Ex-Gay Watch

Response to Part 2 of Dr. Patrick M. Chapman’s Review of “Ex-Gays”, posted on Ex-Gay Watch, November, 2007, by Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse.

Response to “Part 2: A Focus on the Results — Examining if Change is Possible”

Here in Part 2 Dr. Chapman’s criticisms turn more severe. First he asserts that ours is not a long term study. Again, his logic is questionable, and the problem of incomplete citation of our argument is significant. Chapman says “In the opening chapter Jones and Yarhouse honestly and correctly state this study cannot establish if long-term, permanent and enduring change occurs because that would require a long-term study (p. 17).” What we actually say on page 17 is that “this study will not establish that permanent, enduring change has occurred; only a very long-term study can demonstrate that.” Our point was not that our study was not a long-term study, nor that our study was inadequate to produce evidence suggesting that change was not impossible. Our point instead was that if you want to show that change is permanent, then logically you have to study subjects throughout their lifespans to death to insure the change was permanent. So our study cannot show that change is permanent, but even so a three to four year span of time is scientifically meaningful and qualifies as “long term.”

Chapman’s subsequent criticisms share a common characteristic that must be noted: Chapman imagines that he blunts our argument that change is possible for some by pointing out contrary pieces of isolated evidence that change did not happen for certain people or did not happen in certain ways he considers important. Science, in contrast, operates by examining all relevant data for trends, and then applies that data to the evaluation of hypotheses.

Our hypothesis regarding change was that “change is impossible.” The relevant data for falsification of that hypothesis is evidence that change is possible for some. Imagine the argument that “it is impossible to sustain life through heart transplant operations.” A scientist studies 100 heart transplants, and finds one year post-operation that 67% of transplant patients are still alive. Does the death of 33% constitute evidence in support of the argument “it is impossible to sustain life through heart transplant operations”? Of course not: If heart transplants are not supposed to help people, then the relevant data is data that falsifies the hypothesis, i.e., evidence of people surviving. Chapman’s selective citation of our data is the equivalent of focusing on the negative cases in this example. This is explicit, as Chapman argues that our conclusion that change is possible for some “is unwarranted because . . .” and then cites a series of evidences of incomplete change.

It was very surprising for Chapman to build the core of his argument around selectively citing the 3 tables (7.4 through 7.6; pp. 239-240) that show no change (which we openly admit) while completely ignoring the other tables on the related variables that show significant change (7.1 through 7.3; pp. 238-239) AND while completely ignoring all of the other variables measured (the balance of Chapter 7) on which statistically significant change and effect sizes ranging from small to large were demonstrated. It was in response to the broader pattern of evidence that we concluded that “change is possible for some” again and again through the book. Chapman says that “This study is littered with biased and sloppy scholarship,” but actually provides no evidence of this. Chapman and others who want to engage this work fairly need to respond to the overall pattern of our findings which, in contrast to the hypothesis that “change is impossible,” found many statistically significant changes and meaningful effect sizes on almost all of the measures of sexual orientation. How can an exclusive focus on those few instances where statistically significant change was not found be justified? Read more…

Focus on the Family’s CitizenLink reports that, according to a new study, married households are more environmentally friendly:

By examining data from 12 countries, Jiangua “Jack” Liu, senior author of the study, and his associate Eunice Yu, found that married households are more efficient with water, energy and land use. On the other hand, divorced couples require an extra 38 million rooms and spend 46 percent more per capita on electricity and 56 percent more on water than married couples.

Although the CitizenLink article focused primarily on the environmental impact of divorced couples, the same data would seem to apply to unmarried singles as well. As such, Liu and Yu’s study appears to support another conclusion that Focus on the Family is less likely to endorse:

Gay marriage is good for the environment.

Ex-Gay Watch often points out how specific ex-gay programs worsen sexual struggle and emotional and spiritual trauma rather than curing it. It also documents how some ex-gay programs exploit strugglers for selfish political or financial gain.

But it’s less often that we clearly spell out appropriate, constructive steps that strugglers and their supporters can take.

What can XGW and other gay-tolerant groups do to support people whose values require them to remain celibate outside of heterosexual marriage, or who need assistance to reduce unhealthy compulsions or depression?

Between this evening and tomorrow, you may experience some issues with our site.  You may not be able to browse to us, or the content may not be updated correctly.  This is due to a server move/upgrade and shouldn’t cause much trouble, but we wanted you to know.

If you experience any unusual site-related problems after Sunday, please tell us.

Thank you.