Christianists and "Ex-Gay" Myth Promoters Ignore New APA Report - Part Two

EDITOR COMMENT: I generally do not post anonymous comments since I have little respect for those who are too cowardly and gutless to identify themselves. In this case I published a comment on this post since it shows the negative impact that the bogus ex-gay ministries and self-proclaimed "ex-gays" have on the mindset of the general public.

*

"Happily married" as described by the author of the comment is a subjective matter and ONLY the supposed "formerly gay" married individuals know in their hearts whether or not they had any true change in orientation. I am sure some of them want to convince themselves that they did. I know all too well how religious based guilt and family disapproval can cause one to delude themselves and go into deep denial for years or a lifetime. I did it for 37 years and I have 3 children. Did that ever make me not gay? No, not one bit. In deep denial and plagued by extreme unspoken self-hate yes. Not gay, NO!

*

Yesterday morning I wrote about Christianists and religiously and monetarily motivated psychologists who continue to put forth the bogus myth that sexual orientation can be changed - both for political reasons - i.e., if change is possible then public policy can be punitive to gay persons - and financial reasons since there's money to be made preying on parents of gays and religiously conflicted LGBT individuals. Either motivation is sick and unChristian in my opinion, but all to typical of this crowd and the Baptist Press which is trumpeting the Jones and Yarhouse "study" in an attempt to counter the APA's condemnation of all change therapies. This morning, Tim Kincaid at Box Turtle Bulletin posted a lengthy over view of the Jones and Yarhouse work that demonstrates once again that when it comes to basically lying and deliberately distorting information, self-proclaimed Christians have few rivals. When closely examined, even the Jones and Yarhouse work shows that only a small percentage (assuming one believes the anecdotal statements of the study participants) experienced "change." Here are a few highlights from Tim's piece (I strongly recommend that you read the full post):

*

What the 2007 Jones and Yarhouse book revealed, and what this update further confirms, is that the “change” which NARTH and Exodus loudly proclaim is not a change in sexual orientation at all and, in fact, may be nothing more that a change in identity or recollection.

*

In other words, on average, after six to seven years of participation, those who went through Exodus ministries reported over the period of their involvement no change in sexual orientation at all.

*

As I am less interested in adherence to religious identities and more interested in sexual orientation change, I’ll group the failure and the middle two together. After time T6, J&Y report:
Success: Conversion - 14 (23%) Success: Chastity - 18 (30%) Non-Success - 29 (48%). This does not, however, present an accurate story of the study participants. It does not account for those who dropped out of participation and thus overstates the success rates.

*

Considering drop-outs as their own category, a more accurate reporting of the self-identified placement into categories would look like this:

*
Success: Conversion - 14 (14%)

Success: Chastity - 18 (18%)

Non-Success - 29 (30%)

Drop-Outs - 37 (38%)

*
And considering just the Phase 1 participants, the results are:

*
Success: Conversion - 5 (9%)

Success: Chastity - 6 (11%)

Non-Success - 18 (32%)

Drop-Outs - 28 (49%)

*
When looking at these numbers, we should consider two things about the “conversion” category shown above. First, much of Exodus’ efforts go into changing identity. They view a “gay identity” as sinful and contrary to a “Christian identity”. So this change in identity may not be related to an actual change in orientation.

*

And second, this report differs from the book in that the qualifiers are removed. The book provided discussion of the non-traditional definitions of “heterosexual” used in the study and how those who were so identified also experienced wandering eyes, erotic dreams, and other situations that are most often associated with a homosexual orientation.

*

The authors [Jones and Yarhouse] have a moral responsibility to discourage those who will make false statements or who will falsely claim that this study justifies their ex-gay or anti-gay endeavors. And they have a moral obligation not to allow their wishes about the mutability of sexual orientation cloud the results of their study and give false hope to those who believe Exodus’ slogan that “change is possible”.

Ex-Gay Hocus Pocus - Jones and Yarhouse continued

I have previously commented on the Exodus financed study entitled "Ex-gays?: A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation" by Dr Stanton Jones and Dr Mark Yarhouse. Mr. Yarhouse is a professor in the School of Psychology and Counseling department at Regent University and has written previous anti-gay materials, so his objectivity is way less than trustworthy. Some particularly nasty works appeared in the Spring 2002 issue of the Regent University Law Review under the collective heading "Homosexuality: Truth Be Told" which went to great lengths to build and foster the alleged "homosexual agenda." Even Yarhouse's courses at Regent are not objective since they inter fuse religion and science (e.g., http://home.regent.edu/markyar/sexuality.htm). It does not take much imagination to figure out which factor wins out.

At Ex-Gay Watch (http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2008/01/dr-patrick-chapman-responds-to-drs-jones-and-yarhouse/#more-2759) Dr. Patrick Chapman, Ph. D, has further responses to Jones and Yarhouse's latest work which while detailed and technical is helpful in learning how Christianists create "research" to endeavor to bolster the "choice myth" which is so important to their anti-gay political agenda, not to mention their lucrative ex-gay treatment programs. As always, it is important to know the enemy's tactics so as to be able to rebut them. Here is a summary of the problems with this type of research when religious and political agenda are removed:

In science it is important to be precise, something the Jones and Yarhouse study lacks. The focus of my original critique was the sloppy and biased scholarship, demonstrated partly by imprecision. I highlighted that Jones and Yarhouse:

* reference the entire study as prospective when it is not;
* assert participants are at the start of the change process instead of just being at the start of the Exodus program, although even this is not entirely correct;
* assert the study cannot ascertain if permanent and enduring long-term change occurs, contrasted with their conclusion that change is possible;
* portray specific results as indicating change, specifically Tables 7.4 - 7.6, when those actual results do not support the conclusion;
* employ a moving target regarding what sexual orientation change entails;
* misstate the APAs’ position on the potential harm of reparative therapy;
* and have a moving target regarding if the therapy causes harm.

A Critique of Jones and Yarhouse's "Ex-gay" Study

Having studied the "ex-gay" programs in dept in the past, I have previously posted about the new Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse book, Ex-gays?: A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation, which is based on a study of participants in the Exodus International ex-gay ministries, in which the authors intended to answer two questions: 1) can a homosexual orientation be “healed,” specifically can a person change their orientation using religious-based therapy, and 2) are attempts at change harmful. To be candid, from their past work and their - in my view religiously biased desire to find "change" possible - I was always sceptical of any pro-change conclusions they might claim.

Now, Ex-gay Watch has a critique of their supposed study by Patrick M. Chapman, PhD, an academic with a PhD in biological anthropology, and someone who tried for over a decade to change his own sexual orientation. His conclusions are found here (http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/11/a-critique-of-jones-and-yarhouses-ex-gays-part-2/#more-2721) and confirm all my doubts as to this study being anything more than yet another attempt to give Exodus and other ex-gay programs undeserved legitimacy. No doubt the book will sell well with the Christianists - and make money for its authors - and be improperly cited for supporting "cure" programs that are little better than having treatment from a witch doctor. Here are highlights of the critique:

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). Contrarily, they later suggest the results demonstrate sexual orientation is changeable (pp. 42, 325), evidenced by 11 “Success: Conversion” cases out of the original 98. The conclusion is unwarranted because: 1) they acknowledge multiple anecdotal cases from previous “ex-gay” success stories who later recanted their “conversion” to heterosexuality (pp. 63-64, 72); 2) they freely acknowledge that people in ex-gay programs declare they are heterosexual even if they experience exclusive and powerful homosexual attractions (p. 220); 3) they admit that one of their 11 “Success: Conversion” cases recanted his claim of change, confessing his homosexual attraction was unchanged after the book manuscript neared completion (p. 285; Jones and Yarhouse did not remove his “success” from their data); and 4) the only way to determine if change actually occurred is through a long-term study, which this is not.

This study is littered with biased and sloppy scholarship. The authors suggest the results presented in Tables 7.4 through 7.6 (pp. 239-240) present a “modest portrait of positive progress” in the change process (p. 246). Yet, there is no change based on the data presented in Table 7.4: at both the start and end of the study nine participants declare themselves heterosexual while 51 declare themselves homosexual. Jones and Yarhouse state there is “no indication of significant change” based on the data presented in Table 7.5 (p. 248) and no statistically significant change in Table 7.6 (p. 249). Nonetheless Jones and Yarhouse declare the results represented in these three tables to be “positive progress.” Simply put, their conclusion is not based on the evidence: progress requires positive change.

Meanwhile, the authors report 23 percent of the participants achieved success in changing their sexual orientation by embracing chastity. However, once again the actual desires and longings of the individuals remain homosexual. One “Success: Chastity” female relinquished her goal of getting rid of homosexual feelings and longings (p. 302), a “Success: Chastity” male admits to continued same-sex attractions (p. 303), while another male still fantasizes to the point of orgasm about being with a man and admits continued homosexual feelings and longings (p. 304). While Jones and Yarhouse acknowledge these individuals did not experience a “strong movement toward heterosexual attraction” (p. 291), they nonetheless consider them “successes.”

Despite explicitly stating that this study cannot demonstrate whether long-lasting change is possible, despite admitting that individuals in ex-gay ministries misreport their condition, despite knowing that previous testimonies of change were untrue, despite knowing that one of their own “Success: Conversion” participants later recanted his proclaimed “conversion” to heterosexuality, and despite the fact that “Success: Conversion” and “Success: Chastity” participants retain a homosexual orientation (using Jones and Yarhouse’s own definition), the authors claim that homosexual orientation is changeable! Clearly their conclusion is not consistent with the evidence: a continued homosexual orientation is not evidence of “healing” from homosexuality.