Seeing some of the press out on the recent NARTH (National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) monograph, one might think the paper is a new study which demonstrates something that was once unclear.
Not so. The first issue of the journal is actually a three part paper which reviews a variety of research studies mixed in with website postings and newspaper articles. There is no new research in the 121 page monograph. The three parts correspond to three claims the NARTH authors, James Phelan, Neil Whitehead, and Philip Sutton, attribute to the American Psychological Association. The claims are:
1. There has been no conclusive or convincing evidence that sexual orientation may be changed through reorientation therapy.
2. Efforts to change sexual orientation are harmful and can lead to greater self-hatred, depression, and other self-destructive behaviors.
3. There is no greater pathology in the homosexual population than in the general population.
To achieve the stated purpose, one would need to limit the review to the highest quality research which directly address each of the points. Particularly on the first two points, the paper does not do this, but rather includes any paper, or even opinion piece which supports the claims. In a subsequent article, I will review the paper in a bit more detail. Suffice to say for now, that there is nothing new in this paper.
I will note one problem that jumped out at me immediately. The NARTH report begins with the claim that scientific evidence leads to
a singular conclusion: Homosexuality is not innate, immutable or without significant risk to medical, psychological, and relational health. (Emphasis in the original)
However, one aspect of this “singular conclusion” – the claim homosexuality is not innate – is not covered in the body of the paper. Despite the fact that NARTH concludes that homosexuality develops after a person is born, they provide no review of the evidence which addresses that topic. From this statement and others, one could get the impression that the conclusion was decided before the review took place.
Jr – If you want to get the history, you might want to put NARTH in the search engine and see prior posts. I was concerned about the dominance of reparative therapy concepts long before 2006 but not attending the 2006 conference was the defining moment I believe.
Lots and lots, hard to know where to start. Axe to grind is too strong a way to put it though. My beat and interest is sexuality policy and research in the evangelical tradition. NARTH has influence in that world way beyond its size and competence. Many think it is only the gay activists who find fault because they don’t like what they say – but all too often gay advocates are basically on target when it comes to NARTH. I am a religious and social conservative and I think when NARTH stretches data and misrepresent the facts (e.g., “New scientific research!”), they hinder the cause and potential help people need.
LOL. You’re probably right about that, Katie.
A profound observation from Wendy.
PS – JR – NARTH continues to stretch the data and in their rhetoric advocate – “Change is possible.” It probably is for some subset of same-sex attracted people, but the kind of change that they promise has not been proven to be generalizable. I am a conservative but that is not synonymous with pushing change as the sole righteous aim.
See this page for more on my approach.
Thanks, Concerned. I will also try to “work at listening to what another is saying rather than attempt to justify the choices that I have made for myself.”
I admit it. I love a good debate. Sometimes the “war of words” — at least on my part — has been to “win points”. I may have given the impression that this was all I cared about.
But I really hope, that by challenging each other and clarifying our meanings — and sharing our journeys — we will be able to clean up false impressions and understand each other more. And for those of us who are Christians, reflect Him more clearly.
For example, when Wendy Gritter called on EXODUS to address “the preception that we have been lying” (about orientation change), I think she was right on target. It saddened me that EXODUS seemed to do very little to put her suggestion into practice.
Like it or not, this preception of ex-gay dishonesty has been one of the biggest “impressions” about ex-gays and “change” ministries — and probably the biggest conflict between EXODUS and its critics.
So, one might ask, why has their been a wrong impression about this for so long? Maybe it’s EXODUS’s fault. Maybe some of them were not being honest with themselves and others. Maybe they did indeed lie.
Maybe, others, in their enthusiam, told their truth but used language that “over-stated or “hyped” — forgetting that not everyone speaks “christianese”
And maybe, EXODUS’s critics were just trying to “stir up some trouble” and discredit EXODUS (wanting to make EXODUS look dishonest) and did not really care to listen to ex-gay voices (like Eddy’s) who readily admit that they are still SSA. Maybe they really thought EXODUS was lying.
My guess is that it is BOTH.
Thanks, Warren. I agree.
This is one of the big reasons I wish EXODUS would drop all affiliation with NARTH — since NARTH’s “stretching data” about “the kind of change that they promise” may give the impression that EXODUS is doing the same. To a great extent, is true that you are known by the compnay you keep.
This was one of the main reasons why early EXODUS leaders deliberately and firmly avoided such an association. Even as an ex-gay, I had this objection about NARTH. The “science” was bad. Nothing NARTH has done since has changed this impression
I still think EXODUS would be well advised to remain basically un-affiliated and should take no offical political positition — in the manner of AA:
I agree – no political affiliation. But then they always come in with their trump card of the “GREAT COMMISSION” Argh!!!!
Was Jesus affiliated with the religious right or the political elite or influential?
Michael et al, my impression is that Alan Chambers has done a pretty decent job with getting it right as regards what change means and doesn’t mean in his latest book, FWIW. I think more important even than worrying about the term ex-gay is dropping the slogan,”Change is possible” for something that better qualifies “change.” We don’t need cutsy slogans. We need open hearts.
I see NARTH as quasi-Christian, but I have only talked with Linda Nicolosi, in all honesty. I have read lots of the same stuff others have on their site and elsewhere, and I have seen troubling things.
Change IS possible for a variety of predispositions and life choices that send us down a particular road. But I am much more likely to embrace the concept of a changed life in the reborn or healed spiritual sense than in the psychodynamic, “cured” or redirected sense. If a gay person “comes to Jesus,” that’s a hallelujah moment, regardless of what happens with his or her struggle with SSA.
I come back to what Wendy Gritter says: essentially, don’t put second things first or first things second.
@ Debbie:
Me too.
Preach it, sister!
Debbie, I have talked with Alan and have read his book. Yes, think he has done a better job of this than previous EXODUS leaders. He told the LA TImes he didn’t think he had “ever really met an ex-gay” (I think he meant in the completely non-SSA, redirected sense you described.)
He also said he didn’t care for the term ‘ex-gay’ because it was “mainly confusing” (I think he meant that he realized that it could — and often has — given the wrong impression.)
He suggested “officially retiring” it bcause it didn’t “really describe what the ‘change’ process is all about…”
So yes, I think he has done a better job. Of course, soon after this he resumed calling himself a “former homosexual” — which only perpetuated the confusion.
Too bad we can’t drop the labels altoghter and say, “I have experienced big changes in my life since accepting Christ” — and then go on to describe those changes.
Michael, I promise you I will do everything I can to redirect the conversation and try to dispel the confusion (I am trying already, actually). No promises as it is a big ship to turn around. But I will work at it, darn it. How’s that?
What’s this??!! A hundred choruses of kumbaya whilst I was down lounging at the pool???!! Cool!
Lotsa good reading when I got home. I appreciated that. LOL. It made me think back to the time…not long ago at all…when I’d see a pageful of new post notices and work through them with a feeling of dread and foreboding. Words can’t fully express how much I appreciate this new tone…how we’re able to speak from different viewpoints and learn from each other rather than simply tear each other down. This isn’t my website but I have a strong attachment to it and it’s so exciting to see that it might actually be able to live up to its potential…just when I was losing all hope that it ever could.
Special thanks to Michael who has contributed mightily to this change of tone. And thanks to all who caught the spirit of kumbaya and worked to bring a more cordial and responsive tone to their comments. (Don’t lose that link, Michael…we might need it again someday.)
Thanks, Eddy. You are welcome. I think that you will see that it is a lasting change on my part — no more dread and foreboading. The Holy Spirit really hit me up side the head a few days ago — and your thoughtful explanations and disarming self-disclosure did the rest. Suddenly, you seemed almost human…
(just kidding ya…)
Or maybe it was the nuns…
@Debbie:
Perfect
Sometimes, I identify as a nut. Sometimes, I don’t.
@Warren:
I really appreciate that. Some think it’s only us “gay activists” who think their “science” sucks.
Well, Michael, you ain’t the only one the Spirit’s “hit upside the head.” I speaketh for myself only. Never had to deal with nuns, fortunately. I did have a slightly sadistic first/second grade teacher.
Katie, Eddy and Michael,
Re: femininity in men or their attitude to femininity, whether or not they’re gay. Sorry, Warren, if this brings the discussion back to issues not directly the object of this topic. –
Your exchange on femininity & men made me think about that from another perspective. Sure, this idea of genders being mixtures of opposing dualities is not new culturally, from the Eastern symbolism of yin & yang (the yin within the yang and viceversa), the Indian mandalas combining squares and circles as opposing principles, and up to Carl Jung’s theory on animus and anima as unconscious mirrors of masculinity and femininity in women and men. Each culture found a way to deal with that using strong symbolism to “exorcise” an otherwise meaningless reality. There’s even a hint on that in the Christian creation myth with Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib (some read that as an indication of Adam’s originary hermaphroditism).
Returning to the present, now this theme of the woman-inside-the-man and the man-inside-the-woman is dissected from a scientific point of view, with a possible bearing on medical interventions. It’s not just the basic curiosity about sexes and what makes them different and fascinated about each other (breasts for men or deep voices for women), which we see in recent research on attractivity and sexually dimorphic traits. As Katie said, and I wrote a few times before here, sex in the sexual sense is a modern obsession and this explains why it has become so important to colour one’s identity based on sexual “orientation.” But besides the basic curiosity and the specificity of our age, there is the issue of what is normal and how society deals with what is rejected, including by the focus on mental health.
Most of the people who have been hovering around this blog, contributing or not to the dicussion or simply interested in the related research are familiar with the consistent findings on the link between cross-sex traits, behaviours, brain patterns and sexuality, but also between these and mental health risks.
According to many scientists, there is a clear association between a marked expression of femininity in men and mental health risks and problems. Check out what a group from the Stockholm Brain Institute declares as its main interest and objective of research:
In layman’s terms, they want to deal with “too much femininity/masculinity” in a member of the opposite sex, because that is associated with serious mental health problems. Usually, these extreme conditions are the tip of a hidden iceberg.
Since Katie and carole brought the subject of autism, reversed sexual dimorphism is considered as a suspect in this case too:
Which brings us back to the subject of therapy or other interventions used to recuperate particular individuals troubled by illness or by a degree of sex atypicality that has a negative effect on the quality of their lives.
I wonder if scientists find genetic foundations for these reversed gender traits, how could the subject of “change” in the area of sexuality look like, considering that it would correlate both with sexual orientation and mental health risks. Simply said: what if both are genetically based, would that change the debate on the possiblity of change or its usefulness? If a man or a woman has genes that make him/her more likely to be attracted to the same gender and be at risk for mental health problems, could Narth or a similar organisation help them using therapy or should they need to change at all?
Because this organisation argued that they don’t expect genes to play an important role, therefore therapy should be able to deliver according to their theory.
On the other hand, those who advocated for the gay side and for innate factors that determine to a significant degree sexual orientation would be, at least partly, confirmed and would argue that therapy is unnecessary.
What if each is wrong about one and right about the other, would that change significantly the debate on change?
carole
The comment and questions are addressed to you too. I see you and Katie were both involved in questioning Michael on the issue of femininity.
Evan: I don’t know if I got all of the above, but this I have a bit of trouble with:
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc? We have to be very careful here. These “markedly feminine men” may have increased “mental health risks” due to the extreme cultural stigma directed against such persons.
Evan, I argue that “therapy is unnecessary” because gayness is not an illness. On the other hand, if SSA persons want help in not acting on those attractions, resolving underlying trauma that may be fuleing some of the attractions (or help in not “identifying” with the attractions) they have every right to seek such help.
Michael,
The question is: if both homo/bisexual orientations and risk for mental health problems are associated with genetic factors, is change necessary?
You know it’s like, what if it’s not society’s directed actions or attitudes against a minority that are causing distress but society’s naturally noisy functioning as it is? And if, in this case, genes would be responsible with such vulnerability, who should change: society should be taught to “keep it down” not to disturb vulnerable people, or vulnerable people should have the option to get the help they need to adjust? The question assumes that such genetic factors exist and that they cause both a non-homosexual orientation and vulnerability to stress.
I meant “a non-heterosexual orientation and vulnerability to stress.”
This question is interesting because no one seems concerned with examining the situation in which each party is right about one thing that the other rejects and how would that reflect on the issue of change.
I don’t know if I would say “necessary”. As a therapist, I would treat the mental health problem, but I would not try to change the sexual orientation. I would also not think that by resolving one thing I could (or should) fix the other.
Just because two things are related (or both have genetic components) doesn’t mean they cause one another — or that “change” is “necessary”. We might find, for example, that both homo/bisexual orientations and left-handedness were “associated with genetic factors”, but it would not follow that we should “change” either thing.
In the case of the possible sexual orientation/mental illness correlation, I would advocate that we reduce the social stigma against gays first — and then see their overall mental health doesn’t get better. When people feel welcome in their culture, their mood tends to improve.
Michael,
OK, but the devil is in the details. We can come up with principles that sound fair and considerate, but may not fit the reality in the street. For instance, policy changes could address the problem of stigma but may not make people act less noisy or assertive, which could cause withdrawal or too much stress to people with the genetic markers I mentioned. It’s been a few decades since politically correct policies have been put into place in the US and Europe and the culture has accommodated gay and lesbian people to a greater degree than before, but the findings from scientific research continue to point to this reality I mentioned. It seems it’s not a question of environment as much as a natural outcome from the interplay between society and certain vulnerable individuals.
Michael — It seems my reply is being held for moderation.
Test: if I write “devil”, does this message go through the Profanity Filter?
@anyone
Word of advice: don’t use “deviI” in comments.
Don’t ask me how I managed to do in this one…
Reposting in an epic thread (already 929 comments):
@Michael
OK, but the deviI is in the details. We can come up with principles that sound fair and considerate, but may not fit the reality in the street. For instance, policy changes could address the problem of stigma but may not make people act less noisy or assertive, which could cause withdrawal or too much stress to people with the genetic markers I mentioned. It’s been a few decades since politically correct policies have been put into place in the US and Europe and the culture has accommodated gay and lesbian people to a greater degree than before, but the findings from scientific research continue to point to this reality I mentioned. It seems it’s not a question of environment as much as a natural outcome from the interplay between society and certain vulnerable individuals.
I think the last paragraph addresses two key issues: 1) non-societal factors
2) more study, better studies needed–(I haven’t yet read the link you provided, Evan)
Sexual Orientation and Suicidality
A Co-twin Control Study in Adult Men
Richard Herrell, MS; Jack Goldberg, PhD; William R. True, PhD, MPH; Visvanathan Ramakrishnan, PhD; Michael Lyons, PhD; Seth Eisen, MD; Ming T. Tsuang, MD, DSc, PhD
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1999;56:867-874.
Background Several recent studies have found a higher lifetime prevalence of suicide attempts in homosexual males compared with heterosexual control subjects or population rates. These studies used either convenience samples, most without controls, or population-based samples in which confounding factors such as depression and substance abuse were not measured.
Methods This study used twins from the population-based Vietnam Era Twin Registry, Hines, Ill. An analytic sample of 103 middle-aged male-male twin pairs from the registry was identified in which one member of the pair reported male sex partners after age 18 years while the other did not. Four lifetime symptoms of suicidality as measured by the Diagnostic Interview Schedule were analyzed: thoughts about death, wanting to die, thoughts about committing suicide, and attempted suicide. A composite measure of reporting at least one suicidality symptom was also assessed.
Results Same-gender sexual orientation is significantly associated with each of the suicidality measures. Unadjusted matched-pair odds ratios follow: 2.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-4.6) for thoughts about death; 4.4 (95% CI, 1.7-11.6) for wanted to die; 4.1 (95% CI, 2.1-8.2) for suicidal ideation; 6.5 (95% CI, 1.5-28.8) for attempted suicide; and 5.1 (95% CI, 2.4-10.9) for any of the suicidal symptoms. After adjustment for substance abuse and depressive symptoms (other than suicidality), all of the suicidality measures remain significantly associated with same-gender sexual orientation except for wanting to die (odds ratio, 2.5 [95% CI, 0.7-8.8]).
Conclusions The substantially increased lifetime risk of suicidal behaviors in homosexual men is unlikely to be due solely to substance abuse or other psychiatric comorbidity. While the underlying causes of the suicidal behaviors remain unclear, future research needs to address the inadequacies in the measurement of both sexual orientation and suicidality in population-based samples.
Michael,
In support of my argument, here is the abstract of a study from last year, published in Behavioral Genetics:
The entire study can be freely accessed here.
You are making my point, Evan. Any marginalized and despised minority is apt to experience more depression and more stress. That only makes sense.
I think these stuides are still examples of the “post hoc, ergo propter hoc” fallacy. Correlation does not equal cause. You seem to be suggesting pthat there is something about being gay (in and of itself) that makes gays more vulnerable to mental illness. I disagree.
@Carole:
See my comments to Evan.
Black slaves probably got depressed a lot.
Michael,
I think that when science will have some definitive answers on the essential factors, both parties will have something to chew on. As I said, I don’t assume one party is completely right at the expense of the other. On the contrary, I think the better the research will get, the more dots will be connected, and that will provoke mixed reactions to both parties.
Every theoretical possibility must be examined, in my opinion. I pointed at this possibility since the brain studies which showed some components of the stress system were similarly shaped in gay men and straight women, which explains why they are similarly affected by or at higher risk for some mental health problems. The dots seem to start to connect in this direction:
Although Michael, there is less depression and suicide reported in balck americans. May be underreported or could be cultural influences.
@Michael,
Actually,no, I am doing no such thing. I am not in the position to suggest that at all. I only am responding with a reference since the topic came up some posts back. I recalled that the researchers involved in the study concluded with two points, one of them that ,” future research needs to address the inadequacies in the measurement of both sexual orientation and suicidality in population-based samples.”
There are studies going on as we speak, I believe, probably many. Studies with better controls and population samples may provide more “trustable ” data.
Michael, I realize your fear, but one does have to maintain some distance here. I think what scientists, including “hard scientists” might be wondering is if there is a biological/neurological component to SSA are there correlations to other brain functions?
The question about depression is often asked as it relates to men vs. women as well. Do women simply seek out help for their depression more than men? Or, do they experience more stressful life circumstances than men? Or, are women simply biologically more susceptible to depression than men? Researchers are busy with the differences, therefore between male/female on this topic.
Also, they are researching the differences in depressive episodes and reactions between adults and adolescents.
It is a reasonable question. I just think we have to be very careful to keep in mind that theories are just that — theories, and that correlation does not equal causation. It’s a basic tenet of good research.
For some reason, (I suspect anti-gay bias that there must be something “wrong”, inferior or disordererd” with being gay) researchers are prone to say — “aha! These two things seem to be related, therefore one must cause the other”.
NARTH seems to be particularly prone to this sort of logical fallacy.
On second thought, it does seem reasonable that there might be neurological differences, shared with women, that make gays more vulnerable to (anti-gay) stress.
Gee…. so you want to say ‘nonheterosexuality’ is innate and likely genetic? And along with that so to any neurosis or psychosis? So what then does the oppression I’ve felt over the years have done to me? Or…. is fleeing to people like NARTH to get rid of my ‘nonheterosexuality’ then a part of their statistical review? I mean if you’re told your mentally ill, that is have an SSA of which you should rid yourself, then your by definition mentally ill and become a part of their statistics.
Tell you what, normalize ‘nonheterosexuality’ in the society and then see what those statistics come out to be.
Evan – Thanks for posting the abstract to that study involving risk and neuroticism. You might remember that when Siegelman controlled for neuroticism he found that the father deficit theory was not true of homosexuals. However, neuroticism may be somewhat higher in homosexuals for reasons of genetics and not environment. Thus, such variables probably influence the parent-child relationship significantly.
On the point of risk for various disorders. I think this is a highly significant study. And one that does not eliminate the role of social environment. However, in asking which comes first, environment or genetic vulnerability, I would say this study provides preliminary but solid evidence that the vulnerability is prior to experience.
An interesting counter point to the “new” NARTH paper which finds all of the mischief in men behaving badly.
Whew! That was a really long thread. Are we done now?