[This post has been pulled so I can verify the extent to which David Blakeslee practices exgay therapy.]
O
Besen’s claim that ex-gays don’t exist is unproven and unprovable. How difficult can it be to admit that whether therapy can cause change in sexual orientation is still an open question? There is something seriously wrong with a political movement that has to pretend to omniscience or infallibility.
I suggest that there are several reasons why most ex-gays wouldn’t want to phone in to such a show. Ex-gays probably value their privacy at least as much as most people do. If they consider homosexuality sinful or shameful, they would have no reason to want to inform the world of their past behaviour. It is also likely that they would want to avoid the vicious personal attacks from gay activists that public declaration of their status as former homosexuals would produce.
An open question ab?I presume this doesn’t include, say, the two-thirds that Exodus/Nicolosi are prepared to admit don’t change? Or perhaps it’s the 97% that Spitzer thinks won’t change? Or Drescher’s 99%? Surely those who crashed and burned in their futile effort are entitled to some opinion in the matter?But if it’s an open question, as you say, then Besen’s claim is as valid as any other. That’s how an open claim works, you see. And don’t even start on pontificating about claims to be omniscient or infallible — it isn’t gay supportive organisations that publicly claim “anyone can change” despite the fact they also know at least two-thirds don’t.As for why few people are prepared to state they have lived as gay and as straight at times in their lives. We know a few, ourselves. They don’t mention the fact when around anti-gay people, but in more open-minded environments it’s no big deal. They don’t claim to have changed their sexual orientation and none of them wish to compel others to live as they do. They aren’t gay bashers. Hence, they will never become an Exodus spokesperson.I think there is a far more reasonable explanation why these “hundreds of thousands” of Exodus-type exgays don’t go public — they don’t bear close scrutiny, because they haven’t actually changed their sexual orientation, and they know it. They know they remain but one cocktail umbrella away from being discovered buying drinks and chatting up men in a gay bar. Whatever.Also trying hard to think of a single person who has been viciously personally attacked by “gay activists” simply because they now live as straight.Feel free to name one.
Apparently about as difficult as accepting that there is absolutely no evidence to support a charge that therapy can cause change in sexual orientation.
In my three years with Nicolosi we often asked to meet some of the success stories. He swore there were plenty. We never met them.
Grantdale, if you could give me the source of those claims I really would be pleased. I asked Timothy Kincaid what his source was for the claim that Spitzer showed that 97% of gays can’t change and didn’t get any answer. 97% is still quite different from 100%
As for your claim that it isn’t reasonable to think ex-gays care about their privacy, no response to that is really possible. This claim proves something about you, and nothing about them.
No ab. Do your own work. You never accept anything put in frount of you on a platter, so you’ll have to do it the hard way. It’s called research. If you hadn’t been such a pain in the past we would be more helpful.Those figures have been discussed here, and at Throckmorton’s site. Start with google — you already have the names and the figures.And as we said we have personal friends who — but for their attitudes — would be considered Exgay poster children I’m not sure what any of that says about us.Still waiting on that exgay who’s been attacked simply for living as straight…
Various internet sources state the source of the 97% failure rate came from Shidlo’s study.
What does this have to do with Spitzer’s study? How, furthermore, do you know that the subjects in Shidlo’s study were representative?
Keep looking.Still waiting.—-For the rest, who risk boredom: you can relax. Until anything else comes along, we’ll stop comments along this (starting-once-again-an-endless) line. Apart from that, huns about to arrive home and we have FRIENDS to attend to…
Grantdale, I’m sorry that you’re more interested in playing silly games and trying to prove how smart you are than in actually proving your points.
If this were a formal debate in a non-gay environment, you would have been laughed out.
If anyone could gve me a link to a source saying that Spitzer accepts that 97% of gays can’t change, I’d be very pleased. I haven’t followed Spitzer’s comments that closely, and I suppose he could have made such a statement, though it would surprise me if he had.
If no one can do this, I have to wonder whether the claim that Spitzer accepts this is made up. I certainly hope no one else will take the childish approach that grantdale have and claim they could do it but won’t.
I have found only a statement from Spitzer that change is ‘probably extremely rare’ (https://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,1183596,00.html) – rather different from giving a nice, precise figure of 97% failure.
Grantdale,
ab’s past impertinence aside, it is generally accepted at XGW that if you bring up a statement of fact you must verify it. Again, I understand that ab has show a propensity to continue arguing even after a basis is given, but that’s another matter 😉
ab,
Concerning the 97% figure, it took me about 5 minutes while half asleep to find this reference, so I assume more can be had. The 97% figure comes I believe from a post study interview with Spitzer, when he tried to clarify the true meaning of his data. At that time, many on the ex-gay side of this equation were citing his work as vindication of their beliefs. Spitzer, somewhat irritated and dismayed that they were misinterpreting what he had found in this way tried to clarify.
…the kinds of changes my subjects reported are highly unlikely to be available to the vast majority [of gays and lesbians]… “[only] a small minority — perhaps 3% — might have a “malleable” sexual orientation.” He expressed a concern that his study results were being “twisted by the Christian right.” [emphasis added]
The rest of the analysis goes on to mention that the actual results of the study, one which was packed with people already highly motivated and primed by ex-gay organizations or therapists to expect a change, could have been as little as .5% (98.5% failure rate). However excerpt above is from the interview with Spitzer that is the source of the 97% figure. The linked page has all the references you need.
Now please, if you want to have an intelligent debate, wonderful. If you just want to fill up a thread telling us that the sky is orange once you have seen data to the contrary, that’s just a waste of time. It’s up to you.
David Roberts
Ex-gays probably value their privacy at least as much as most people do. If they consider homosexuality sinful or shameful, they would have no reason to want to inform the world of their past behaviour. It is also likely that they would want to avoid the vicious personal attacks from gay activists that public declaration of their status as former homosexuals would produce.
When my mother quit smoking, after 36 years, she became, for a time at least, absolutely obnoxious in her anti-smoking views. After all, there is no one so high and mighty as a former sinner.
Looking at those I know who have dealt with alcoholism or other drug addictions, they are very willing to share their experiences. Not necessarily in a high-and-mighty way, but because there are always people at risk of the same problems, and their stories can serve as warnings.
It would therefore, IMHO, be very strange if “ex-gays” would be so different from all other former addicts, and addiction is often how homosexuality is described by those in the “ex-gay” movement. The very few “ex-gays” we hear from are always touting how their current lives are so much better than their former lives; shouldn’t we assume that experience is typical of all “ex-gays,” and they would want to share it? More importantly, why is there not one “ex-gay” who was “treated” before the 1970s. Literally thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands, of gay people either sought out outpatient psychiatric treatment, or spent time in mental institutions, whether voluntarily or by force, from the 1930s to the 1970s. I know I have read of “ex-gay” movements touting the 1960s “research” of Masters and Johnson on this topic, so it seems strange that none of their success cases, of which many must still be alive, have come forward.
For the record, your assertion regarding David Blakeslee is false.
Thank you for a sensible response.
If the Advocate interview was their source for the claim that Spitzer says 97% of gays can’t change, Grantdale disingenuously left out the ‘perhaps’ part. That ‘perhaps 3%’ looks like a random guess, which could just as well have been ‘perhaps 2%’ or ‘perhaps 4%’ or whatever. Most of Spitzer’s comments on the issue indicate only that he thinks most gays probably can’t change, without giving any precise figure about exactly how many can’t.
Yet even on that point, Spitzer equivocates. His comment that, ‘the kinds of changes my subjects reported are highly unlikely to be available to the vast majority’, leaves open the possibility, however small a possibility it may be, that most gays could change.
So now you have your answer, ab, perhaps you could return the favor and answer Grantdale’s question:
“Also trying hard to think of a single person who has been viciously personally attacked by “gay activists” simply because they now live as straight.
Feel free to name one.”
Or do you think you should behave by different standards than those you expect of others?
ab said:
Yet even on that point, Spitzer equivocates. His comment that, ‘the kinds of changes my subjects reported are highly unlikely to be available to the vast majority’, leaves open the possibility, however small a possibility it may be, that most gays could change.
There you go again. You don’t debate the facts ab, you quibble until you reach some form of conclusion that fits your preconceived notions no matter how much you have to distort the facts to get there. I have no interest in trying to discuss this with you further. Anyone else is free to bang their head against that wall – or not.
David Roberts