find misleading is your blog post, which makes it appear that NARTH is attributing their conclusion to her. No honest reading of the fact sheet could reach that determination.
There is one BIG difference between Lisa Diamond and Narth: she uses scientific methods to prove her points.
Either way… what conclusions are drwan from research and their applications may not be to the researchers liking or political views. That’s science.
@Mary
Many lesbian and gay researchers play by the rules just to prove what they are interested in. Lisa Diamond is interested in proving that (even straight) women’s sexuality doesn’t flow into one direction and that it happens no matter what they will, Narth is interested in emphasising that they can choose which part of their fluidity to pursue and that that becomes experience (history) and influences what they become. So why not Narth distort Lisa Diamond’s findings, if they’re both biased but one is fighting with science and the other with values? Can she get down from the pedestal of scientific objectivity and talk values? Nope, that would put her on a par with the other folks, when she wants to lecture people on “what really is” instead of “what it should be.” They’re both talking about the same thing, but stressing different things, according to their bias. My 2 cents.
Evan,
I have ordered her book and will respond when reading is completed.
While many gays and lesbians play by the rules, there are many that do not.
We will have to agree to disagree here?
The book should arrive by the 19th???
Evan,
Yes, I would agree that they both have bias - no doubt. I’ve rarely read antyhing by an author who did not promote his or her own bias.
In a statment she provided to someone (I forget where - but maybe it can be found on YouTube) she said she made every attempt to present her research in a way that could not be used in any other way than how she wanted it to be used.
That’s a lot of effort to to close up any other varying opinions or perspectives. If everyone were truly interested in science they would evaluate the analysis of others and engage in discussion rather than bashing the other guy for seeing something else.
I’m just wondering, doesn’t it follow that our past experiences and our current or future desires will design how we will or will not change - for everything in our lives, not just sexuality?
Is change just spontaneous? Is that what Diamond is saying???