A three-year-old glossary on the web site of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network defines sexual orientation and identity as follows:
Sexual Orientation: This is determined by our sexual and emotional attractions. Categories of sexual orientation include homosexuals—gay, lesbian—attracted to some members of the same sex; bisexuals, attracted to some members of more than one sex; and heterosexuals, attracted to some members of another sex. Orientation is influenced by a variety of factors, including genetics and hormones, as well as unknown environmental factors. Though the origins of sexuality are not completely understood, it is generally believed to be established before the age of five.
Sexual Identity: This is how we perceive and what we call ourselves. Such labels include “lesbian,” “gay,” “bisexual,” “bi,” “queer,” “questioning,” “heterosexual,” “straight,” and others. Sexual Identity evolves through a developmental process that varies depending on the individual. Our sexual behavior and how we define ourselves (identity) can be chosen. Though some people claim their sexual orientation is also a choice, for others this does not seem to be the case.
The PDF brochure on which this glossary is based is even older — it’s dated 2002.
Both Randy Thomas at Exodus and British exgay advocate Peter Ould act as though this is breaking news, and feign astonishment that a pro-tolerance organization would accurately define and distinguish among sexuality, belief, and behavior.
Have either Exodus leadership or Peter Ould really tried to read and understand what we and some other pro-tolerance advocates have said for years? Apparently they have not: True to the spirit of political correctness, they have devoted years to the study and actual belief of their own strawman argumentation.
Witness the obvious oversight — a self-contradiction — of both Thomas and Ould: Even as the pair sarcastically acknowledges that GLSEN has accurately defined sexual orientation and identity, Exodus leaders and NARTH continue to teach the politically correct falsehood that unproven and poorly documented environmental factors — overbearing mothers, distant fathers, effeminacy in men, tomboyism in women, and child sexual abuse — are primarily or exclusively to blame for same-gender sexual orientation.
GLSEN’s acknowledgement that exgay activists exist doesn’t seem like news to me, either: Yet another strawman argument aired frequently by exgay advocates such as Chad Thompson and Warren Throckmorton is the notion — attributed to no one — that gay activists believe that exgays don’t exist. There has never been a question as to whether exgay activists exist. The debate has always been whether, and how, said activists have really “changed” — and just how moral is it for certain exgay activists to presume to explain away the unique sexualities, struggles, childhoods, and family circumstances of all other gay and exgay individuals.
I think you’ll find that’s “postgay”, as used on my website. Or perhaps you could lable me “antigay”? That would be more emotively aggressive don’tcha think?
But getting back to the point, you didn’t actually tackle the centre of my piece a week or so ago, namely the lack of substantive evidence to show a clear biological basis for sexual orientation. Instead you engaged above in a nice piece of ad hominem (though to be fair, it was a pretty good piece of ad hominem). While I might have had fun changing the GLSEN definitions (which, to the best of my knowledge I didn’t actually say was a new change on the GLSEN website, so I’m not quite sure why you get terribly excited about the definitions having been up for a few years) I was of course writing about people’s underlying assumptions of what does, or doesn’t affect one’s sexuality.
But it is great to see that even after a fortnight or so of blogging you’ve felt I’m worthy of a prod (“Isn’t he bold?” he said in his best Julian and Sandy voice). I’ll let you know what share of referrals this week came from you…
Let’s get it clear. Exgays, postgays, “men who previously listened to Round the Horne” or whatever you want to call them don’t all make the claim that we are now 100% heterosexual and that not one single piece of male anatomy in absolutely any context (the bearer of the anatomy’s OR the watcher) doesn’t now stir us in even a superficial way, let alone somewhere deep and meaningful. What we are saying though is that we have come to realise that sexuality is a fluid construct in most human beings and that to say so otherwise is, well, bottom line, kinda un-scientific. We have also come to realise, many of us, that though at one point we were deeply un-heterosexual (vaginal sex? uuggghhhhh…..) now we see things differently. Did our genes change? Was there a new hormonal imbalance? Did our hypothalmuses decide that the past 30 years of existence amongst the rest of the brainal gumph wasn’t adequate? Who knows; but to claim definitively for any of the above (or for ONLY one of the above) is not going to get us anywhere until we stump up the proof. The thing though about a psychological perspective on sexuality is that proof is in the response to the observation of neurosis and the reaction to that, which for many of us has been quite remarkable (and totally unexpected). Ask Spitzer – he spoke to a few of us.
Can I get back to my day now please?
:-}
Oh, and not even the hint of a trackback from you? Frankly I’m left feeling lonely and unloved. I shall call Warren for therapy now…
You know, Peter, even if I were to agree with your POV, I would be loathe to admit it after such a snarky comment.
You just don’t get that this is a dialogue, not a battle….
I tend to agree with Robis, there is no need to be quite so “snarky.”
What we are saying though is that we have come to realise that sexuality is a fluid construct in most human beings and that to say so otherwise is, well, bottom line, kinda un-scientific.
Sexuality does not refer to any particular attraction, homosexual or heterosexual, but generically to a need or desire for sexual activity, closeness, caring, and touch. To say that sexuality is fluid is to say that some people have a greater need or desire for sexual relationships than others and that point seems obvious. If you are trying to say that sexual orientation is fluid, I’m sure you will understand that we need more than your word on that.
The thing though about a psychological perspective on sexuality is that proof is in the response to the observation of neurosis and the reaction to that, which for many of us has been quite remarkable (and totally unexpected).
I’ve read this 5 times and still have no clue as to it’s meaning. As to Spitzer, we know what he said.
Moi? Snarky? I’m actually one of those on my side of the camp who are more than happy to have a dialogue – but let’s talk about the issues not the personalities. Perhaps it’s my British style of writing that missed the mark? My original post was on the scientific basis for sexuality – no one in this thread is even beginning to address that – you’re simply saying that I’m “snarky” but not addressing the substance of the issue.
Yes, sexual orientation is fluid, and my word on that is as valid a personal experience as someone who says they have always been homosexually attracted and have never seen a change in that. Why is that second personal experience more valid than mine?
Peter,
Your original post was the first indication to us that Exodus had commented on GLSEN’s glossary. Your post indicated that you were interested in seeing an XGW perspective on the matter.
I’m the XGW author who normally monitors other blogs for exgay content. But I’ve been moving to Connecticut since June, and so I was unable to monitor blogs such as yours until this past weekend.
I’ll admit I’ve grown discouraged at the number of exgay blogs that delete trackbacks and comments originating from sites (like XGW) that are politically incorrect. But if you accept trackbacks then I’m happy to extend them — and I hope you’ll do likewise with your posts in the future.
Peter,
As I’m sure you’re aware, XGW has an entire section of the site devoted to the science of sexual orientation, and that section has documented numerous clinical studies that find biological roots to orientation. Prof. Warren Throckmorton has acknowledged as much.
You, as far as I’m aware, have not offered scientific evidence of environmental factors. (Please correct me if I’m wrong.) You have offered your own personal anecdote, and you claim that unnamed and uncounted fellow exgay activists offer similar personal anecdotes.
Whatever the person’s orientation or politics might be, personal anecdotes are notorious for subjectivity, relativism, egotism and even self-delusion. Neither you nor Randy Thomas accept gay-affirming anecdotes; at XGW, however, we try to be fairer: We reject anecdotes regardless of the source.
If you have objective, mainstream science studies to support your claim of environmental causation, then by all means provide us with references. We’re all eager to learn.
Yes, sexual orientation is fluid, and my word on that is as valid a personal experience as someone who says they have always been homosexually attracted and have never seen a change in that. Why is that second personal experience more valid than mine?
You made the claim Peter, so the onus is on you to substantiate it. Your own personal claims are not relevant to this discussion and neither are mine. I could claim that when I take vitamin C my colds are shorter, but that would be anecdotal evidence and useless to any real discussion of how to treat a cold. Likewise, your claim is anecdotal. When making statements such as the one you made, at least here, you need to provide some reference to authoritative evidence. That keeps us all on track and the discussion grounded in fact.
While the British colloquialisms are sometimes a bit muddy, I can’t see that they were the culprit here. Some of what you said just didn’t make any sense to me. If you clarify I will try to respond.
David,
I have a very healthy sex life with my wife. Is that a good enough scientific observation for you? How many men who are “post-gay” and now have active sex lives with their wives do you want to meet before you believe that transformation actually happens?
Look, I have a degree (and a previous career) in statistics, and on top of that another degree in theology (if you ever want to learn how to deconstruct arguments to their core, study theology) from Britain’s top university (no, not Cambridge….). You’ve had presented for you time and time again (like Spitzer did in his research a few years ago for example) myself and countless others who say that once we never wanted to touch a woman’s vagina and now we revel within in. Why is such a sample an unscientific, statistically invalid observation?
Peter, you keep missing the point.
Nothing you say about your personal experiences will count as scientific or statistically valid. As a statistician, you should know this.
Anecdotal evidence is never valid, because it relies on the subjectivity of the person relating the anecdote. Scientific data requires the proper methodology, then a proper peer review. Spitzer comes close; he attempted a scientific methodology, but his research fell apart in the peer review.
It doesn’t matter if you feel you’ve changed. It doesn’t matter if there have been “countless” (and there hasn’t been)others. Without the proper scientific process, it is all just anecdotal. And that is the fault of the ex-gay community, which refuses to engage in appropriate and honest scientific enquiry.
Mike,
I’m quite happy for you to send trackbacks to me and I’ll do likewise. The last thing I want is to censor debate.
Peter, even if I knew you well and could take all this at face value, those degrees you have should enable you to understand that you have provided nothing close to the kind of proof that matters in a discussion of fact. You keep vaguely referring to Spitzer, but if anything his findings were contrary to your argument.
I can tell that you believe you have had a transforming experience, but there are a great number of people who truly believe they have been abducted by aliens and endured medical experimentation while there. Some doctors even vouch for this after putting them through hypnosis. I personally have yet to see any hard facts to support this claim.
If you aren’t going to provide any facts to back up your statements, I will assume you have none to offer.
Robis,
You’re wrong unfortunately because you misunderstand the very basis of what is and isn’t data. If I can find 100 people who say “at one point in time I was exclusively homosexual in my attraction and now I’m not” I have a population. I can then analyse that population asking them key questions like “how old were you when you first noticed gay attraction?”, “when did that change?”, “what colour socks were you wearing at the time?”. This data set I can then statistically analyse and present my research (“30% of the population wore red socks”).
What you seem to be suggesting is that this kind of historical recording of subjective emotion at various points in a person’s life is unscientific? But if that were so, why do you believe anybody who says that they are gay? How can they prove it? Can they point to the specific gene in them that proves it? The chromosome? The part of the brain? The hormone? No, at the moment given where we are with the research you ultimately believe someone is gay because (a) they say they are and (b) you observe them acting in a “homosexual manner” (whatever that might be). If that is so, why then do you deeply object to using the same method of data gathering to assess whether people are reporting heterosexual feelings when previously they reported gay feelings?
Warren’s piece a few years ago for the JMHC (sadly I could only find it at http://www.narth.com/docs/attemptstomodify.html) catalogues a number of such *scientific* and *statistical* studies that have found populations which exhibit the characteristic of changed sexuality. What causes that is another question, but to deny (like Wayne Besen does) that ex-gays (post-gays, whatever) exist is simply to refuse to see the evidence that is very clearly available.
David,
What would satisfy you to prove that my sexual orientation had changed? Be as frank as you want.
Where these “ex-Gay” arguments fall flat is in their assumption that being Gay is all about sex. It isn’t! Homosexuality is merely an expression of Lesbian and Gay identity, and it’s not the only expression. Another expression is our tendency to lean toward creative pursuits. Yet another expression is our tendency to not adhere to strict gender roles. A child who has no interest yet in having sexual relations can be Gay. A person who’s never had sexual relations his entire life can be Gay! A person who learns to enjoy intercourse with the opposite gender can be Gay. I submit that everyone who posts to this site is capable of reaching orgasm (or learning to reach orgasm) with human beings of either gender. What makes the difference is which gender you feel most comfortable reaching orgasm with; what’s natural to you, and what isn’t. To imply that sexual behavior determines sexual orientation is focusing on the external rather than the internal. We won’t find any definitive answers that way. I’m confident that scientists will someday find and verify biological markers for LesBiGay orientation, and when they do, the markers will all point to a previously unknown variation on gender. What looks male or female on the surface can be something far more complex beneath the surface! We should all be listening more closely to what transgendered people are trying to teach us.
What would satisfy you to prove that my sexual orientation had changed? Be as frank as you want.
I always try to be frank, but if by that you mean do I want to know more about your sex life, the answer is no. I would rather you stop talking about your wife’s genitalia if that’s ok with you.
The truth is, Peter, I don’t know you so any claim you make to me about your personal life will be met with some healthy skepticism. This is the reason your “survey style” proof isn’t particularly useful. Again to be frank, I don’t know what you were like “before” and I don’t know how much you personally have invested in the belief that “change is possible”. Human beings are complex and our power for self-delusion is almost immeasurable.
We have people like Alan Chambers who barely had any experience with the same sex leading an organization and claiming to have been changed. He wants us to believe that change is possible because he and others claim they have. But most of these people share ideologies that make this claim enticing, even necessary. You claim to have gone from being a raging homosexual to a raging heterosexual. Even among exgays that is an unusual claim. What am I to make of that? How much credence to I give to the claim? And even if it were true, how much does this mean to the debate?
If someone claims to have been cured of cancer, well we would want some evidence that they had cancer to begin with, that any treatment they received did not play a major role in the eradication, and indeed we would want to know if the malignancy was actually gone. Even if all the evidence indicated that a tumor miraculously vanished, is this something on which to base future medical doctrine or treatment?
I have to believe you are learned enough to understand the kind of proof we are asking for here. Since none exists, you loudly proclaim what you do have as sufficient. Maybe you even believe that is so. But understand that it is not you and other exgays who are offering a choice to gays, you are offering a single choice which is no choice at all. And you are doing so with very little information as a foundation.
People have the right to live their lives as they see fit. What we try to do is make sure their choices are informed ones. From what I have seen, exgay organizations use the idea that “change is possible”, not to provide an avenue for those who wish to change, but as support for their continued belief that being gay is wrong and sinful. Making that claim without providing a method of escape was not a popular position; enter “exgay” to the rescue.
The problem is that people get hurt in the process. Failure to meet the promised goals leaves them feeling that the ultimate and last avenue left to them has failed. Playing with peoples lives, providing psuedo-therapy and even draconian residence based programs to help them white-knuckle through feelings which are perfectly moral and likely to be a significant part of them for the rest of their lives. This is why we demand proof and so should any sane person.
Frank enough?
David,
Let me take your cancer analogy. Can you apply the same criteria (clear biological evidence) to assess whether somebody was gay a year ago? Can you use the same criteria to suggest that they are gay now?
I want to suggest that your throwing out of anecdotal datasets places you in a position where you cannot actually determine whether anybody who says that they are gay actually are. All you have to determine whether somebody is gay is their anecdotal reporting. Why is that good enough to determine whether someone is gay but not that they are no longer?
I’ll ask you again – what evidence would satisfy you that my sexual orientation (or that of any other person) had changed. Unless you tell me the criteria that you want me to present you CANNOT claim that I am not presenting the necessary criteria to satisfy your requirement for accepting that exgays exist.
I don’t know how many ways to say it Peter. I am not making the assertion, you are. If you have objective proof or a reference to such, please provide it. If not, retract your statement. The onus is on you, not me. I am not going to attempt to prove a negative.
I’m going to bow out of this back and forth, partly because I see little use in continuing and partly because it is the middle of the workday here and I need to focus on that. I will check later to see if you have provided anything that can be used to substantiate your earlier claims.
Look, I have a degree (and a previous career) in statistics, and on top of that another degree in theology (if you ever want to learn how to deconstruct arguments to their core, study theology)…
Theology eh? Well there’s scientific credentials for you. You’re familiar with H.L. Mencken’s definition of theology aren’t you? I studied logic and semantics myself. Oh…and computer programming. We programmer’s have a saying: garbage in, garbage out…
That a person’s sexual orientation can change over the course of their lives isn’t really all that remarkable. Nearly all of us undergo one such change. It’s called puberty. And as we age, sexual desire can fade altogether. But the problem you folks face isn’t merely that you’re claiming that sexual orientation can change, but they you guys Have Changed It, through constant prayer or snapping those rubber bands against your wrists or whatever it is you folks do nowadays, and that’s something that requires evidence, of which you have precisely: none. And no, your testimony doesn’t cut it.
Say I was left handed. I could force myself over a course of years to write with my right hand. In time I might get passably good at it. In time I might even convince myself I was now right handed. But would I be? And how would anyone know I was or was not?
These are the sorts of things scientists (real ones) create experiments to test. And scientists (real ones) Are doing that with regard to sexual orientation, and I’m sure you know that the evidence to date isn’t going well for those of you who keep insisting that there is no biological basis for sexual orientation. But that’s not where your problems end.
Perhaps yours did change Peter. Perhaps those select few in Spitzer’s study who claimed change really did too. So what? You folks need to listen a little more, and preach at gay people a little less. What you’re being told isn’t that sexual orientation doesn’t change, but that we have not chosen ours and cannot voluntarily change ours. You may well have desired change. You may well Have changed. But there is still zero evidence that you, or anyone else in the ex-gay ministries, enacted that change. It may have just happened to you. Just like homosexuality happened to a lot of us. Given the low “success” rate even in Spitzer’s carefully selected random group of ex-gays (low enough that Spitzer himself says change is unlikely), I’d say that’s probably what he was seeing, not anything the ministries were doing. Sexuality is a fluid construct did you say? Try this: nature will do what it damn well pleases.
I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t think anyone else here does either. Except well…maybe you. See…you want to make this a discussion about whether or not sexual orientation can change, rather then whether or not you folks have ever changed anyone’s. But that really isn’t the issue here, and never was.
Peter,
Let’s stop playing games.
Frankly, we have no idea whether your orientation has changed or not. But we are not going to accept it as fact for the following reasons:
1. We have observed a sizable number of people who have made the same claim only later to have them admit that they were “speaking in faith” or deceiving themselves, or pushing an agenda. We have no reason to believe you are other than this group.
2. We don’t know your history. I could claim that i changed my race and skin color. I could tell you that I was a very dark shade of black and that my features were consistent with an African heritage but that now I am extremely pale and appear to have Nordic ancestory. I could even point at Michael Jackson and use him as “evidence” to my claim. But without something other than my testimony to substantiate this claim, a logical person would not readily accept it.
3. You readily convolute language surrounding the issue. You seem to use orientation, identity, and behavior as interchangeable. As a proof or your orientation, you discuss behavior. Because of your fast and loose usage of terms, it isn’t easy to accept anything you claim as it seems that you are not speaking the same language as the rest of the world.
4. You seem to think that the only indication that one is truly “gay” is because they say so. This is contraditory to mountains of evidence that has been performed included brain responses, physical reactions (without being too graphic) and other measurable indications. Yes, we generally accept when someone claims to be gay because there does not seem to be any reason not to. However, if someone was claiming to be gay when they had an obvious agenda (“I’m not having an affair with your wife, I’m gay”) a simple claim would not be adequate then also.
5. Your logic seems, well, not very strong. You seem to think that a sample of 100 people claiming something would be scientific and that observations would be relevant. You add that you are a statistician to strengthen your argument. Perhaps you are. But you make no distinction between causation and correlation. You make no reference to the need for statistically representative sampling. And you totally dismiss the need for unbiased methodology. It makes me question your thought processes.
6. Finally, and most importantly, your claim is extremely unusual. You bring the total to three (3) of the number of people (that I know of) who claim to have had their sexual orientation go from completely homosexual to completely heterosexual. Even the most strident supporters of Exodus don’t make that claim. When claiming something that is experienced by very very few people, if indeed any, you need to present something better than “because i say so”. It isn’t just reorientation – I would also doubt you if you said that you saw a vision of Mary, you are not subject to gravity, or you can juggle porcupines.
It isn’t personal, Peter. And maybe you do truly believe that you have changed your orientation. But it will take a great deal more than your word to convince us here.
Peter, you can have a sample of 100 people making *any* claim, but that doesn’t mean that claim has any scientific value, especially when it comes to such highly contentious issues as sex and sexuality. Yes, you can figure out how many people wore red socks on a particular day, but that methodology is inappropriate for determining whether change is possible. People don’t usually lie/retreat into denial/misinterpret the context or redefine themselves out of the fact that they are wearing blue socks. But those behaviors are demonstrably quite common amongst ex-gays.
Again, if you actually have a degree in statistics, the weaknesses of subjective reporting is something of which you should be aware.
Something that you said to David that I’d like to address:
“I want to suggest that your throwing out of anecdotal datasets places you in a position where you cannot actually determine whether anybody who says that they are gay actually are. All you have to determine whether somebody is gay is their anecdotal reporting. Why is that good enough to determine whether someone is gay but not that they are no longer?”
That’s rather the fault of the ex-gay community. After all, the comnmunity has been around for a long time, and the calls for a scientific study of the success rates of reparative therapy have been around almost as long. One could easily avoid the anecdotal nature of the data by subjecting the whole field to actual scientific scrutiny. Since there doesn’t seem to be much interest for that in the ex-gay community (even from the scientists in that community), the only one to blame if all you have are anecdotes can be found in any mirror.
Bruce,
I’ve never argued once in this thread that I can change someone else’s orientation (please point out where I did). All I’ve done in the last few comments is to explore the grounds on which we determine whether my experience can be “proved”. You have created the straw-man here of me proposing a therapy for others. The most productive part of your comment is to challenge whether the change I saw is connected to other actions I undertook, but I’m not quite sure what kind of evidence would satisfy you. I could have a nice long phone chat with you and explain it all. I’m not sure though you’d choose to believe me.
Timothy,
Let me handle your points one by one:
i) I’ve met gay men who said that they weren’t attracted to children who then ended up guilty of sexual assault charges towards a minor. So what? I don’t go around accusing you of lying about your sexual preferences so why do you have to accuse me of lying about mine?
ii) This is a much more interesting point because if I had some DNA from you 10 years ago and again now I could PROVE that your race had or hadn’t changed. I’m all up for biological evidence which is why I don’t accept the certainty of a biological causation for human sexual orientation that some people here do. Bottom line, the example claim you posture is one which CAN be biologically verified given current scientific knowledge. Sexual orientation cannot. If I’m wrong then please point me to the biologic test which shows if someone is gay.
iii) We all mix the words “sexuality” and “orientation”. To accuse me of being devious by doing so is a facecious.
iv) No, what I’m saying is that there is no clear biological test that shows definitively that one is or isn’t gay, unlike sex, race, hair and eye colour etc. That at least raises the possibility that biological causation is NOT the only factor in sexual orientation. What I don’t understand is the refusal of some to simply permit any form of nuture element to the causation of sexual orientation because such a viewpoint argues for 100% biological causation with no supporting clear identifying test for that. It’s like saying “thumb-sucking is caused by a gene” but never being able to present that gene (or homone, or chromosomal disorder etc).
v) *cough* – I used the word “population” NOT “sample”. You didn’t read me properly. Read it again and see that my use of language here is extremely specific. Counter the argument I make, not the one you want me to make.
vi) Nowhere have I claimed to have gone from 100% gay to 100% straight. In fact on this thread I have stated implicitly that that is not the case. Please counter the argument I make, NOT the one you want me to make.
Your definition of sexual orientation is more or less correct, although some of the points of causation are certainly debatable.
But your definition of “sexual identity” is completely incorrect. Sexual identity is one’s sense of being male or female, regardless of sexual orientation. My sexual identity is male: I feel like a man, I sense I am a man. That I am gay is irrelevent to that fact.
This is why transexuals change their sexual identity – they feel like they are the opposite sex.
Their orientation is completely separate from that and could be hetero, homo, or some other variation.
You are confusing sexual identiy with political/culutural applelations.
Peter writes “Yes, sexual orientation is fluid…”
It is probably fluid in some cases and to some degree, all of which, in an ideal world would be investigated empirically without the immediate and direct intrusion of theology and ideology. A second related question is whether religious practices and so called therapy can influence, or how much it can influence, whatever fluidity exists outthere in the multitude of sexualities. This has not been sufficiently studied at all. That many many people claim a degree of stability and centrality to their orientation seems to be of little interest to you by the way. They seem to be in the majority but I would await more research on that.
Subjective experience “counts” but it must be “counted” within some sort of social scientifically controlled procedure. Then what political, ideological, or theological conclusions that are drawn come after that and are never simply and directly drawn from the empirical investigation. (Although such investigation can inform those conclusions, there will always be a bit of interpretation, a bit of value judgement, attached.)
I find your writing not to be snarky but rather to be dishonest on a deep level. It angers me that you misrepresent the procedures of social scientific research more than you distort what it means to be gay. The willingness to honestly engage others in dialogue, to not distort, or use sophistic tricks, is a pre-requisite for being in true dialogue. You, and Randy Thomas, fail in that regard.
Peter gay people are looked down upon in society whereas straight people are not. For this reason alone someone is not likely to claim they are gay if they are not. However this also means people such as yourself have incentive to lie about not being gay, to claim heterosexuality in order to be accepted. A person claiming to exhibit a socially negative trait is much more believable than someone claiming a positive one. “Exgays” have religious and social incentive to lie to themselves and others about their sexual orientation, that’s why it makes sense to believe someone who claims to be gay and doubt those who claim to be “exgay”.
If you “exgays” want to provide some evidence of change why are you all afraid to submit to penis volume measurement while viewing sexual images of men and women? One or two tests might not mean much but a large number of people consistently showing change would at least be some proof or indication of any change in sexual orientation.
Paul,
GLSEN’s definitions suggest that you are confusing sexual identity with gender identity.
Or perhaps you disagree with GLSEN’s definition of gender identity, gender expression, and transgender? Any clarification that you could provide would be super.
Yes, what I am talking about I see is being called gender identity, and I agree with the definition. I have understand gender and sexual identity to be interchangeable terms. Maybe I am wrong.
In any case, more serious is that most people don’t make any distinction between gender/sexual identity and sexual orientation. I.e., if you are gay you must want to be a woman, or at last act feminine. This attitude certainly negatively impacts transexuals, who can have any orientation.
I thought I would drop in to see how things were progressing. Lots of good comments, though Peter you still haven’t provided any evidence for us to discuss. It is apparent, however, that you like to argue, but more for argument’s sake since you have not advanced the discussion but instead have deflected repeated requests for substantiation of your initial claims. This pattern is familiar, and unfortunate.
You may make such claims on your own blog, but please don’t make them here. We could listen to these comments from all sides all day long and we would still get nowhere.
I’m always astonished by the mentality of a Peter O, who thinks the fact he has a “a very healthy sex life with my wife” is evidence of a change in sexual orientation.
Gay men have been getting married and having sex with women from time immemorial due to societal and religious pressures. Or for other reasons.
My partner got married at age 19 because he was working as a fashion designer and his boss suggested that if he married one of his coworkers, they could be marketed as a “designing couple.” They originally had no intention of even consummating the marriage–everyone involved, including their parents, knew my partner was gay. But they ended up married for 14 years, with a very healthy sex life and a son who’s now in his twenties. They eventually divorced–for reasons unrelated to his sexual orientation–but remain extremely close friends.
Did that make my partner straight? He’s never had any other sexual relationship with a woman, and has never viewed himself as other than a gay man.
I could cite many other gay friends who’ve been married. But how about those who just enjoy casual sex with women as an occasional variation? I’m not talking about people who consider themselves bisexual. These are guys who are totally homosexual in orientation and consider their heterosexual encounters more in the light of exotic adventures. I think this was more common in the sexually adventuresome 70s than today. The female librarian in my all-boy Catholic high school back in 1969 used to tell me stories of her group sex adventures with a circle of gay male friends. I met some of those friends and believe me–the fact that they had fun sex with my librarian did NOT turn them straight.
I myself was an ex-gay for 30 years and was married for 26. (I seem to trot this story out every time I post anywhere, so please forgive me all of you who’ve heard it before.) I view myself as exclusively gay in orientation and had been actively out in San Francisco for two years prior to my “conversion.” Nevertheless, the sexual side of marriage was absolutely not a problem. Certainly it didn’t take seven months before I could consummate the marriage, as one ex-gay leader has supposedly admitted.
We had a very fulfilling sex life for years and three children to show for it. But the fact that I loved my wife deeply and experienced real physical intimacy with her never changed in any way my sense of my sexual orientation. In the end, even with years of therapy and ex-gay ministries, I couldn’t live with the constant denial of what I felt was my true self.
When I hear someone like Peter O proclaim–“I’m having sex with my wife, so that proves gays can change!”–I laugh. It’s not so much that it’s only subjective experience, as others have argued here. It simply doesn’t prove anything except an extremely naive view of sexual orientation.
Welcome to XGW Nick. You can trot out your story any time you like 🙂
1. In the very first post by Peter O in this thread, he states the commmon line that not all sexual attraction to men has been wiped out of his phsyche. That’s a common line from the pro-change crowd who promise the ability to ‘overcome’ same-sex desires and lead a life as a heterosexual who occasionally has desire for people of the same sex.
Wouldn’t this be called bisexuality?
I’m a gay man, always have been. This isn’t to say I couldn’t have intercourse with a woman if I chose to do so. Many gay men do that, it’s called living in the closet, denying their sexuality in order to fit in and achieve what they believe is necessary to be happy.
That’s fine by me. God wouldn’t want me to force my beliefs on anyone else (isn’t that what Jesus taught, that we have to WANT salvation in order to be saved, that we must CHOOSE it, not be forced into it by the sword of law?). If someone wants to deny who they are, how God made them and live a life that I believe to be a lie, they are more than free to do so.
Right up until their living their life intrudes on my ability to live mine, and that’s what the Ex-Gay movement has become: a political machine intent on forcing all of us to live by THEIR moral code through the use of force via law.
I’m sure with enough conditioning any gay man can sleep with a woman and again, with enough conditioning they might believe the prefer that. It’s just the same way that with enough psychological conditioning we can turn a perfectly sane person into raving lunatic murderer. The bottom line is why the need for change?
There is nothing wrong psychologically with being gay. Religion tries to teach being gay is wrong, distorting the bible until it says exactly what they want it to say, but that is a religious belief…not reality. Being gay is not an illness, it is not a neurosis, it is not a problem except in the minds of certain people. It is those beliefs, secular or religious, that being gay is wrong that provides the base motive for certain people to change.
You can call it wanting a ‘family’. Call it wanting ‘children’, or being accepted by your religious sect, but in the final analysis, all those reasons for change are motivated by a society that says gay people can’t have any of those things and must change in order to get them.
Sorry mate, but gay people can have a family, they can have children, and they can have a religious life if that’s what they want. It certainly takes about the same effort as the various ‘change’ programs out there, although you don’t have to go to the modern-day equivalent of snake-oil salesmen in order to achieve these goals. The rate of success is also unbelievably higher than all the ex-gay programs put together…
Peter O.
Assuming you’re not 100% heterosexual (AKA some attracted to men), but also attracted to your wife, romantically as well as sexually (which I notice you bragging about more having sex than the romantic attraction), even if I give you the benefit of the doubt, then you are a “bisexual.”
I object to the “ex-gay” label because it doesn’t discribe your orientation, rather it discribes what you want your orientation to be (as in “not gay”). It is about your past, not about your current self. It would be like me describing myself as an “ex-college kid” versus a “young professional.”
Does this make sense?
-RebLaw
[i]I’ve met gay men who said that they weren’t attracted to children who then ended up guilty of sexual assault charges towards a minor. So what? I don’t go around accusing you of lying about your sexual preferences so why do you have to accuse me of lying about mine?[/i]
Well, first of all, we don’t have mountains for stories in which that has happened–which is not the case with “ex-gays” and their abysmal failure rates.
Secondly, pedophilia is a different phenomenon. It stems from different causes and expresses itself in different ways. It’s a pretty superficial analogy, Mr. I-went-to-a-top-British-university.
As far as whether or not some people “actually” changed, I don’t really care. I do think that the high numbers of failure (something that ex-gay ministries refuse to take seriously) should prompt intense SKEPTICISM about the claims.
The testimonies of those who have been through these programs and did all of the things they were supposed to, crossed every i, dotted every t, are not taken seriously by “ex-gay” groups. They are dismissed by some “falling off the wagon” cliche. Ex-gays are so angry that people don’t take their stories seriously, when they don’t take the stories of the vast majority of people who go through their crap and fail very seriously. It’s hard for me to be sympathetic to “ex-gays” wimpering about how we don’t listen to them.
For me, the successes of “ex-gay” ministries, in my view, do not justify the program. It is, at the end of the day, a question of psychiatric ethics. We know that behaviorist regimens can get people to do a lot of things–see B.F. Skinner, Pavlov, etc. The question is, whether or not it is RIGHT to put people through these things. It’s not really a question of “can” but “should.”
The answer to that, to me, is no. So many people suffer because of this foolishness and there is nothing wrong with being gay that warrants this kind of extreme, potentially destructive intervention.
*cough* – here are two claims made about me in the past three hours:
“In the very first post by Peter O in this thread, he states the commmon line that not all sexual attraction to men has been wiped out of his phsyche.”
When I hear someone like Peter O proclaim–“I’m having sex with my wife, so that proves gays can change!”–I laugh.
I’m trying to now maintain 4 or 5 conversations on this thread and amongst that the above appear. These are simply strawmen. I have not said the above things and I’d like the moderators of this thread to address the content of posting of some here. It should be clear from a re-reading of all my comments here that I haven’t said either of the two things claimed above.
I’m not able to continue conversing in this thread at a 1:10 ratio when this kind of stuff is happening. I will happily address and respond to comments on things I said. Not listening to me and then creating things that I said does not help the conversation one little bit.
I suggest that, since you all have my email address, you continue specific lines of conversation with me via that form of communication. I can’t continue here because there is too much chatter and I’m not prepared to respond to fabrications of my dialogue and strawmen.
I’m sorry if that sounds like I’m chickening out. I’m not. I’ll quite happily continue conversations via email but there is too much going on on this thread now.
Excuse me Peter–here’s the exact quote from your post above:
“I have a very healthy sex life with my wife. Is that a good enough scientific observation for you? How many men who are “post-gay” and now have active sex lives with their wives do you want to meet before you believe that transformation actually happens?”
In what way does that differ from my paraphrase of your statement: “I’m having sex with my wife, so that proves gays can change”?
I don’t think you’re bailing from this thread because you can’t keep track of the arguments, but because you can’t answer them.
Wow.
I have to wonder if any one of you actually bothered reading Peter’s comments. The points he raised were valid ones–what on earth do you expect him to do to “prove” that he’s ‘post-gay’? And none of this “You have to figure out for yourself what would satisfy us” nonsense; that’s just expecting him to be psychic.
Nick C said:
I don’t think you’re bailing from this thread because you can’t keep track of the arguments, but because you can’t answer them.
Bingo. The first and most basic question of all remains unanswered:
If you are trying to say that sexual orientation is fluid, I’m sure you will understand that we need more than your word on that.
There has been a lot of dancing and even more evasion, but no answer. This only substantiates the original article at the top of the thread. If you have something responsive Peter, say it here and not in the cover of private email.
Everyone,
This conversation has meandered on and off topic. The topic, as I see it, consists of:
Thomas and Ould’s effort to ridicule GLSEN even as they largely agree with what GLSEN and other pro-tolerance advocates have been saying for years;
Ould’s refusal to substantiate his original post’s rejection of established science regarding genetics and hormones;
Ould’s false statement that XGW has not documented recent scientific findings regarding biological causation involving genes and hormones; and
Thomas and Ould’s ongoing support for disproven and mean-spirited stereotypes that scapegoat parents for their children’s sexual orientation.
Sexual fluidity is a worthwhile topic, but not on this page. Please discuss sexual fluidity here instead.
Whether or not Peter Ould is post-gay is beside the point of this discussion. This is about the accuracy of GLSEN’s glossary, and the political spin and strawman argumentation that Thomas and Ould seem to have applied to that glossary.
Peter,
Though not directly on point of the thread, this is a follow-up of my previous comments.
I need not refute your rebuttal to each of my comments. It’s sufficient to say that none of my points were intended to call you a liar or suggest that you personally are untruthful. Rather my point is to explain why your word is not adequate proof of anything.
When I present a credit card at a store for a purchase, they ask for identification. It is not because they believe me to be a thief or that I’m lying about who I am, but simply because they have learned that presenting a card is not adequate.
So too we are saying that your word isn’t adequate. Perhaps you’re telling the truth. Perhaps you’re telling us what you believe to be the truth. But in any case, my point is that is just not enough to support such an extreme claim as sexual orientation being fluid.
(also, I’m confused. At first I thought that you were claiming 100% reorientation. Then you pointed out that had not said this. Then you were angry that someone said “not all sexual attraction to men has been wiped out of his phsyche”. I hope you aren’t just being argumentative.)
Jeepers 🙂
Going back to the post itself — we are presented with but one more example of the marketing/publicity department of Exodus etc pretending to recently “discover” something that is years old from GLSEN… and presenting this as some amazing finding that GLSEN is changing it’s views.
Yeah, right. In much the same way they recently spun the APA repeating its long standing position of change therapies as if the meant the APA had altered its views. No. It. Had. Not.
And we’d agree with Skemono (on at least part of the post). It is, of course, impossible for Peter O to “prove” he’s post-gay, or whatever else he’s decided to identify himself by… this year. (We’ll disagree that people haven’t been reading his comments — think they have been).
However, given that Peter O is also taking the line of “gay cannot be genetic unless you can show me the specific gene”; we’re not all that sympathetic. Goose. Gander. Sauce.
We know — from long reading his blog etc — that Peter’s viewpoints are driven by Satinover’s dreadful 1996 screed, and more latterly by Neil Whitehead’s woeful book. (Frankly, Whitehead is about as qualified to pontificate about genetics as, urgh, well, Dean Hamer is qualified to pontificate about earthquakes in New Zealand as a radioecologist…). Classic “God of the gaps” mentality.
It’s a deliberate tactic. One designed to promote the already disproven family-environment or gender-confusion opinions; and one that offers no illumination about biology, genetics, or sexual development. One would not attempt to argue that appraoch with, say, cystic fibrosis — despite there being only 2 genes involved, researchers are faced with a monumental task of dealing with over 1000 possible mutations. We know cystic fibrosis is genetic in origin, even though the current tests can positively identify only a small number of cases.
And … there is rather more evidence for a biological basis of sexuality than there is for Peter O ever having been gay, homosexual, or SSA, or whatever. Frankly.
Peter O, you have left a trail behind you: as but one example.
It doesn’t take much to step outside the mind-bending logic of mentor, Mario Bergner, and see another perfectly reasonable explanation: perhaps, simply, a late-maturing, rather dweeby young man who hungered after male peer-group friendships and who was terrified that this loneliness and disconnection meant that he was gay.
Sorry Peter, being worried that your lack of raging heterosexuality might mean you are gay… is not the same thing as actually being gay. You said it yourself in 2002 — you had no sexual attractions, gay or straight. But you began to worry. Perhaps needlessly.
What we can also realise is that at times when, in Anglican circles, someone calls for tolerance, understanding and acceptance of gay and lesbian worshipers… up will pop Peter O presenting himself as “proof” that tolerance, understanding and acceptance is not required. Because, of course, these gay and lesbian worshippers could simply change — just like he did.
Peter’s rhetoric has become much more polarised, and hence much less believable, over the past few years… a timeframe running right alongside his involvement in anti-gay church politics. The wishy-washy 2002 type comments, offering much more insight, have been replaced by rigid theological-based polemic.
Reiterating Skemono — Peter has nothing to “prove”. At least, not to us. But we’d appreciate something in return:
do not claim “sexual orientation is flexible”. The evidence is that this is simply untrue for nearly all people. (It may be untrue for all people, but we cannot say that.) Peter O, or any other exgay, provides no evidence that many, let alone all, gay men and women could change their sexual orientation.
stop repeating hideous statistical nonsense from Satinover et al with the deliberate intention of placing some of your fellow worshippers on the defensive. Those distorted statistics provide no evidence about the lives of gay men and women, let alone any individual.
Peter O doesn’t have to go through life proving himself. He’s got every right to complain if someone expected him to.
Quid pro quo: gay men and women should not have to go through life proving that they cannot change — or that they don’t live perverse lives — because of the woolly and disputable public statements made by Peter O (or anyone else).
Parallel exgay lives, again…
…a late-maturing, rather dweeby young man who hungered after male peer-group friendships and who was terrified that this loneliness and disconnection meant that he was gay.
Alan Chambers, come on down!!! 🙂
Sorry Mike A — I see, now, you’ve opened up another thread.
I have no problem with Peter believing that sexuality (or at least his own sexuality) is fluid. I’ve seen the wedding photos on his site and hope he and his wife have a very happy marriage.
I do get tired, though, of persons who point to their marriage as evidence they are no longer gay, so in that sense I’m on the same page as Nick. Stephen Bennett’s promoters do that all the time: “Once a promiscous homosexual, Stephen is now happily married with two beautiful children!”
Like one of the posters above, I’m a little uncomfortable with Peter talking about his response to his wife’s genitalia. It’s the same feeling I had watching Stephen Bennett’s wife brought up on stage like she was an exhibit at the zoo. I’m sure Peter doesn’t intend to use his wife in that way by revealing intimacies about their sex life, but I wonder if either of them will ever feel that way in the future.
I was married for 18 years. We had lots and lots of sex. Didn’t matter, though, because deep down I was a gay with an unchangeable desire to share my life with another man. Though I entered into marriage with the best intentions (‘this is part of God’s healing process in my life’) my ex will always believe that she was used as a prop to prove I was straight.
It’s the same feeling I had watching Stephen Bennett’s wife brought up on stage like she was an exhibit at the zoo.
or when Randy writes about “The Girlfriend”