Ex-Gay Watch

There are some problems with their report. One might occur to the GLBT community in that this report left out the “T” folks. The other occurred to me in that they say that the origins of homosexuality explained in psychoanalysis is “speculative”. This, I disagree with. This is contrary to the findings of Drs Fisher and Greenberg out of Syracuse. Then they go on to say that “it would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature” which is not totally supported. The report is very deceiving in my opinion.

Jim – I am curious; what do you read Fisher and Greenberg as saying about the psychoanalytic account?

No – it is not 100% conclusive yet – for various reasons: the difficulty of physical testing, the lack of diagnostic tools, small samples, etc.

But look at the weight of the scientific evidence and LISTEN to gay people all over the world – and tell me you can draw a conclusion other than the fact that sexual orientation is biological.

Given the political and social climate here and in other countries – this is more than enough for me.

Add to this the fact that those who argue that it is not biological are almost exclusively those that base their opinion on religious grounds. Religion is irrelevant re: whether sexual orientation is biological.

If someone is not happy b/c they are gay – and I can understand why they would not be given the social, political, and religious climates that exist – then just say that – don’t claim you can change sexual orientation – just be honest and say you object to it on religious grounds.

G – The jury is certainly out. However, you apparently are an attorney for the biological determinists and not on the jury.

RE: Bogaert – His findings explain about 1% of the variance, a near trivial result. Three subsequent studies have failed to replicate his work.

RE: the Swedish pheromone studies – Ivanka Savic, the lead author, specified that her work could not shed light on cause.

RE: Mustanski’s work – Indeed, the study found three areas of interest but none of them met statistical standards of significance. Read the original report.

The rest of the research you mentioned are likewise either not replicated despite efforts or do not eliminate the potential role for environment. Probably the best studies for your side are the gay sheep brains, the x-chromosome inactivation work and the new brain study by Witelson.

Dr. Throckmorton,

I am interested in one thing – the Truth.

When some researchers are guided by their religious belief system – whether it is muslim, christian, etc. – then their work inherently lacks integrity and scientific rigor.

G., aside from the causal theories, you seem to be making a false assumption, i.e. that to believe the cause is biological is to be pro-gay and to believe it is environmental is to be anti or ex-gay. That’s just not so.

Ex-gays have already stated, possibly in preparation for coming scientific revelations, that even if homosexuality is inborn, it’s simply a result of “the fall” and one does not have to submit to it. Even if the recommendation is celibacy, or a denial of the evidence, I suspect they will continue to say it is wrong and changeable.

On the flip side, even if homosexuality is more environment than biology, that does not at all mean it is necessarily changeable. As with the subject of height, environment can affect that but one is hard pressed to change ones height by an act of will.

Given the political and social climate here and in other countries – this is more than enough for me.

Yes, that is more than enough for you.

But it is not nearly enough to make declarations on this site.

G – We have one thing in common then. I will admit, I do have a bias against strict determinism (biological, or environmental) but I am open to large effects of pre-natal factors in sexual attractions if indeed good research points that way. However, the effects in the research we have are small to moderate. And identical twin concordances are disappointing for a strictly pre-natal set of explanations.

Specific environmental effects are small to modest as well – sorry, Jim, as you know we disagree on this. The effects of the classic triad are likewise small. The book you reference did not find uniform support for the classic triad and besides that it is over 10 years old. Lots of water under the bridge since then. And identical twin concordances are disappointing for a family dynamics explanation, when you consider the twins in the best studies were reared together.

When some researchers are guided by their religious belief system – whether it is muslim, christian, etc. – then their work inherently lacks integrity and scientific rigor.

That’s not necessarily so. If the science is done correctly, and others are allowed to review the data, the results should be valid. Otherwise, one could just as easily charge that gay researchers were guided by their own agenda to prove the origin as genetic or otherwise biological, etc.

G,

In an earlier post you wrote:

Do I also need to provide proof that skin color, height are biological and not a choice?

I’m not sure whether you mean to imply this, but it sounds as though you are here resurrecting the old question so much beloved of sloppy journalism, “Are they born gay or did they choose it?” – which is a false dichotomy.

There are things that we are not born with, but which we didn’t choose either, e.g. our name and our native language. In the case of the latter, I think that it is generally agreed that, no matter how many other languages we learn, once we get beyond infancy our native language (provided that we have kept using it up to that time) is so deeply ingrained that it can never be erased, except by serious brain damage.

With you, I think that our sexual orientation is probably biological in origin, and that when we are born it is already programmed, and if I were a betting man I know where I’d put my money, but that’s only what I think: it hasn’t been proved. I agree with you that there is a considerable amount of evidence which suggests a biological cause, but it is just evidence, not conclusive proof.

If it be objected that some people’s sexual orientation seems to be fluid, I must reply that I can’t regard that objection as fatal. I don’t see why, ex hypothesi, a fluid sexual orientation shouldn’t be just as capable as a fixed one of being biologically determined – but I speak as a non-biologist; perhaps a biologist can correct me on this.

You’ll never get the proof people are demanding. You’ll not get one simple explanation proven that covers every possible scenario – especially since homosexuality is also a behavior that a people can choose, whether or not they’re gay. The neurohormonal theory seems to explain sexual orientation in humans and animals, and it seems like all the recent studies just add weight to that theory. I’m guessing that’s why you increasingly see conservative Christians accepting the possibility it is inborn – including Al Mohler of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. The weight of evidence is piling up to a point where it’s getting beyond reasonable doubt that homosexuality is completely or mostly caused by genes and prenatal hormones. But, just like gravitational theory, I don’t expect it to be ever “proven.”

David,

What is “the fall”?

If that is a biblical concept – again how would that be relevant when it comes to a scientific issue like sexual orientation? Are the descriptions of the heavens in the bible used by rocket scientists to build space ships?

The bible was written by men thousands of years ago to explain life – why we are here and where we came from. It is full of beautiful metaphors and deep reflections about the nature of mankind. Unfortunately, religious fundamentalists have taken the symbolic literally. It is mythological – and someday will be treated the way greek mythology and gods are treated today.

The idea of having to give up this wonderful thing called life someday is too much for some people to handle.

We allow people in our society the freedom to practice religion – why not allow homosexuals civil marriage rights? Religious beliefs are a choice – sexual orientation is not.

David,

You state:

“That’s not necessarily so. If the science is done correctly, and others are allowed to review the data, the results should be valid. Otherwise, one could just as easily charge that gay researchers were guided by their own agenda to prove the origin as genetic or otherwise biological, etc.”

I agree with you. Any agenda [e.g., religious or political]outside of pursuing the utmost scientific rigor – should render the research suspect.

My problem with those on the religious right and those behind the ex-gay program is not so much that they are wrong about the nature of sexual orientation – but the fact that they stereotype and often demonize gay people. Bigotry is ugly and wrong and there is no better example of it than the religious rights’ propaganda against gays. This is why we need laws to protect us – from the very people that claim such laws give us special rights.

It is insanity.

G., you need to learn to distinguish between what is your opinion, and what is fact. In your own way, you appear to be quite a fundamentalist. I also suggest you take some time to understand what goes on here, read back a bit, and when you comment again, if you do, get the chip off your shoulder.

Moderator Note: Totally off topic, discuss Dr. Throckmorton’s site on his blog.

David,

My feelings as expressed in my posts make you uncomfortable?

I am passionate about this topic – it affects me personally.

“In your own way, you appear to be quite a fundamentalist”

Maybe in my effort to fight back I have become just as bad…………..

Waren,

Yes, Fisher & Greenberg’s text is over 10 years old now, but it’s still reveling because it looked at psychoanalytic work. And, as you are well aware, and be fair here, any work aimed toward homosexual and psychoanalysis (or any familial dynamic) has been put to a screeching stoppage due to extreme political pressures on the institutes. Prior to 1977 there were ample studies, but post 1977 there were only 58 empirical studies that the researchers could find. Then since 1989 NOTHING! Not because it wasn’t significant, but because of the politics, and of course, funding halts. At any rate, they concluded that the pre-1977 studies did support the theory: “We regard the empirical data to be congruent with Freud’s theory that male homosexuality derives from too much closeness with mother and a distant negative relationship with father” (p. 139). Post 1997, while they found data to support the father factor, they were not able to conclude the mother factor. But the caveat, as we know, was a decreased data pool. Let’s try to get a grant for research to test these theories now and we would get laughed at.

Jim,

You would get laughed at and rightly so but not for political reasons.

To think that there is a correlation b/t family dynamics and sexual orientation is laughable.

Family dynamics??? Closeness with Mother as a child and distance from father – that sounds like 90% of the population. Mother as in maternal? Father as in bread winner? Hello.

There is a good reason why those studies are not done anymore – quackery.

G,

I’ll just echo what David R. said to you: “get the chip off your shoulder”.

Homosexuality from close mother, distant father – that does help explain why all guys raised by single mothers are gay. (please note sarcasm)

And, as you are well aware, and be fair here, any work aimed toward homosexual and psychoanalysis (or any familial dynamic) has been put to a screeching stoppage due to extreme political pressures on the institutes.

Uh, do you have some legitimate proof of that statement? Seems awfully convenient to me. Perhaps you could add in the “liberal mainstream press” as well?

I don’t suppose — just kicking it around here – but perhaps the fact that homosexuality was no longer considered a mental disease might have had something to do with a reduction in studies about it? It seems reasonable that more research would go into things that, well, actually need to be “cured” now wouldn’t it?

And I admit to being a layman, but I don’t recall Freudian psychoanalysis being all that hot a topic these days. Do people really still sit on a couch 5 days a week to learn how early potty training made them antisocial?

Psychoanalysis and gay cures, did you go for BetaMax, too?

Nick,

Exactly. And my closest gay male friends have all had close relationships with their fathers yet my straight uncle and straight dad had very distant relationships with their fathers.

Gay men and women come from every type of household imaginable – just like heterosexuals do.

I think what Jim and Warren are pedaling is called stereotypes and bigotry.

Jim,

What is worse – pedaling stereotypes and bigotry – OR -having a chip on one’s shoulder b/c of those pedaling same?

G: Why the name calling? Please refute and state facts, based on the topic. I was merely saying the research supported the theory, based on what the authors from Syracuse gathered. I didn’t ask anyone to subscribe to it.

Nick,

You say, “Homosexuality from close mother, distant father – that does help explain why all guys raised by single mothers are gay.” I think an absent father would satisfy for the “distant” role.

I think what Jim and Warren are pedaling is called stereotypes and bigotry.

G., it’s fine if you disagree with both of them, but you need to stick around longer before you put Jim and Warren in the same boat. We have to recognize degrees and not paint everyone with the same broad brush.

The syracuse research certainly does not apply to me.

I have always been closer to my dad than to my mother.

Maybe the syracuse research was pointing out this fact:

That sons that are born gay naturally tend to develop a closer relationship with the Mother. Which came 1st – the chicken or the egg?

In other words the very old syracuse research proves nothing.

I can’t speak for much of psychoanalytic theory or about Freud.

Nor can I confirm whether the book review in the Times Higher Education Supplement was correct when they gave a scathing review of the Fisher & Greenberg book, saying:

Their Freud Scientifically Appraised is, in effect, a sequel to their 1977 work, The Scientific Credibility of Freud’s Theories and Therapy. Once again, they have failed to recognise that Freud was at least right about one thing: that psychoanalytic theories, being based on the psychoanalyst’s unique access to the hidden realm of the unconscious, are not susceptible to empirical investigation.

However I can speak to the notion of distant father, smothering mother – or at least from a layman’s perspective.

While this may be greatly favored by Phelan, the evidence for this is very slim. Further, such “evidence” as is touted is quite old and may well have been more an evidence of family dynamics between openly gay men in the 50′s, 60′s and 70′s and their recollections of their parents than any indication of etiology of orientation.

I think it quite evident that many boys are experiencing a disconnect with their father due to divorce, separation, and single mother parenting. The numbers are staggering and the trend is immediately and readily obvious. Yet there does not appear to be an observable corrolating increase in same-sex attracted young men in that subpopulation. As we all know you cannot have causation without correlation.

Further, there does appear to be a growing body of parents – including fathers – that do not fit this stereotype.

With non-correlation in a growing exclusively maternal parenting group, and with increasing evidence of non-triangulated families, this argument is less convincing than it might have been in Freud’s day.

NICK: Homosexuality from close mother, distant father – that does help explain why all guys raised by single mothers are gay. (please note sarcasm)

JIM: You say, “Homosexuality from close mother, distant father – that does help explain why all guys raised by single mothers are gay.” I think an absent father would satisfy for the “distant” role.

Did you NOT notice the sarcasm??

Yes, an absent father WOULD satisfy the “distant” role… if indeed “all guys raised by single mothers are gay”. Perhaps you are unaware of this, Jim, but they’re not.

Moderator Note:Please don’t cut and paste huge articles, link to them — especially when they are of dubious value and origin.

Also, before posting, ask yourself if this has anything to do with the topic of the thread.

Timothy,

Got it. Thanks for the catch. I need to relax. Sorry.
-Jim

Timothy,

While you point out the book review, let it be known that the reviewer, Richard Webster, also wrote his own book titled, “Why Freud Was Wrong Sin, Science and Psychoanalysis”. He odviously was anti-Freudian to begin with. A Darwin fan and a hater of psychoanalysis, said in his book, “The nature of psychoanalytic doctrines and their rapid adoption by Western thinkers illustrate the main thesis: that our intellectual tradition remains dominated by rationalist theories of human nature and that these theories are in their turn based on forms of mind-body or ‘angel-beast’ dualism which are rooted in Judaeo-Christian religious teachings.”

You say, “The numbers are staggering and the trend is immediately and readily obvious. Yet there does not appear to be an observable corrolating increase in same-sex attracted young men in that subpopulation.”

We don’t have any evidence to support or deny this. The prevalance rate studies are so inconsistant, and people are not as forthcoming as nec to get good data. Even if so, it doesn’t nec. refute the theory given that, while triadic criteria is met, other protective factors may take over. For ex. a boy who has an absent father, may have an external feature who filled the role.

Jim,

You state:

“If mental illness were really an illness in the same sense that physical illnesses are illnesses, the idea of deleting homosexuality or anything else from the categories of illness by having a vote would be as absurd as a group of physicians voting to delete cancer or measles from the concept of disease. But mental illness isn’t an illness like any other illness. Unlike physical disease where there are physical facts, or blood test to confirm, mental “illness” is entirely a question of values.”

However – homosexuality is not a mental illness because it does not fit the definition of mental illness or disease. It in no way impairs functioning – in fact many homosexuals are extremely productive and innovative at their work and have great romantic relationships – despite enoromous societal and familial pressure to deny their sexual orientation.

Is being left handed a disorder? You could certainly argue that and in fact many religious groups considered it a disease in the 19th century – after all it is disabling – all machines are built for right handed people.

Before you bring up HIV – remember that HIV is spread by unsafe sex NOT by a person’s sexual orientation – and in fact most people in the world who contract HIV through sex do so through heterosexual sex.

G,

Some may not feel it impairs their functioning, but others do. Lots of things do not nec. fit the definition of mental illness or disease, but are a matter of distress for a person. As much as you want respect for, what you preceive as normal functioning, others desire the same respect for what, they preceive, as impaired functioning. As I said, mental illness is all about values, and we have to take the subjective at higher value, unlike physical disease which is measureable in terms of symptoms and blood chemical ranges, more objective.

If someone is upset over their homosexuality, is their problem that they are homosexual, or that they take issue with it? And isn’t it possible that the inclusion of homosexuality as a mental illness in the first place was due to external pressures and not entirely motivated by a scientific or medical justification?

One can play these games tit for tat all day long, it doesn’t prove anything. The truth is that many, many gay people live their lives just fine, especially when society and their belief system allow for it. And you would be hard pressed to present a case where someone sought out some type of conversion therapy where the cause of their distress wasn’t directly related to either external societal forces, or a belief system they interpret as hostile to same sex relationships.

That’s not mental illness.

Jim,

I am defining “impaired functioning” in an objective way. Some gay people do consider being gay stressful – but that can be more a function of society’s attitudes toward homosexuals. In other words – it is society that needs to change not the homosexual.
That is the direction in which we are going – but not fast enough.

This change or progress will help many homosexuals live with less stress.

The same thing needs to happen for women in the middle east.

Don’t get me started on the destructive nature of religion.

Jim,

The more I read the posts here It seems like the disconnect is almost ideological as opposed to factual.

Those with a conservative, status quo mentality that informs their politics – versus those who believe in change, progress.

We don’t have any evidence to support or deny this. The prevalance rate studies are so inconsistant, and people are not as forthcoming as nec to get good data. Even if so, it doesn’t nec. refute the theory given that, while triadic criteria is met, other protective factors may take over. For ex. a boy who has an absent father, may have an external feature who filled the role.

Jim, single mother parenting has shown sufficient growth in the past few decades that any correlating increase in male homosexuality tied to that population would be readily obvious. Overwhelmingly obvious. Even to the most casual observer. It is not.

As for there magically being an external feature that steps in to take the place of the father, this entirely refutes your original premise – that absent fathers are a root cause of homosexuality. You can’t have it both ways.

Or are you still arguing that you can have causation without correlation?

G,

My inclinations toward you are in all due respect. But where you say, gays’ stress is more a function of society’s attitudes toward them, I have to correct you and say that that is not supported by empirical data. I do hear this as your opinion, and yes it is, as you say the direction of belief in which many are going. That does not mean it is the right direction. Either direction is a judgement. As for what happens to women in other cultures, that too is a judgement call. Finally, I have not even discussed religion in this context. Yes, as you allude, it might be just as well to leave aside.

Timothy,

You said, “As for there magically being an external feature that steps in to take the place of the father, this entirely refutes your original premise – that absent fathers are a root cause of homosexuality. You can’t have it both ways.”

I do not mean in every case. This is not an all or nothing issue, as far as I can see.

Finally, I never said the root cause of homosexuality was absent fathers. I did say I subscribe to that theory. There is a difference. One definative, one theoretical. I entertain other theories as well. Although I am not a liberal, I am not closed minded by any means.

Jim, would you please get off the liberal kick? Honestly, you sound like a bizarre, Freudian Archie Bunker without the charm. How can anyone claim to be a therapist and make such distasteful comments?

Last time, then I’m closing the thread — get on topic or don’t comment.

David,
The inclusion (and explusion) of homosexuality AND everything else in the DSM as a mental illness is, indeed due to external pressures and not entirely motivated by a scientific or medical justification. Votes are what keeps OCD, ADD, ADHDs, and all the other alphabet soups in the book. Passive-aggressive personality disorder use to be in the DSM, but was later removed because the psychiatrists where tired of seeing a mental diagnosis ascribed about them. Just kidding about the last part, I mean about the psychiatrists, the PD was indeed removed.

again with the chicken and the egg. If the distant father, smothering mother idea did have any weight to it, how do we know that these factors caused the homosexuality rather than being a symptom of it, or a reaction to it?

It could just as easily be the case that mothers and fathers, on a subconscious level recognize something is “different” about the gay child. As a result, the mother becomes more protective, and the father becomes more distant.

a couple things to keep in mind that support this idea:

1) We strongly teach girls the value and ability to nurture. This is changing, but the socialization of girls often involves babysitting, taking care of siblings, playing with dolls, raising pets and or growing plants. In comparison we teach boys almost NOTHING about how to be a nurturer. Our stereotypes of fatherly roles involve math, sports, logic, and discipline. So a father faced with an unusual child will probably leave it more in Mom’s hands simply because men hardly know what they’re doing in the first place.

2) Have you ever seen the mother of a person who is in any way disadvantaged? This is a stereotype, but mothers of children who are physically, mentally, or emotionally challenged are much more protective and involved than other mothers. Since we don’t deduce that a child is diabetic or asthmatic due to overprotective parenting, why are we to deduce that it causes homosexuality?

I don’t know one gay person who was completely caught by surprise by their homosexuality. Routinely we tell stories of knowing very early on that we were “different”, and often family members tell us they knew something was different about us at a very early age as well. So I don’t understand why no one bothers to look into the possibility that distant fathers/protective mothers are the result, not the cause.

Thank you Jason, you stated my thoughts much more eloquently than I ever could.

You did not mention the possibility of a causal factor that may cause homosexuality and overprotectiveness/distance in parents. If this were true, homosexuality and overprotective/distant parents would be correlated but one would not cause the other.

So Jason you do agree with the triadic syndrome however you wonder if it could be explained in that the parents “recognize something is ‘different’ about the gay child. As a result, the mother becomes more protective, and the father becomes more distant”? What do you mean by “different”? I would think many may argue that that would produce stereotypes and pathology (which folk want to avoid), depending on how you define different.

I would think many may argue that that would produce stereotypes and pathology (which folk want to avoid), depending on how you define different.

You mean the triadic formula encourages stereotypes?? Kinda like gender roles?? You don’t say!