Today, in a letter to Dr. Ken Zucker obtained exclusively by Truth Wins Out, Dr. Robert Spitzer made an unprecedented apology to the gay community — and victims of reparative therapy in particular — for his infamous, now-repudiated 2001 study that claimed some “highly motivated” homosexuals could go from gay to straight:
Several months ago I told you that because of my revised view of my 2001 study of reparative therapy changing sexual orientation, I was considering writing something that would acknowledge that I now judged the major critiques of the study as largely correct. After discussing my revised view of the study with Gabriel Arana, a reporter for American Prospect, and with Malcolm Ritter, an Associated Press science writer, I decided that I had to make public my current thinking about the study. Here it is.
Basic Research Question. From the beginning it was: “can some version of reparative therapy enable individuals to change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual?” Realizing that the study design made it impossible to answer this question, I suggested that the study could be viewed as answering the question, “how do individuals undergoing reparative therapy describe changes in sexual orientation?” – a not very interesting question.
The Fatal Flaw in the Study – There was no way to judge the credibility of subject reports of change in sexual orientation. I offered several (unconvincing) reasons why it was reasonable to assume that the subject’s reports of change were credible and not self-deception or outright lying. But the simple fact is that there was no way to determine if the subject’s accounts of change were valid.
I believe I owe the gay community an apology for my study making unproven claims of the efficacy of reparative therapy. I also apologize to any gay person who wasted time and energy undergoing some form of reparative therapy because they believed that I had proven that reparative therapy works with some “highly motivated” individuals.
Robert Spitzer. M.D.
Emeritus Professor of Psychiatry,
Columbia University
Zucker, to whom Spitzer’s letter is addressed, is the editor of the Archives of Sexual Behavior, the journal in which Spitzer’s study was originally published in 2001. At that time, the study was a surprise that created a media firestorm which captured the nation’s attention. Dr. Spitzer was the last person in America one would have expected to produce a study bolstering the claims of ‘ex-gay’ activists — after all, he had previously led the charge in 1972-73 to remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association. Earlier this month, Dr. Spitzer dealt “ex-gay” programs a fatal blow by officially renouncing his study in the American Prospect article he mentions in his letter above. That renunciation kicked out the final leg from the stool on which the proponents of ‘ex-gay’ therapy based their already shaky claims of success, or as Arana put it, removed from the ex-gay “fringe movement. . . its only shred of scientific support.”
Dr. Spitzer’s apology to the victims of “pray away the gay” therapy and the greater LGBT community marks a watershed moment in the fight against the “ex-gay” myth. We commend him for it, because not only will it solidify his legacy as a respected doctor and significant historical figure, but it will help to greatly hasten the day when the scourge that is reparative therapy is eradicated forever and LGBT people can live openly, honestly, and true to themselves.
MJ, don’t you realize that the “ex-gay” industry does not exist to make “ex-gays” happy. The reason it exists is to help facilitate the anti-gay industry’s persecution of gay people – because the industry needs to convince itself and the general public that being gay is a choice and is changeable. The only problem is that the notion has been exposed as a big lie. Change of sexual orientation simply does not happen.
If “ex-gays” were simply and quietly celibate or pretending to be heterosexual, they would be left alone. But there is a huge army of professional “ex-gay” warriors who insist on telling the rest of us, and the general public, that we are perverts, sick, broken, deviates, sinners, and abominations, and that we must join them in their pathetic “ex-gay” charade, or else their loving barbaric god will condemn us to eternal torture.
Claiming that Spitzer’s Study, dated 2003, is now repudiated and should be expunged from the record is typical of the totalitarianism that so prevalent in gay activist groups. Indeed, such actions were limited to totalitarian regimes like the old Soviet Union, where the faulty science of the biologist, Trofim Lysenko, could not be questioned for purely political reasons by Stalin and his successor Kruschev (which is alarmingly similar to the APA’s stance on any research that even hints at the mutability of homosexuality and “Truth Wins Out’s” stance on the Spitzer study).
Such actions are not only inappropriate and outside the bounds of a democratic society, such as ours, they’re also not in keeping with standard scientific practice. Here’s an excerpt from a Psychology Today article, dealing with the subject:
‘A few months ago, Zucker told me, Spitzer had called Zucker wanting to talk about the latest DSM revision. During that call, according to Zucker, Spitzer “made some reference to regretting having done or publishing the study, and he said he wanted to retract it. My recollection of the conversation was something like this: I said, ‘I’m not sure what you want to retract, Bob. You didn’t falsify the data. You didn’t commit egregious statistical errors in analyzing the data. You didn’t make up the data. There were various commentaries on your paper, some positive, some negative, some in between. So the only thing that you seem to want to retract is your interpretation of the data, and lots of people have already criticized you for interpretation, methodological issues, etc.’”
Link: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fetishes-i-dont-get/201204/how-ex-ex-gay-study
In the article, Zuckerman also went on to say that he would have published a letter from Spitzer, changing his interpretation, had he requested it. Spitzer did not, so no letter was received nor published thus far.
Besides, despite questionable claims to the contrary, there is much credible research that supports the findings of Spitzer’s study. Just a few examples are Drs. Mark Yarhouse of Regent University and Stanton Jones, who did a far more rigorous study with respect to to methodology and internal checks, showing that differing degrees of change did occur among a significant percentage of homosexuals, who sought help from Exodus International. Other research documenting the mutability of homosexuality is in the Phd thesis of Dr. Elan Karten of Fordham University.
So to claim that Spitzer’s study is no longer valid because of his recent statement to Dr. Zuckerman is false. Rather, a far more plausible reason for Spitzer’s change of heart was the relentless pressure and intimidation that gay activist groups, like “Truth Wins Out” exerted upon him.
Spitzer’s study was discredited long before he recanted. The methodology was simply so horrible that it’s baffling that was accepted in any peer-reviewed journals.
There are also not any credible studies backing up Spitzer’s study. They innevitably are shown to have totally falsified data or the subjects admit they were lying. Even the president of Exodus admitted that he has never actually seen someone change their orientation.
No one “intimidated” Spitzer except possibly bigots like you who needed an excuse to keep attacking gay people. Much like the totalitarian regimes you try to compare us to.
You have no evidence to back up your claims of “choice” and “mutibility”. You have a decades long chain of lies and blood. Nothing else.
So, Semyon, since homosexuality is a choice, you (or any heterosexual) COULD wake up tomorrow morning and make a conscious, deliberate, decision to be gay, right?
Tell me at what age you made a conscious, deliberate, decision to be attracted to the opposite sex. If heterosexuality isn’t a choice, how can homosexuals choose to become heterosexual?
[...] Spitzer. M.D. Emeritus Professor of Psychiatry, Columbia University, U.S.A. 25 April 2012, cited: http://www.truthwinsout.org/news On April 11th the Huffington Post ran this headline: “Psychiatrist Behind Controversial [...]
Claiming that Spizter’s study is not repudiated is typical of the totalitarianism that goes on in right wing Christian fundamentalist groups. No matter what the evidence says they will go on believing their bigoted anti-gay, homophobic beliefs. It’s sad that no matter what the evidence shows they will cling to false beliefs to support their own biases.
Semyon, Jones and Yarhouse defined successful change in orientation so loosely as to include those who still had same sex attractions and just had chosen not to act on them. Their study didn’t prove anyone had changed orientation and has been thoroughly discredited. There has never been any study showing any successful changes in orientation, it simply does not happen.
The idea that Spitzer gave in to pressure isn’t credible. The heavy criticism came shortly after his study, maybe 2 years at the most and discussion of it had diminished to practically nothing in the last several years. The idea that he resisted heavy criticism early on and then after 11 years when no one was talking about it decided it was too much and gave in is laughable.
Wow, Priya, I didn’t realize that I qualify as an ex-gay! :-) I’ve been abstinent (mostly by choice, and certainly not due to moral/religious strictures – I’m just too damn picky) for almost 6 years…but I still consider myself as gay as I ever was. My physical/emotional/intellectual attractions haven’t changed – and I sure don’t want them to !
That’s right Philip, according to Jones and Yarhouse you’ve successfully changed your orientation from gay to heterosexual.
I spent 9 years celibate myself, once again, it had nothing to do with religion, lol.
In response to Priya Lynn’s comment no. 57:
No matter the emotional, mental, or behavioral issue it seeks to change, psychotherapy never results in a 100% change 100% of the time. Rather, it results can range from elimination of the unwanted feelings to or a reduction in them such that the person experiencing the feelings can now cope with them. It’s true whether the issue is depression, addiction, anxiety, or sexuality.
Thus, even though some homosexuals were not 100% successful at changing their orientation, they were successful at lessening it. Given the standards by which psychotherapy is considered successful, such an outcome is a success, showing that homosexuality is subject to differing degrees of change depending on the person and that it’s a mutable trait.
The reasons why such findings are so important and must be pursued are here:
http:\\marriage-onemanandonewoman.blogspot.com
Semyon, then it’s an irresponsible fraud to say that people can go from gay to straight. And your blog is just bigoted claptrap.
Except psychotherapy that attempts to change orientation has a zero percent success rate. Torture; no change. Castration (physical and chemical); no change. Hypnotism; no change. Prayer; no change. Lobotomies; no change. Catharcis; no change. Nothing has ever produced a proven change to a person’s orientation. Just broken people and families.
But that doesn’t matter to you Semyon. The only thing that matters to you is that gay people are continued to be treated as sub-human. The blood on your hands and the broken families in your wake don’t matter to you as you still have special treatment.
Semyon, why would you want gay men to marry straight women–or lesbians for that matter. Or for lesbians to marry straight men or gay men? Why would you wish future unhappiness on all these people? Why would you want people to marry people they are not attracted to–that they have to work so hard at being intimate with? You’re a really cruel person.
Wow, after reading your blog I find you even more delusional. From your first paragraph–being treated with “courtesy” isn’t a right. I don’t care if you’re nice to me. I’d rather have equal rights, including the right to marry the person I choose.
“Everyone has the right to be whatever they want to be. Including exgay.”
That’s why I’m a lovely, magical unicorn whose every step leaves behind a trail of flowers in my wake. Because that’s what I want to be.
But why on Earth would anyone want to pretend they’re something as ridiculously fictional as an “ex-gay”? At least my unicorn fantasy is fun.
Semyon, my same-sex feelings are NOT unwanted, so I see no reason to pursue any “ex-gay” program. I’m not highly motivated to change so I wouldn’t cooperate anyway.
I think we need to start calling out people who believe that “conversion therapy” works. If you REALLY think it’s effective, it should be MANDATORY that your daughter(s) marry “ex-gay” men (and vice-versa). There are claims of tens of thousands (one source says hundred of thousands) of “ex-gays”; surely your children can find ONE compatible person in that throng. If you balk AT ALL at your child marrying an “ex-gay”, then you are a hypocrite.
Here is an example of a very HIGHLY motivated individual who didn’t change orientation in the least:
http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2011/08/survivor-mit-grad-student-samuel-brinton-remembers-ex-gay-therapy/
I call on those who believe that “ex-gay” therapy (torture in this case) is effective to go through this same “therapy” that Samuel Brinton did themselves to change THEIR sexual orientation. Those who refuse to go through the same procedures that Samuel did are hypocrites (because you are asking someone to do something that you are not willing to do yourself); those who do go through and find their sexual orientation not changed (which won’t change) are liars. If the orientation of a highly motivated person like Samuel doesn’t change, it sure won’t work on those less motivated.
Heh, PhilipJ, but our same-sex attractions ARE unwanted – thing is, WE aren’t the ones who don’t want them…
Thanks, OBG…I meant to include that in my post. :-)
[...] stating that it had a major flaw. He apologized to the gay community for the study, writing an open letter exclusively published at Truth Wins Out, which read in part: " The Fatal Flaw in the Study [...]
[...] apology is contained in a letter, addressed to Dr Ken Zucker, obtained by the website, Truth Wins Out. The full text of the letter can be found at the bottom of this [...]
[...] EXCLUSIVE: Dr. Robert Spitzer Apologizes to Gay Community for Infamous ‘Ex-Gay’ Study (truthwinsout.org) [...]
[...] sexual orientation could be changed, but not only have his studies been discredited, he has apologized for the damage his flawed findings had caused. Several months ago I told you that because of [...]
Yes, Dr. Spitzer, acknowledging your mistake and apologizing for it IS something. Thank you.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
Even aside from House’s dictum ‘everybody lies’, sexuality is fluid. I’m primarily homosexual (my preferred label if I must have one, though I’ll answer to ‘gay’,'lesbian’, ‘bi’, or ‘queer’ for convenience’s sake) but in practice I’ve been all over the lot. Men and women are like bananas and cantaloupes; I’d rather slurp a cantaloupe, but sometimes I’ll take a banana, if it’s what’s on offer (and gentle and not too big), and for years at a time I won’t take anything at all. Psychology doesn’t even hammer square pegs into round holes; it hammers Silly Putty into them. It’s a pseudo-science.
ACW, having attractions to both men and women is not a fluid sexual orientation. Many people are strictly attracted to one sex and those that are bisexual cannot stop being attracted to both.
Some of you guys are missing the point:
Anyone can make a mistake. Anyone can be wrong.
We all are at times wrong, and we all make mistakes
(even the smartest among us). Sometimes it takes generations for mistakes to be recognized.
As many times as Dr Spitzer was right, on this he was wrong, and in spite of his professional record, he was also foolish to think his “study” was scientific.
I fully believe truth and enlightenment will win out over ignorance — someday. As sure as there was a Renaissance, as sure as enlightenment that flowed out of Paris in the 91th century did change the world, people will someday be left to live there lives “in the pursuit of happiness”. Here, Here! to two steps forward after one step back for a change, and just like that we have moved forward along our great human continuum. Kind of helps you from giving up sometimes, doesn’t it…
Finally some truth. This is such an exciting time for the gay community. With gay marriage on the headlines and the first Black president to come out in support of it makes all those years of hell trying to change something that deep in my heart I knew wasn’t possible, much time wasted. I almost took my own life thanks to these unethical studies. But today in these times, I’ve never been more politically charge and excited to fight the bigots who simply hate us. I don’t want to take away their right to hate but I’m sure as hell not going to let them f*^k with my civil rights and liberties. I’ve come along way and proud to be a gay man. I encourage and plead everyone with a heart to donate to HRC or marriage equality.
Mr. Spitzer is right in that the “change” cannot be be proven and those people who say they have been “cured” may well be lying. However, what applies to the “change” of sexual orientation, applies also to the determination of sexual orientation as such: It cannot be proven scientifically whether somebody is heterosexual, homosexual or something else; we always have to “rely” on what people are saying.
“It cannot be proven scientifically whether somebody is heterosexual, homosexual or something else; we always have to “rely” on what people are saying.”
Not true with men. We can measure attraction from men through a penile apparatus and in both sexes through a No Lie MRI.
No studies on ex-gays should ever be done in the future without taking psychical measures to ensure actual attraction is matching a research subjects words.
[...] A draft of the letter has already leaked online and has been reported. [...]
It is always easy to abuse those who are already being abused. This so-called “professional” abused his privileges so that he could delilberately hurt millions of those who had no champions and no help. He is a sadistic monster just as were the Nazis who sent gays to the gas chamber. Parkinson’s is too good for him.
This is coming from a straight guy, and psych major from 20 years ago… so take from it what you will. I applaud his original contention that helped rid the books of “gay disorder”. I believe you’re born that way, just as I was born colorblind, my friend was born black, my wife was born a woman, and my cousin was born gay. But from a purely scientific perspective, you have to always consider a result that goes against your previous evidence. His fault lies not in considering counter-evidence, it was by doing it so poorly. It wasn’t scientifically proven evidence – it was hearsay. Again, straight dude talking, but I can’t imagine what it must be like growing up as an automatic outcast (essentially, and unfortunately). I’m sure someone in the LGBT community must have wished they weren’t that way, instead of embracing it as who they simply are. So consider that there’s a possibility that a therapy exists that helps that person “overcome” their sexual orientation, so that they are happier “being straight”, feel more accepted, etc. As a scientist, he had to consider that this was a possible option that ran counter to what previous evidence concluded. What he didn’t do was then form a hypothesis and test it, and see if it could be replicated and proven, and I think that’s where his apology comes from. He didn’t follow scientific process, but asking the question to find an opposing result is part of the process.
In my opinion, the worst thing is that those who are against the LGBT lifestyle *don’t* listen to scientific fact, and in another time would have been just as likely to claim I should be discriminated against because I can’t see the difference between some reds and greens. If they stopped listening to their 2,000 year old books, their preachers and their talk shows, and took fact as what it is, this would be a better world for all of us.
His study should have been called “Can prayer and electric shock therapy make sinners lie their way into religious respectability?”
Dr. Spitzer:
There is much blood on your hands. I doubt that you will see this – but I can only hope.
Your apology is too little, too late. If you could bring back my foster-son who was essentially tortured by his “christian” employers until he took his own life at 27 – hanging himself in front of his mother, grandmother and nieces and nephews, maybe that would help.
Your “studies” were thrust into his face by people who did not have a scientific background to evaluate scientific validity but who were anxious to have some way to scientifically backup their prejudices.
I think you knew very well how your study would be received by those who selectively interrupt the bible to support their own preconceptions, and others who hate. You were seeking publicity and fame. I don’t see these people out campaigning for constitutional amendments against pork, for which there are many religious prohibitions by many otherwise conflicting religions.
The very fact that you allowed it to be published without peer review speaks to your credentials as a scientist. And, as a scientist, you should be strongly aware of selection bias; your “study” reeks of it. As well as reporting, exclusion and confirmation bias. No, I believe that you were very well aware of the damage your “study” would do – you were seeking the spotlight again, recklessly ignoring the causalities you would never meet.
Hardly a day goes by that I don’t think of my son – and how so-called christians (intentionally a small ‘c’) used arguments that were partly based on your methods to tell him that he was going to hell.
I can’t recall any other time I’ve posted a response to any on-line report of any kind – but this causes me so much pain even now, five years later, that I can not now be silent. I will not be back to look at responses either, as this causes me too much pain, and I don’t care to see the bigots justify their hate.
There is much blood on your hands. Your statement was so little and so late, so justified as to be self-serving. I think that you only care for your reputation. I also think that history will see through your transparent attempt. I do not forgive you.
Don
Dustin: thanks for your post. A reminder, though: being gay isn’t a “lifestyle.” It’s an orientation.
John, correction cited and approved! : )
We’ve proven that being gay is not a choice, Are we now going to try to prove that unforgiveness is not as well?
I guess he apologizes to the community and those who tried the therapy and failed because the ones he hurt the most who tried to change and couldn’t and ultimately took their own lives because they couldn’t fathom life without their family’s acceptance are dead and he can’t apologize to them? And he continues to call himself a scientist until the end? So did Mengele. What he really should do is step down from his post at Columbia and turn his fat tenured pension over to the a financially strapped gay and lesbian youth organization. That would demonstrate to me be is truly sorry for the blood on his hands and that he isn’t just another washed up academic trying to keep his name alive because he never had an original thought of his own.
Having never experienced any direct loss as a result of Spitzer’s study I don’t share the anger of many of you although I do understand it. I think its important to keep in mind that it would have been very easy for Spitzer to keep quiet and pretend he never did anything wrong and I’m grateful that he stood up to admit his failure.
i guess I can’t blame Spitzer for how his study has been used by the real culprits. the people with “blood on their hands” are the ones who used his study to advance their hateful agenda. perhaps Spitzer should have known to what use his study would be put to. perhaps he should have never given any ammunition to the fanatics. but i don’t think we can blame him for the hateful ways in which the study has been used.
I think it’s intellectually honest of him to admit the study was flawed.
I read this article – very great. That led me to the Exodus International site, which is…I guess “laughable” is the word? Jeffrey Wallace, some Grand Poohbah worker, recruiter, mind-alterer, whatever, writes to his 100 teenaged soldiers of gay-conversion, “God hates all sins…” God “hates”? I would estimate this is a brand new piece of data for the already-confused youth of this organization.
God is One Who hates certain things. I wonder if he “hates” that I’m not capitalizing the h’s in this sentence as I repeatedly refer to him – god, that is. (Is it a hated sin not to use the shift button on g’s and h’s?)
It’s incredible to me that a person of mr. wallace’s stature (oops, again with those disrespecting lowercase letters) in this organization would teach his impressionable followers that we possess the POWER to create hatred in god. It’s also “incredible” to me that organizations like this factory of disenchantment and discontent can sustain itself in a world of ever-growing acceptance for one another.
Incredible.
No…I was more accurate with “laughable”.
Good GOD. (Caps merely for emphasis, you understand.)
- Joe Dougherty
I am a gay man. I have been so for my 73 years. After one failed marriage and before a subsequent but unsuccessful marriage to good women, I did several years of Freudian talk therapy to deal with the relationship loss and my homosexuality. It was an intellectually interesting but expensive process. My psychiatrist had a good reputation in one of the largest cities in the mid-west U.S. The therapy did nothing to change my sexual orientation and I am now certain from my own experience that my orientation is no choice any more than my ethnicity or race. Dr. Spitzer is to be commended for his apology.
The real joke is their belief that god not only confides in them what he allegedly hates, but that god, as it turns out, hates exactly the same things they do.
But it is blasphemy to suggest that god confides in them the status of his relationship with any other soul on earthl.
We often hear the mantra, “God is love,” but through observation of multitudes of His followers, it seems more like, “God is hate.” It’s fascinating to observe how often Christians redefine words to mean the opposite of their conventional definitions.