BACKGROUND

SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS ON SO-CALLED "EX-GAY" PRACTICES

The nation's leading medical and mental health authorities have uniformly dismissed the idea that being gay is something that needs to be "treated." Among them:

American Medical Association
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Psychological Association
American Psychiatric Association
National Association of Social Workers
American Counseling Association
American Association of Marriage and Family Therapists
The American Academy of Physicians Assistants

In 1998, the American Psychiatric Association unambiguously condemned attempts to de-gay people:

The potential risks of "reparative therapy" are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. Many patients who have undergone "reparative therapy" relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed. Therefore, the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as "reparative" or "conversion" therapy which is based upon the priori assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation.

In 2006, the American Psychological Association also noted that efforts to de-gay people are scientifically unsound and "create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish."

“For over three decades the consensus of the mental health community has been that homosexuality is not an illness and therefore not in need of a cure. The APA’s concern about the position’s espoused by NARTH (The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) and so-called conversion therapy is that they are not supported by the science. There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Our further concern is that the positions espoused by NARTH and Focus on the Family create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.”

NOTE FOR JOURNALISTS: If it becomes necessary to report on individuals and practices that claim to de-gay people, please consult with credible scientific authorities before proceeding.

THE HARM OF SO-CALLED "EX-GAY" PRACTICES

Those who engage in these politically based attempts to de-gay people usually preface their campaigns with a rhetorical question: “What harm is there in trying to change?”

On a superficial level , this sounds like a reasonable question – at least until one understands the concrete harm and trauma experienced by those who are subjected to these campaigns.

Many individuals said they wasted years of their lives, wasted thousands of dollars and suffered psychological and emotional trauma as a result of attempting sexual conversion. It is not uncommon to hear stories of so-called "counselors" who went to great lengths to create or exploit a sense of shame, humiliation or self-hatred in those they were claiming to "treat" – or in parents whose children and teens were viewed as possible targets for these dangerous so-called "therapies." Some who have endured such programs speak of attempts at suicide.

“If there were anecdotal reports of a medicine causing harm, even if the medication helped some people, the Food and Drug Administration would step in to evaluate whether or not the drug should remain on the market,” says Dr. Jack Drescher, an author and expert on the dangers of so-called "ex-gay therapies." “Sadly, there is no equivalent of the FDA to monitor and intervene in response to the growing number of people who are stepping forward to report harm they experienced from conversion therapies.”

THE SPITZER STUDY

In May 2001, Dr. Robert Spitzer of Columbia University released the results of a short-term study of so-called "ex-gay" therapy. Based on telephone interviews with a convenience sample of 200 subjects, Spitzer concluded that some "highly motivated" gay people could experience some level of "change" in their sexual orientation through therapy or other means.

Unfortunately, many who try to de-gay people continue to turn to this study as "proof" that such efforts are both effective and widespread.

Many in the scientific community have dismissed Spitzer's study because of its serious methodological flaws and conflicts of interest:

Spitzer recruited most of his subjects through two anti-gay activist groups: Exodus and the NARTH.

Spitzer intentionally excluded from his study anyone whose experiences with "conversion therapy" were not successful.

Spitzer's research did not mention or account for the existence of bisexuality on the continuum of sexual orientation, nor for the possibility that some of his subjects may have been bisexual.

Spitzer did not employ methods designed to quantify sexual attraction or the truth of his subjects’ claims of sexual transformation. He simply conducted telephone interviews.

Initial media coverage of the Spitzer study was largely inaccurate and sensationalistic. Outlets viewed the study solely through social and political filters, rather than on scientific merits (in fact, many media outlets sought religious or political spokespeople to discuss the scientific implications of the study). And many outlets misstated Spitzer's conclusions, resulting in headlines such as: "An explosive new study says some gay people can turn straight if they really want to."

Anti-gay and ex-gay groups continue to routinely misrepresent Spitzer's study and misstate the findings in his report. Spitzer has had to go to great lengths to clarify his study and, in some cases, criticize political groups for mischaracterizing his study:

“I understand that you are publicizing my statement that sexual orientation can be changed. I ask that you do not do this unless you also add my belief that such change is probably extremely rare.” (Spitzer letter to Focus on the Family’s James Dobson, asking him to stop misrepresenting the study, July 19, 2006)

NOTE FOR JOURNALISTS: We strongly urge media to review the methodology and misuse of the Spitzer study with independent social science experts before reporting on so-called "ex-gay" groups, most of whom will try to exploit and misrepresent the study to bolster their claims.

STEREOTYPES & FEAR-BASED APPEALS OF SO-CALLED "EX-GAY" ACTIVISTS

It is important to remember that the political and pseudoscientific groups that promote de-gayification do not rely on – and have long been discredited by -- credible social science research. There are no modern peer-reviewed studies that support so-called "ex-gay" groups or lend credibility to their outdated and long-abandoned theories about the nature of sexual orientation.

  Groups like NARTH, Exodus International and Focus on the Family often resort to using outdated or discredited studies and present long-disproven stereotypes as though they are legitimate science.

For example, such groups still suggest that people can become gay if they have a rift with a same-sex parent (the "distant father" myth) or a have domineering opposite-sex parent (the "domineering mother" myth). It has been decades since any serious scientific body subscribed to these views and there is no contemporary research to uphold these anachronistic claims. Yet, NARTH’s co-founder Joseph Nicolosi continues to exploit them to instill fear and loathing of gay people in parents: “We advise fathers, if you don’t hug your sons, some other man will."

Sadly, this claim is calculated to create guilt, shame, anxiety and fear in parents who have gay kids – or who may be questioning whether a child is gay. Such attempts to turn parents against their children can lead to resentment, ugliness, distrust and divided families.