In 1973, Dr. Robert Spitzer led the charge to successfully have homosexuality removed from the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM), which is its list of mental disorders. This was a major victory and remains one the gay movement’s signature achievements.
Given his stature and key role in declassifying gay people as sick, it was quite a surprise when Dr. Spitzer published a non-peer reviewed 2001 study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior that claimed some “highly motivated” gay people could reach their “heterosexual potential” through prayer and therapy. When he announced his work at the 2001 APA meeting in New Orleans, it created a media sensation. An Associated Press story called his findings “explosive.”
In 2012, Dr. Spitzer recanted in the American Prospect magazine and in a letter to the Archives of Sexual Behavior, obtained by Truth Wins Out, Dr. Spitzer asked that his study be withdrawn. MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show and the New York Times covered his apology.
Last week, TWO’s Wayne Besen and filmmaker Lisa Darden interviewed Dr. Spitzer at his Princeton, NJ home. This exclusive interview is the first time Spitzer has been videotaped speaking in-depth about his change of heart.
“This is an historic moment and it was crucial that we recorded it for posterity,” said Truth Wins Out’s Wayne Besen. “It was also critical that we had Dr. Spitzer directly confront anti-gay organizations by name to make it difficult for them to distort his study without undermining their credibility.”
Here are excerpts from Wayne Besen and Lisa Darden’s interview with Dr. Robert Spitzer:
What do you have to say about the conclusions of your 2001 study?
“I was quite wrong in the conclusions that I made from this study. The study does not provide evidence, really, that gays can change. And that’s quite an admission on my part.”
What made you go public with your change of heart?
“If I really have all these doubts about the study, I had to face up to whether I had a responsibility to acknowledge that.”
Is there a message you would like to impart to the LGBT community?
“I’ve been thinking about the study for many years. I felt that I needed to say that, the study is not valid, but I thought I should also say to the gay community, I apologize for any harm I have done to them because of the study and my initial interpretation. And I certainly apologize to any gay person who because of this study entered into reparative therapy and wasted their time and energy doing that.”
It took you two years to find a mere 200 study subjects, even though NARTH’s Dr. Joseph Nicolosi was trying to influence the study by begging clients to participate. Why do you think it was so difficult for NARTH to provide you with “ex-gays”?
“He [Nicolosi] just didn’t have many patients who could really claim that they had changed.”
Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX) is still misusing your study and a video featuring you remains prominently placed on the group’s website. Would you like to address PFOX?
“I ask that PFOX stop showing this video. This is quite misleading. I had no way, really, of knowing when I examined any particular subject whether they really had changed or whether they were deceiving themselves or even outright lying when they claimed that they had changed. So, please don’t show this [video] to anyone.”
The retraction of your study must be very upsetting to anti-gay organizations.
“I’m curious as to whether they have said anything or how they live with the fact that the one study that they have always been citing has now been taken away from them. I would think that’s a pretty rough place to be in.”
Is the “Ex-Gay” Industry capable of unbiased research on homosexuality?
“The people who are pushing the ‘ex-gay’ idea are so full of hatred for homosexuality, really, that I don’t think they can respond in an ethical way.”
What are your thoughts on sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE)?
“If people can recognize that being a homosexual is something that cannot be changed and that efforts to change are going to be disappointing and can be harmful, if that can be more widely known that would be very good. If somebody is troubled that they are homosexual, what they ought to do is face up to that and so something so they are more comfortable living with the way they are, because any attempt to change is misguided.”
Background:
Truth Wins Out (Analysis of Spitzer apology)
Dan Gonzales (Dissecting the Spitzer study)
HOME RUN Wayne Beson!! AND everybody on the Truth Wins Out Team.
You (collectively) ARE living up to your mission, the Truth REALLY IS winning out.
I don’t know if it did any good but about about 2 years ago at the start of the Prop 8 Trial I got my eyes opened to the horrible Discrimination towards Sexual Minorities. One think I heard over and over is that homosexuality is a choice so the gays should jsut choose to change.
That lead me to research if that was true or not. After my education once I got educated, that brought me to advocacy and activism. Approximately 18 months ago I did 2 things. I contacted the head of Psychiatry by leaving a voice mail and also by sending an e-mail. I asked the Department head to forward my e-mail on to Dr. Spitzer.
In my e-mail to Dr. Spitzer I talked about how bad his study has hurt sexual minorities. I asked him to re-do the study. I asked him to re-contact everyone who he originally questioned and find out if they are still ex-gay.
What I am trying to say is, when we all do a little something, a little something more than just visiting pro-gay websites reading and commenting on those website, when we take just a few moments to actually do something about what we are reading we advance the cause.
I am NOT saying that my e-mail by itself did anything. But I do know that it did make Dr. Spitzer think about this, and it added. I am sure I am not the only one who has done this, one person by themselves can do very little, it is the voices of MANY that advance your rights. Please be part of that “Many”make a call, send an e-mail or a letter, show up and protest with a good sign.
Commend you pursuing worthy story and documenting.
I take the original research with a grain of salt. And I take the apology with a grain of salt.
If we allowed the truth to be the truth; for things to be as they are; stopped trying to twist, turn and recreate every word/event; we could do away with 98% of this conflict.
When we don’t, people build careers, enterprises, dogmas, causes, movements, reputations, power–on what turns out to be quicksand. And the entire enterprise collapses. Which is what happens in the conduct of this research and recantation.
Great job, Wayne and Lisa. The truth is getting out there little by little. Dr.Spilzer had a lot of courage to clarify that his study is flawed…Will continue to pray that Narth; Exodus and Pfox will someday stand up and admit that truth, and quit their efforts to compel change where change is not possible or required by God!
Straighgrandmother, I’m greatly appreciative of your extensive efforts on behalf of the LGBT community – thanks so much!
@StraightGrandmother>> What Pirya said.
Thank you very much.
Wayne,
Would you consider removing the embargo on Charles B’s comments?
Rude as he is, I would love to how he responds to the above destruction by Dr. Spitzer of everything P-FOX and Quinlan stand for. ;-D
Sorry, but NO. This apology is not accepted.
He DOES NOT address the thousands of lgbt men, women and youth that were physically and sexually abused and tortured in reparative therapy based on his so called study.
There were many who DID NOT enter into therapy “willingly” and somehow he does not apologize for them.
Thanks for your effort Wayne and crew but he ranks right up there with Anita Bryant and an apology simply does not encompass what he put lgbt through, and what many still suffer as a result of his so called work.
Peter, Charles has commented on the Spitzer retraction and PFox dishonestly retaining his study on their website. He said its not dishonest because Spitzer did do the study so there is nothing wrong with referring to it.
This is Spitzer’s final retraction and recant- he has been very specific, honest and direct about how he feels. This is the second time in 5 years that I have personally filmed Dr. Spitzer and I can tell you first hand- that he wants this put to rest once and for all. He has asked that the FLAWED and seeded study and any video’s or reference to the study not be used any longer BY ANYONE and he means it. The END.
Thanks for getting this on record Wayne & Lisa. Glad he went into detail about how he asked the ex-gay quacks to remove his study from their websites and that Spitzer specifically stated that they outright refused to remove it (despite knowing the study was flawed). I thought that was the most profound statement Spitzer made on the video because it provides clear evidence of the type of “research” that these scam-artists use to make their claims.
Thanks TWO
Nothing about his work to pathologize trans? Does he now oppose reparative therapies that target gender identity?
Why won’t anyone ask this question?
Hi, Mercedes. He was involved in the patologization of trans* identities? That’s horrible, I didn’t know abt that. Can you elaborate on this subject?
[...] coverage on Dr. Spitzer’s renunciation and has posted a new video interview with him. Wayne Besen writes: In 1973, Dr. Robert Spitzer led the charge to successfully have homosexuality removed from the [...]
Great work as always, Wayne. I’ve reposted the video and linked to this article. Thanks so much for everything you do.
Remember above what I wrote about, that it is not enough to simply participate in gay forums that you need to also take action, writ a letter, make a phone call, send an e-mail? Remember that?
I am asking everyone here including Wayne, and Evan, and Lisa, and the other really nice guy there I can’t think of his name right now, the one from Wisconsin who is a Green Bay Packers fan, Priya Lynn, Brandon and ALL, EVERYONE who comments here, to step outside of TWO and defend this work.
I want you to go to MercatorNet website and defend it there. It is a moderated website so your comments will not show up for 12 – 18 hours but do not let this stop you. Also be aware that there is a 300 word limit. This actually is a very influential Catholic centered website that conveniently doesn’t disclose this to the readers.
They just published an article about Dr. Spitzer’s retraction and they brought in a Dutch Psychiatrist, who if you research him, is extremely Catholic. They also feature Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons on that website, another deeply Catholic Psychiatrist who is a member of NARTH, and the American College of Pediatrics.
If you will please join me over at MercatorNet I will greatly appreciate it, your expertise is really needed there and will get high visibility. I do not have near the expertise on this topic that you do, you are better than me at this.
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/frail_and_aged_a_giant_apologizes
Be patient keep responding there even though it is going to take you days and days. One comment and I”m otta there doesn’t cut it.
If anybody knows anything about Gerard van den Aardweg is a Dutch psychiatrist who specialises in homosexuality and marital problems, I would love to know about that.I find it hard to believe that his ideas are mainstream in the Netherlands Psychiatric circles.
As homosexuality was delisted from the DSM in 1973, Spitzer oversaw the expansion of trans-specific diagnoses such as Gender Identity Disorder and Transvestic Fetish.
While having some form of medical classification may have been necessary to facilitate medical transition for those who need it, including things like gender role and expression nonconformity, gender measures based on value judgements and orientation-fixated judgements vastly complicated this, and often resulted in reparative-style therapies for kids who may or may not have been trans, to correct their gender presentation. Dr. Kelley Winters discusses some of this at http://gidreform.wordpress.com/2012/04/21/these-arent-the-droids-youre-looking-for-gender-diversity-scapegoating-and-erasure-in-medicine-and-media/
While Spitzer certainly isn’t single-handedly responsible for this, he contributed to a change of focus and method, and laid some of the groundwork for some of the controversial theorists who followed.
Condemnations of reparative therapy — such as Spitzer’s and the American Psychological Association’s — are often frustratingly limited to condemnations of attempts to repair sexual orientation only, and say nothing about attempts to correct gender identity, presentation, role and behaviour, some of which continues today.
Mercedes, thanks for comming back and explaining that.
Awesome, of course, TWO, but what’s a “phychiatrist?” ;-D
Why the big brouhaha?
This fellow pushed through a political decision at the APA to stop classifying homosexuality as a disease.
He then set up a straw horse and faked a research paper to show the opposite.
Now he is coming clean, admitting that he is a faker, and wishes us to accept his political statement.
If not for the fact that he has his own mental problems, one could conclude that he had planned the whole thing just to advance his political agenda.
And would anyone take this seriously (that is, anyone without a similar agenda)?
–
Laser, that is one amusing conspiracy theory you have there.
One small problem, Laser.
To call the APA decsion a political one a political decsion is only about 20% correct. It was actually a scientific decision, becuase thwe evidence was already in– homosexuality is not a disease in any sense of the word mental illness.
The politics came in when Bieber and soccarides tried to get the decision revered. They lost.
Great interview, thanks Wayne Besen. Research can be used in a biased as well as non-biased way. Dr Spitzer’s research followed the same scientific guidelines as most of the research in this issue does. I fully believe that Spitzer’s research was correct, but it is sad that his findings have been abused by the so-called ex-gay movement.
[...] Spitzer, in a radio interview (listen here), attributed the fact that he was able to publish such a tenuous study to the fact of his standing in psychiatry, as one of the “architects” of the modern DSM (prior to his interventions in the 1970s and onward, the field of American psychiatry lacked the systematic manner of linking symptoms and diagnosis that the DSM has since provided). A popular audience description of Spitzer’s hand in recrafting the DSM appeared in The New Yorker magazine in 2005, and was discussed in an episode of This American Life in 2002. Notably, Spitzer is widely credited with the removal of homosexuality from the DSM during its initial restructuring (and Sptizer has in the past called for Christian organizations to stop citing his study as evidence that same sex attraction can be changed: watch these video appeals here and here). [...]
Edward,
I am glad to be able to amuse.
While what I wrote is just a theory, as you note, it is the most plausible one.
It would be difficult, if not impossible, to persuade the authors of MercatorNet or similar sites/religious organizations to change. My own experience of conversing with diehard Catholics/religious people using strong evidence and research data that clearly go against their ingrained beliefs have been all but futile. I’ve cited research journals, the best and current books in psychiatry, psychotherapy, sex therapy, ethology (on animal and primate homosexuality), anthropology, history, references here and there, practically original sources even that cover homosexuality in depth, yet never have I ever experienced making a dent in changing their core belief that homosexuality is a sin/pathology. Why? Because they begin with a mindset of dogma and faith on ill-substantiated scripture (not to mention very flawed, local scriptural interpretations; they even disregard other theological explanations that shed a positive light on homosexuality).
Their moral reasoning and understanding of mental pathologies are always framed under the banner of a religious mindset, instead of an open, secular and speculative one. Dogma first; reason, facts, and logic always second or third. While the dogma of viewing homosexuality as a pathology isn’t only defended by diehard fundamentalists (a few secularists are anti-gay), the large battles have always been fueled by individuals and organizations with strong fundamentalist connections.
I’m not saying no one should face up to them, and do a debate within their turf… but rather, to avoid disappointment, one shouldn’t be deluded into thinking that common sense, or even hard-core scientific reasoning will triumph against such flawed mindsets. You will never win a debate against people who already believe that they have already won (or have the right answers) from the start.
You’re overly pessimistic Ernest. While what you say is likely true of some people on such sites for many others it is not the case and they are open to changing their minds. No group is a monolith.
Do recheck the latest comments here:
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/frail_and_aged_a_giant_apologizes
There is a common pattern of specious reasoning in the responses one gets from the supporters and moderators/leaders of such websites/organizations. As As I mentioned, StraightGrandmother, I’ve spent hundreds of hours myself writing replies and comments to people with such mindsets. You will only find yourself disappointed. It doesn’t really matter whether you are a leading sex researcher, psychiatrist, psychologist, sex historian, anthropologist, ethologist, mental health researcher, etc… it’s difficult, if not impossible, to convince people who’ve already made up their minds that homosexuality per se is a pathology. Belief first, reason and logic are simply afterthoughts — simply a method they utilize to make themselves appear as ostensibly reasonable and open-minded — worse case scenario, they are probably, most likely already, completely, ‘braindead’. You will not win against these zombies/parrots/faith-heads/fundamentalists/dogmatists. The war is best engaged with those individuals or groups of people who still have functioning open minds.
This is one more important step in having the Truth Win Out. Yes, harmful mistakes have been made by many well-meaning people over the years, and any time someone takes public, visual, passionate responsibility for their errors, Truth Wins! Spitzer apologizes to the LGBT community for his failures in this study…would that we all had the courage to go back and right wrongs from our past! He will now end his career with his reputation as one of the architects of the modern DSM intact, and his leadership role in removing homosexuality from the DSM clear. Heroes are made from men and women with humility. Kudos to Dr. Spitzer!
Ernest, there’s a big difference between the people who run and comment on such web sites and the much larger numbers of people who simply read them. People who take the time to comment are obviously much more highly motivated to speak their minds and that’s because they’re much more convinced they are right – that’s not the case with most readers. The point in commenting on these sites is not to attempt to convert the entrenched, but to reach the typical reader who is much more likely to be willing to question dogma.
Priya Lynn, I already agree with you… and thanks for replying. Dissenting voices should always be heard. The only caveat I put forward was that we should not expect a fair, and reasonable debate in such operated websites. And the main goal should not be to change the minds of the hardheaded active users/moderators–if you ultimately make this your goal or crusade in life, you will only end up in disappointment. So many websites are run in manner of mercatornet. When engaging within such forums/article comments section, it’s best not to focus on replying to the philosophizer’s every single specious exposition. They will always find a way to selectively twist words and research to their advantage. They are masters of the art of shoddy argumentation–the comments/forum pages’ could run book-length, even ad infinitum–and you’d still find yourself somehow appearing always to lose in their eyes. I shall only suggest that it is best for people like us not to engage in a full outright war when replying or writing comments, expecting reason to win in the end. Exchange of writing could run for days to weeks to months…. Yes, do comment and engage in debate, but wisely expend energy, and imagine writing to an agnostic audience with a limited attention span. Make yourself be heard, but don’t expect for such active anti-gay commenters to relent their beliefs in the end.
Ernest said “The only caveat I put forward was that we should not expect a fair, and reasonable debate in such operated websites.”.
LOL, I’m all too well aware of that. That’s why I don’t often comment on such websites, its just too frustrating to have comments removed, censored, have to deal with the “gish gallop” and so on. My hat’s off to those that do comment though and I think its a bad idea to discourage them from doing so.
[...] Wins Out, traveled with filmmaker Lisa Darden to Spitzer’s home in Princeton, NJ for an exclusive interview. In it, Spitzer reiterates both his retraction and his apology, but more significantly, he rebuked [...]