Psychiatrist retracts infamous gay reparative therapy study

For discussion of politics, and what's going on in the world today.

Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron, Matt8819, Ironclad

Psychiatrist retracts infamous gay reparative therapy study

#1  Postby keypad5 » Apr 14, 2012 6:47 am

Psychiatrist retracts infamous study claiming gay people can turn straight through therapy
Robert Spitzer admits critiques of 2011 research are 'largely correct'


The psychiatrist behind a prominent 2001 study declaring people can go from gay to straight has retracted his original claims.

Although the research is still cited by anti-gay organizations as proof that so-called ex-gay therapy works to change someone's sexual orientation, the study has endured scientific criticism for years.

Now, Robert Spitzer, who led the research, told American Prospect that he wants to publish a retraction.

"In retrospect, I have to admit I think the critiques are largely correct," Spitzer said. "The findings can be considered evidence for what those who have undergone ex-gay therapy say about it, but nothing more."

[...]

Wayne Besen, author of "Anything But Straight: Unmasking the Scandals and Lies Behind the Ex-Gay Myth," commended Spitzer's retraction in an interview with the Huffington Post.
[...]
"Spitzer just kicked out the final leg from the stool on which the proponents of 'ex-gay' therapy based their already shaky claims of success."


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/h ... z1rzjdcsc9

Well ain't that something. :popcorn:
User avatar
keypad5
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 1584
Age: 34
Male

Country: Down Under
New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Psychiatrist retracts infamous gay reparative therapy study

#2  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 14, 2012 7:36 am

keypad5 wrote:
Psychiatrist retracts infamous study claiming gay people can turn straight through therapy
Robert Spitzer admits critiques of 2011 research are 'largely correct'


The psychiatrist behind a prominent 2001 study declaring people can go from gay to straight has retracted his original claims.

Although the research is still cited by anti-gay organizations as proof that so-called ex-gay therapy works to change someone's sexual orientation, the study has endured scientific criticism for years.

Now, Robert Spitzer, who led the research, told American Prospect that he wants to publish a retraction.

"In retrospect, I have to admit I think the critiques are largely correct," Spitzer said. "The findings can be considered evidence for what those who have undergone ex-gay therapy say about it, but nothing more."

[...]

Wayne Besen, author of "Anything But Straight: Unmasking the Scandals and Lies Behind the Ex-Gay Myth," commended Spitzer's retraction in an interview with the Huffington Post.
[...]
"Spitzer just kicked out the final leg from the stool on which the proponents of 'ex-gay' therapy based their already shaky claims of success."


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/h ... z1rzjdcsc9

Well ain't that something. :popcorn:

Took him long enough :nono:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 14623
Age: 25
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Psychiatrist retracts infamous gay reparative therapy study

#3  Postby Peter Brown » Apr 14, 2012 9:41 am

The study I gather focused on the respondents anecdotal views post treatment, and I don’t have a problem with that. Behavioural modification has its uses in medical psychiatry; maybe one day doctors can cure humanity of nasty people before they grow up to be nasty?

The problems I have are those who don’t like gay people latching onto work that might have a good outcome in something not related to gayness and want to use it make them gays just go away.

It’s like people wanting to go round painting white people black because they don’t like white people, just plain pointless and stupid as being gay (or white) is not harmful or painful to anyone.
User avatar
Peter Brown
 
Posts: 2708
Age: 51
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Psychiatrist retracts infamous gay reparative therapy study

#4  Postby Nicko » Apr 14, 2012 1:44 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Took him long enough :nono:


Mistakes can be hard to recognise, let alone admit publicly. Some people never do it.

He could have stuck to his guns and enjoyed a privileged position in the religious right until he died. Apparently he cares about the truth. Well done.
"... I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."

-- Charles Babbage
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 6183
Age: 38
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Psychiatrist retracts infamous gay reparative therapy study

#5  Postby BrandySpears » Apr 15, 2012 6:49 pm

Nicko wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:Took him long enough :nono:


Mistakes can be hard to recognise, let alone admit publicly. Some people never do it.

He could have stuck to his guns and enjoyed a privileged position in the religious right until he died. Apparently he cares about the truth. Well done.


Spitzer has never been a member of the religious right.

Dr. Spitzer's research was particularly harmful because he was the only non-socially conservative scientist to produce a study claiming some people could "pray away the gay."

Spitzer's 2001 study was a surprise and created a media firestorm because he had previously led the charge in 1972-73 to remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association.


Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/04/11/440624 ... rylink=cpy
User avatar
BrandySpears
 
Posts: 6389

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Psychiatrist retracts infamous gay reparative therapy study

#6  Postby Nicko » Apr 16, 2012 12:37 am

BrandySpears wrote:Spitzer has never been a member of the religious right.


I know, my point was that if he wanted to ignore reality, there is no shortage of people who would have provided him with a refuget to validate this activity.
"... I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."

-- Charles Babbage
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 6183
Age: 38
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Psychiatrist retracts infamous gay reparative therapy study

#7  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 16, 2012 1:22 pm

Nicko wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:Took him long enough :nono:


Mistakes can be hard to recognise, let alone admit publicly. Some people never do it.

He could have stuck to his guns and enjoyed a privileged position in the religious right until he died. Apparently he cares about the truth. Well done.

Sorry but I have no respect for a scientist who values ideology over evidence/reality.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 14623
Age: 25
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Psychiatrist retracts infamous gay reparative therapy study

#8  Postby Nicko » Apr 16, 2012 2:31 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Sorry but I have no respect for a scientist who values ideology over evidence/reality.


What is mystifying to me is that you feel the need to apologise for holding this view. :thumbup:
"... I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."

-- Charles Babbage
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 6183
Age: 38
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Psychiatrist retracts infamous gay reparative therapy study

#9  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 16, 2012 2:48 pm

Nicko wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:Sorry but I have no respect for a scientist who values ideology over evidence/reality.


What is mystifying to me is that you feel the need to apologise for holding this view. :thumbup:

It's more of a politeness thing I picked up in Japan than an actual apology for my view.
It's more like I'm sorry if I offend you, not I apologize for my view.
I know it sounds weird but hey, 'tis as it is.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 14623
Age: 25
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Psychiatrist retracts infamous gay reparative therapy study

#10  Postby Shrunk » Apr 16, 2012 3:14 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Sorry but I have no respect for a scientist who values ideology over evidence/reality.


Are you suggesting that this is what Spitzer has done?
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 19454
Age: 49
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Psychiatrist retracts infamous gay reparative therapy study

#11  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 16, 2012 3:58 pm

Shrunk wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:Sorry but I have no respect for a scientist who values ideology over evidence/reality.


Are you suggesting that this is what Spitzer has done?

I am. There seems to be no other explanation for his publishing and endorsing of such a pseudo-scientific piece of crap.
But if I'm wrong I'll apologize.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 14623
Age: 25
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Psychiatrist retracts infamous gay reparative therapy study

#12  Postby Shrunk » Apr 16, 2012 4:07 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:Sorry but I have no respect for a scientist who values ideology over evidence/reality.


Are you suggesting that this is what Spitzer has done?

I am. There seems to be no other explanation for his publishing and endorsing of such a pseudo-scientific piece of crap.
But if I'm wrong I'll apologize.


My understanding is that he ran the study, these were the results that he got, and he published them. He's one of the biggest names in psychiatry, and there is little in his history to suggest an ideological bias. In fact, he was one of the key figures in having homosexuality as a diagnosis removed from the DSM.

Wiki biography

The issue, to my mind, is that the far right cited and promoted this study to a degree far out of proportion to its, at best modest, scientific merit. To be honest, I think this "retraction" is being puffed up to a bigger degree than it warrants, as well. This was an otherwise very minor paper that only vaguely hinted at findings that were not corroborated by any more rigorous study, and within the field has had negligible influence. As I said, its importance has only been as a political tool misused by extremist social conservatives.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 19454
Age: 49
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Psychiatrist retracts infamous gay reparative therapy study

#13  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 16, 2012 7:19 pm

Shrunk wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:Sorry but I have no respect for a scientist who values ideology over evidence/reality.


Are you suggesting that this is what Spitzer has done?

I am. There seems to be no other explanation for his publishing and endorsing of such a pseudo-scientific piece of crap.
But if I'm wrong I'll apologize.


My understanding is that he ran the study, these were the results that he got, and he published them. He's one of the biggest names in psychiatry, and there is little in his history to suggest an ideological bias. In fact, he was one of the key figures in having homosexuality as a diagnosis removed from the DSM.

Wiki biography

The issue, to my mind, is that the far right cited and promoted this study to a degree far out of proportion to its, at best modest, scientific merit. To be honest, I think this "retraction" is being puffed up to a bigger degree than it warrants, as well. This was an otherwise very minor paper that only vaguely hinted at findings that were not corroborated by any more rigorous study, and within the field has had negligible influence. As I said, its importance has only been as a political tool misused by extremist social conservatives.

I stand corrected, however he could have been far more active in rebutting the far right movements that abused his study so much.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 14623
Age: 25
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Psychiatrist retracts infamous gay reparative therapy study

#14  Postby Imagination Theory » Apr 16, 2012 8:47 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Shrunk wrote:

Are you suggesting that this is what Spitzer has done?

I am. There seems to be no other explanation for his publishing and endorsing of such a pseudo-scientific piece of crap.
But if I'm wrong I'll apologize.


My understanding is that he ran the study, these were the results that he got, and he published them. He's one of the biggest names in psychiatry, and there is little in his history to suggest an ideological bias. In fact, he was one of the key figures in having homosexuality as a diagnosis removed from the DSM.

Wiki biography

The issue, to my mind, is that the far right cited and promoted this study to a degree far out of proportion to its, at best modest, scientific merit. To be honest, I think this "retraction" is being puffed up to a bigger degree than it warrants, as well. This was an otherwise very minor paper that only vaguely hinted at findings that were not corroborated by any more rigorous study, and within the field has had negligible influence. As I said, its importance has only been as a political tool misused by extremist social conservatives.

I stand corrected, however he could have been far more active in rebutting the far right movements that abused his study so much.


How active is he suppose to be at 70-80?

When Dr. Robert Spitzer’s study of 200 gay men and women who reported a change in their sexual orientation appeared in the Archives of Sexual Behavior in 2003, anti-gay lobbyist seized on it as proof that homosexuality was, at its core, a choice that could be changed. ....

Dr. Spitzer consistently warned that his study should not be used as a part of political efforts to denying gays and lesbians, a warning which Focus on the Family, NARTH and Exodus have ignored with abandon. Now Truth Wins Out has released a video in which Dr. Spitzer registers his disappointment in no uncertain terms:

… of course, they [Focus on the Family] were delighted with that study. What they fail to mention — and it’s not, I guess, a big surprise — is that in the discussion I noted that it was so hard for me to find 200 subjects to participate in the study that I have to conclude that, although change is possible and does occur, it’s probably quite rare. And of course, they don’t want to mention that.”


http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/02/15/227

I don't think it is his reasonability to constantly rebuke everyone who misunderstands his study.
Я пью за разоренный дом,
За злую жизнь мою,
За одиночество вдвоем,
И за тебя я пью, -
За ложь меня предавших губ,
За мертвый холод глаз,
За то, что мир жесток и груб,
За то, что Бог не спас.


Андре́евна

אני מתגעגע הביתה
User avatar
Imagination Theory
 
Posts: 5977

Botswana (bw)
Print view this post

Re: Psychiatrist retracts infamous gay reparative therapy study

#15  Postby Shrunk » Apr 16, 2012 11:36 pm

Here's the video from that link:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwE6_dLweYo[/youtube]
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 19454
Age: 49
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Psychiatrist retracts infamous gay reparative therapy study

#16  Postby Mr.Samsa » Apr 17, 2012 2:47 am

Shrunk wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:Sorry but I have no respect for a scientist who values ideology over evidence/reality.


Are you suggesting that this is what Spitzer has done?

I am. There seems to be no other explanation for his publishing and endorsing of such a pseudo-scientific piece of crap.
But if I'm wrong I'll apologize.


My understanding is that he ran the study, these were the results that he got, and he published them. He's one of the biggest names in psychiatry, and there is little in his history to suggest an ideological bias. In fact, he was one of the key figures in having homosexuality as a diagnosis removed from the DSM.

Wiki biography

The issue, to my mind, is that the far right cited and promoted this study to a degree far out of proportion to its, at best modest, scientific merit. To be honest, I think this "retraction" is being puffed up to a bigger degree than it warrants, as well. This was an otherwise very minor paper that only vaguely hinted at findings that were not corroborated by any more rigorous study, and within the field has had negligible influence. As I said, its importance has only been as a political tool misused by extremist social conservatives.


:this:

According to Thomas' ideas on how a good scientist should behave (i.e. valuing evidence and reality over ideology), then Spitzer should be recognised as a good scientist as he followed the evidence regardless of the fact that it took him against his personal opinions. The problem was, of course, that his methodology was sub-standard but this happens to even the best of scientists, and very few have the integrity to publicly retract their study when faced with corrections. There was nothing pseudoscientific about Spitzer's study, there wasn't even anything particularly wrong with the way he conducted it - his only fault was not realising that self-reported data can only be used as evidence for how the subjects felt, not as objective data that is an accurate reflection of the statements made.
Image
User avatar
Mr.Samsa
Suspended User
 
Posts: 11370
Age: 28

Print view this post

Re: Psychiatrist retracts infamous gay reparative therapy study

#17  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 17, 2012 4:02 am

Imagination Theory wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
I am. There seems to be no other explanation for his publishing and endorsing of such a pseudo-scientific piece of crap.
But if I'm wrong I'll apologize.


My understanding is that he ran the study, these were the results that he got, and he published them. He's one of the biggest names in psychiatry, and there is little in his history to suggest an ideological bias. In fact, he was one of the key figures in having homosexuality as a diagnosis removed from the DSM.

Wiki biography

The issue, to my mind, is that the far right cited and promoted this study to a degree far out of proportion to its, at best modest, scientific merit. To be honest, I think this "retraction" is being puffed up to a bigger degree than it warrants, as well. This was an otherwise very minor paper that only vaguely hinted at findings that were not corroborated by any more rigorous study, and within the field has had negligible influence. As I said, its importance has only been as a political tool misused by extremist social conservatives.

I stand corrected, however he could have been far more active in rebutting the far right movements that abused his study so much.


How active is he suppose to be at 70-80?

When Dr. Robert Spitzer’s study of 200 gay men and women who reported a change in their sexual orientation appeared in the Archives of Sexual Behavior in 2003, anti-gay lobbyist seized on it as proof that homosexuality was, at its core, a choice that could be changed. ....

Dr. Spitzer consistently warned that his study should not be used as a part of political efforts to denying gays and lesbians, a warning which Focus on the Family, NARTH and Exodus have ignored with abandon. Now Truth Wins Out has released a video in which Dr. Spitzer registers his disappointment in no uncertain terms:

… of course, they [Focus on the Family] were delighted with that study. What they fail to mention — and it’s not, I guess, a big surprise — is that in the discussion I noted that it was so hard for me to find 200 subjects to participate in the study that I have to conclude that, although change is possible and does occur, it’s probably quite rare. And of course, they don’t want to mention that.”


http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/02/15/227

I don't think it is his reasonability to constantly rebuke everyone who misunderstands his study.


Ok, ok I apologize, I spoke to soon. I should have done me research! :oops:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 14623
Age: 25
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Psychiatrist retracts infamous gay reparative therapy study

#18  Postby Imagination Theory » Apr 19, 2012 1:16 am

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Imagination Theory wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Shrunk wrote:

My understanding is that he ran the study, these were the results that he got, and he published them. He's one of the biggest names in psychiatry, and there is little in his history to suggest an ideological bias. In fact, he was one of the key figures in having homosexuality as a diagnosis removed from the DSM.

Wiki biography

The issue, to my mind, is that the far right cited and promoted this study to a degree far out of proportion to its, at best modest, scientific merit. To be honest, I think this "retraction" is being puffed up to a bigger degree than it warrants, as well. This was an otherwise very minor paper that only vaguely hinted at findings that were not corroborated by any more rigorous study, and within the field has had negligible influence. As I said, its importance has only been as a political tool misused by extremist social conservatives.

I stand corrected, however he could have been far more active in rebutting the far right movements that abused his study so much.


How active is he suppose to be at 70-80?

When Dr. Robert Spitzer’s study of 200 gay men and women who reported a change in their sexual orientation appeared in the Archives of Sexual Behavior in 2003, anti-gay lobbyist seized on it as proof that homosexuality was, at its core, a choice that could be changed. ....

Dr. Spitzer consistently warned that his study should not be used as a part of political efforts to denying gays and lesbians, a warning which Focus on the Family, NARTH and Exodus have ignored with abandon. Now Truth Wins Out has released a video in which Dr. Spitzer registers his disappointment in no uncertain terms:

… of course, they [Focus on the Family] were delighted with that study. What they fail to mention — and it’s not, I guess, a big surprise — is that in the discussion I noted that it was so hard for me to find 200 subjects to participate in the study that I have to conclude that, although change is possible and does occur, it’s probably quite rare. And of course, they don’t want to mention that.”


http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/02/15/227

I don't think it is his reasonability to constantly rebuke everyone who misunderstands his study.


Ok, ok I apologize, I spoke to soon. I should have done me research! :oops:


Don't! So he protested a few times, your opinions is still right. He could have done more.
I just don't think he needed to. He did a study, explained how he conducted it and I think that is all he had to be responsible for. It isn't his fault people misrepresented him/it. I don't think it is his job to go about correcting everyone every single time. It was an interesting study, his fault lies with it hardly being reliable. It was 200 people who the Dr. had telephone calls with and it was their opinions about themselves (or their delusions about themselves or just lies, a large percentage of the "ex-gays" he talked to belonged to "ex-gay" groups), but I do believe that was well known.
Я пью за разоренный дом,
За злую жизнь мою,
За одиночество вдвоем,
И за тебя я пью, -
За ложь меня предавших губ,
За мертвый холод глаз,
За то, что мир жесток и груб,
За то, что Бог не спас.


Андре́евна

אני מתגעגע הביתה
User avatar
Imagination Theory
 
Posts: 5977

Botswana (bw)
Print view this post

Re: Psychiatrist retracts infamous gay reparative therapy study

#19  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Apr 19, 2012 11:34 am

Imagination Theory wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Imagination Theory wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
I stand corrected, however he could have been far more active in rebutting the far right movements that abused his study so much.


How active is he suppose to be at 70-80?

When Dr. Robert Spitzer’s study of 200 gay men and women who reported a change in their sexual orientation appeared in the Archives of Sexual Behavior in 2003, anti-gay lobbyist seized on it as proof that homosexuality was, at its core, a choice that could be changed. ....

Dr. Spitzer consistently warned that his study should not be used as a part of political efforts to denying gays and lesbians, a warning which Focus on the Family, NARTH and Exodus have ignored with abandon. Now Truth Wins Out has released a video in which Dr. Spitzer registers his disappointment in no uncertain terms:

… of course, they [Focus on the Family] were delighted with that study. What they fail to mention — and it’s not, I guess, a big surprise — is that in the discussion I noted that it was so hard for me to find 200 subjects to participate in the study that I have to conclude that, although change is possible and does occur, it’s probably quite rare. And of course, they don’t want to mention that.”


http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/02/15/227

I don't think it is his reasonability to constantly rebuke everyone who misunderstands his study.


Ok, ok I apologize, I spoke to soon. I should have done me research! :oops:


Don't! So he protested a few times, your opinions is still right. He could have done more.
I just don't think he needed to. He did a study, explained how he conducted it and I think that is all he had to be responsible for. It isn't his fault people misrepresented him/it. I don't think it is his job to go about correcting everyone every single time. It was an interesting study, his fault lies with it hardly being reliable. It was 200 people who the Dr. had telephone calls with and it was their opinions about themselves (or their delusions about themselves or just lies, a large percentage of the "ex-gays" he talked to belonged to "ex-gay" groups), but I do believe that was well known.

I know. I find it strange that he did not say something of the sort in his conclusion; that his research was based on a group of people from the infamous Exodus program and therefore not reliable subjects.
It's just that it gets under my skin when homophobes keep abusing studies and names to propagate their unfounded hatred.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 14623
Age: 25
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post


Return to News, Politics & Current Affairs

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest