Friday, January 19, 2007

Whining, With Flags and Eagles

Several people sent me links to this slick website where the CRC complains about the new curriculum. The Center for American Cultural Renewal actually looks like something out of the Colbert Report, with bald eagles and flags, and look, there's a happy bride and groom, holding hands.

Here's how they describe themselves:
The Center for American Cultural Renewal is a grassroots public policy and advocacy organization working to promote and protect traditional values based on the Judeo-Christian ethic. We work to restore the Constitutional principles embodied in the founding of our nation and base our arguments on logic, natural law and empirical evidence.

Our goal is to renew the promise of America envisioned by the Pilgrims of the 17th Century and the Founding Fathers of the 18th Century restoring our greatest institutions; traditional marriage, two-parent families, community and religious organizations, and civic responsibility for the purpose of renewing our values to fall in line with our most cherished traditions.

We work to restore America’s purpose.

So, OK, turn the hands of time back to the good old days, fine, I hope they're happy.

Their article is called New Sex-Ed Curriculum Is Still Biased, if that gives you a clue about what follows. Most of the stuff comes from CRC literature, either their minority report or some public comments at the school board; we've heard it all before.

It starts like this:
While the following story comes from Montgomery Maryland, the homosexual advocates are promoting and implementing radical sex-ed curriculum in government schools around the country. Under the guise of keeping homosexual, bisexual and other students “safe,” the sexual lobby has gained access to your children. Activists have intimidated administrators and school boards in to allowing them free rein to promote whatever sexual practices it chooses in the most graphic and inappropriate manner possible.

The amount of propaganda being disseminated is astounding. Nothing is too far-fetched to be excluded, and nothing is considered off limits even to what is taught elementary students.

How's that for a rollicking start?

You get the feeling right away that they're against it.

This thing is too long, I'm not going to reproduce it here. But let's look at some snatches...
“That all five lessons of the curriculum focus on and promote homosexuality and don’t even touch on the value of having a traditional family should tell parents of the enormous influence of sexual advocacy groups placed by the Board on the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC),” according to [Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum President Michelle] Turner.

Yes, four of the five new sections focus on homosexuality a little bit. Because ... that's what they're about. For twelve years a kid goes to school learning about stuff, for four 45-minute classes he's going to hear something about sexual orientation.

The fifth section is about condoms and doesn't mention sexual orientation at all, or have anything to do with it.
Turner points out that the material for the curriculum is drawn from an excerpt from a book by Holt Lifetime Health, written for one of the most liberal school districts in the country, Los Angeles. It was authored by a gay activist and contains glaring omissions on the health risks of homosexual behavior.

I can't believe this one. They are so outraged over the authorship of this book. Who wrote your kids' other textbooks, do you know? Of course not. Did they come from liberal school districts? Who cares?

I mean, really, who cares who wrote the textbook?
The Board also approved a new video that recommends condoms for every act of "oral, anal, or vaginal sex," while ignoring a petition from over 200 physicians requesting that it include a specific warning about the dangers of anal sex.

That petition is a fraud. Those doctors didn't know what they were signing. The petition asks for a statement from a 1980s Surgeon General to be included. It's absurd.

Also, the CRC always ignores the fact that the video that is now in the schools, and has been for years, also says to use a condom for anal, oral, and vaginal sex. It's not new. In fact, we've been looking at that movie, Hope Is Not a Method. I think I'll have a blog post about it pretty soon.

They like to bring up anal sex because it sounds dirty. The CRC keeps talking about it, it's like an obsession with them.

Oh yeah, and this was under the headline: Condoms and Anal Sex Approved.

Ha -- the citizens committee threw these nuts a curveball:
FRC's [Family Research Council] Vice President for Policy, Peter Sprigg, a Montgomery County resident, represented Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX) on a Citizens Advisory Committee that reviewed the curriculum. Even the liberal-dominated committee had voted to include a statement saying, "Civil expressions of disapproval of homosexual behavior out of sincere religious, moral, or health-related concerns should not be labeled as homophobia." But school system staff removed that caveat from the lessons approved yesterday.

Yeah, the liberal committee was OK with that. How liberal does that make them? I don't know why the school district didn't include it, they didn't include some things I wanted, either. Whatever, you move on.
Additionally, the curriculum refuses to acknowledge the existence of "ex-gays." Parents should be aware that on the subject of homosexuality, some public schools have gone beyond education to indoctrination.

No, nothing about "ex-gays," which at least they put in quotes. There's nothing in there about unicorns, either.

The CRC's rep on the committee, Ruth Jacobs, gets in on it, too.
Dr. Jacobs, an infectious disease specialist, was upset by the bias on the committee, “I have found that MCPS and the CAC avoid saying anything that could reflect negatively on homosexuality, regardless of the health risks.

Yes, that's true, both the district and the committee were careful not to be disrespectful. That's a real black eye for the community, I'm sure.
“It is wrong to use the lives of our children as political footballs. Forty-five percent of the deaths from AIDS infections in the U.S. are due to men having sex with men even though they are about 2 percent of the population,” she continues, “To not warn the children of these risks is irresponsible.”

I agree with that last sentence. That's why I'm glad the Montgomery County Public Schools have an entire section of the Health curriculum devoted to just that, sexually transmitted infections, how you get them, how to prevent them. It doesn't belong in the sexual orientation section, because ... that's not what it's about. The sexual orientation section, oddly enough, is about sexual orientation, which has nothing to do with disease.

Ooh, this is nicely written fiction right here:
CRC also points to the introduction of transgenderism as normal, natural, unchangeable, and healthy.

It's true, in tenth grade they learn that some people experience being a different gender from their physical bodies. There's even a little vignette about a transgender teenager. Nowhere does the curriculum say that it is "normal, natural, unchangeable, and healthy." Why would it? It's just something that happens sometimes, you don't have to get all judgmental about it. Transgender people don't ask to be that way, they just are. Hearing about it in school isn't going make the boys want to be girls all of a sudden, everybody knows that, really.

It's as if this were a criticism of the curriculum. It is certainly a fact that some people's subjective gender is inconsistent with their physical features. I can't see what's wrong with mentioning it in a class on sexuality.
In fact, major reputable medical facilities such as Johns Hopkins University Hospital and the Cleveland Clinic no longer perform reassignment surgery because they consider it unsuccessful in treating transgenderism.

We've already talked HERE about the history of sexual reassignment surgery at Johns Hopkins. I looked around the web and don't see anything about the Cleveland Clinic. Whatever, sexual reassignment surgery is accepted by the medical community. The fact that the guy can name two places that don't do it is ... well, it's nothing.
“In many ways this curriculum is more radical than the previous one. It certainly contains many of the elements we sued over in the first place,” says Turner.

Oooohh hee hee hoo hoo yuck yuck -- I love this.

Of course it's "worse" than the other one. The Montgomery County community doesn't have anything against gay people. The first curriculum tried to compromise, tried to find a middle ground, but the CRC wouldn't have it -- it had to be all or nothing for them. Well, they got nothing. And so the schools had to start over, but this time they didn't try very hard to accommodate the litigious whiners.

What did you expect?

Hey, this is a weird one:
Literature by Homosexual advocacy Group

Children will read and analyze four stories developed by a gay advocacy group:...

And then it goes on to quote some vignettes from the Holt textbook.

I must have missed something. Were these "developed by a gay advocacy group?" The book doesn't seem to say where they came from.

And anyway, if I may say so -- what a stupid criticism. So it was developed by a gay advocacy group? So what? Who cares? What is wrong with that?

Oh yeah, then they say:
No heterosexual stories were included.

Well, everything else in the whole Health curriculum is about heterosexuals, how can you complain about a couple of days' less attention?

See, this piece of junk was full of lies and misconstruals. It sure would be nice to be able to sit back and not worry about it. But this is how it starts. These liars start out getting all puffed up about things, and squawking everywhere about it, and after a while the whole barnyard's in an uproar.

We're waiting to find out where the new curriculum will be pilot-tested, and when, exactly. Oh, and of course I suppose we're waiting to find out what the suers will find to complain about this time.

32 Comments:

Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

To the best of my knowledge the Cleveland Clinic never performed genital reconstructions. Not many academic centers ever did, since it is a very specialized procedure. Be that as it may, the procedure is now routinely available privately, and has been for thirty years.

And Hopkins stopped simply because of the efforts of one man, who has never defended himself in any scientific forum -- Paul McHugh.

January 19, 2007 2:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The sexual orientation section, oddly enough, is about sexual orientation, which has nothing to do with disease."

If your "orientation" is same gender attraction, acting on the desires will significantly increase your risk of contracting a fatal and uncurable disease. So, it has something to do with it

January 19, 2007 2:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It's as if this were a criticism of the curriculum. It is certainly a fact that some people's subjective gender is inconsistent with their physical features."

One can argue whether you should be defined by your "subjective gender" or your physical one. The curriculum inappropriately takes a position.

January 19, 2007 2:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The first curriculum tried to compromise, tried to find a middle ground, but the CRC wouldn't have it -- it had to be all or nothing for them. Well, they got nothing."

They succeeded in removing the ridiculous implications about scientfic evidence supporting the homosexual agenda.

Whether they can counter the new assault on the kids' education remains to be seen but they've got a good shot.

January 19, 2007 2:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"That petition is a fraud. Those doctors didn't know what they were signing."

So, it's not a fraud then. they signed it. Why would they sign something if they didn't know what it said?

January 19, 2007 2:50 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous said "If your "orientation" is same gender attraction, acting on the desires will significantly increase your risk of contracting a fatal and uncurable disease.".

Wrong. Only promiscuity will increase the risk of contracting an STD. Being in a monogamous gay relationship is risk free.

January 19, 2007 5:06 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous said "One can argue whether you should be defined by your "subjective gender" or your physical one. The curriculum inappropriately takes a position.".

Wrong. It harms no one to allow people to define themselves as the gender they feel they are inside. Pushing a gender on a person that doesn't fit is harmful. The curriculum appropriately makes this clear.

January 19, 2007 5:09 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous said "They succeeded in removing the ridiculous implications about scientfic evidence supporting the homosexual agenda.".

Science has proven that being gay is not a disease and the best science available strongly suggests it is not a choice.

January 19, 2007 5:13 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous said "So, it's not a fraud then. they signed it. Why would they sign something if they didn't know what it said?".

It was a fraud. They were mislead about it by the anti-gay bigots supporting hatred.

January 19, 2007 5:15 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Please, Anon, tell me what "physical gender" means. The way you define it has no correlation with reality.

January 19, 2007 5:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said "If your "orientation" is same gender attraction, acting on the desires will significantly increase your risk of contracting a fatal and uncurable disease.".

Wrong. Only promiscuity will increase the risk of contracting an STD. Being in a monogamous gay relationship is risk free."

Randi

Don't you see that you can only speak for yourself? There is no way to assure that your "partner" has been.

If one joins in the gay pool and searches for a partner for this type of activity, statistically speaking, the person is more likely to be promiscuous, more likely to have a wider range of promiscuity, more likely to have a fatal disease to share, more likely to be unconcerned about the welfare of their partner.

Theoretically, I guess it doesn't have to be so...but, it is. Public schools are not there to conduct PR for the gay movement.

January 20, 2007 8:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said "One can argue whether you should be defined by your "subjective gender" or your physical one. The curriculum inappropriately takes a position.".

Wrong. It harms no one to allow people to define themselves as the gender they feel they are inside. Pushing a gender on a person that doesn't fit is harmful. The curriculum appropriately makes this clear."

People are born with a gender. Feelings are fleeting.

January 20, 2007 9:01 AM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

Thanks for making the point. People are born with a gender. It's just clear that you don't know what that means. The fact is that you, too, were born with a gender, and if you stopped to think about it (what a novel thought!) you'd recognize that as well. You'd also recognize that your "feelings" about your "self," your identity, your being, are not and have never been "fleeting."

Unfortunately, I think it's safe to assume that you equate your genitals with your gender, which is just one more simplistic, ignorant act on your part, and highlights how little you know about biology, medicine and yourself.

January 20, 2007 9:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Science has proven that being gay is not a disease"

Nope. Depends on your definition of disease. Even ardent gay activists think it's a condition. Whether that condition leads to the inability to lead a normal and happy life is debatable.

"and the best science available strongly suggests it is not a choice."

Absolutely wrong. There is debate among researchers about whether the brain controls the mind or the mind controls the brain. The assumption among materialists that biological forces irrevocably control your feelings is increasingly questioned. In the last 15 years, neuroscientitsts have overthrown the dogma that the brain can't change. Its structure and activity can change in response to experience and thought, an ability called neuroplasticity.

The idea that feelings are beyond one's ability to alter by will or conscience is, frankly, old school.

January 20, 2007 9:17 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anonymous said "So, it's not a fraud then. they signed it. Why would they sign something if they didn't know what it said?".

It was a fraud. They were mislead about it by the anti-gay bigots supporting hatred."

How so? They agreed the Surgeon General office and the warnings on condom boxes and every objective observer. Why do you think they were mislead? Because TTF said so?

It's completely understood why the danger is heightened. The activity is more likely, by its nature, to cause breakage and even trace amounts are more likely to be absorbed by the body.

January 20, 2007 9:24 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Look up gender in Webster's.

It says:

"sex"

Look up sex, its first definition says:

"either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures"

We've got to go with the language we have, Dr, not the one you want.

January 20, 2007 9:30 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous at January 20, 2007 8:56 AM said "Don't you see that you can only speak for yourself? There is no way to assure that your "partner" has been."

Anonymous, I am as certain of the faithfulness of my partner as any heterosexual is of theirs. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior and 3 decades of loving, honest, dependable and trustworthy behavior on his part leaves me with no concern whatsoever. You should be so lucky.

As to your "statistics", again that's just an unsupported lie on your part and contradicted by the actual data:

40-60% of gay men, and 45-80% of lesbians are in a steady relationship
J Harry-1983 in Contemporary Families and Alternative Lifestyles, ed by Macklin, Sage Publ.
L Peplau-1981, in Journal of Homosexuality 6(3):1-19
J Spada-1979, The Spada Report, New American Library Publ

b) Studies of older homosexual people show that gay relationships lasting over 20 years are not uncommon

D McWhirter-1984, The Male Couple, Prentice-Hall
S Raphael-1980, Alternative Lifestyles 3:207-230, "The Older Lesbian"
C Silverstein-1981, Man to Man: Gay Couples in America, William Morrow Publ.

c) In a large sample of couples followed for 18 months the following "break up" statistics were observed: lesbians=22%, gay=16%, cohabiting heterosexuals=17%

Blumstein and Schwartz (1983) American Couples: Money, Work, Sex; Morrow Publ
In a study of sexual behavior in homosexuals and heterosexuals, the researchers found that of gay and bisexual men, 24% had one male partner in their lifetime, 45% had 2-4 male partners, 13% had 5-9 male partners, and 18% had 10 or more sexual partners, which produces a mean of less than 6 partners. (The statistics are presented as a percentage of total males interviewed, both gay and straight (p. 345)--they can be verified yourself by looking at the numbers given in the paper)(Fay; n=97 gay males of 1450 males total). In a parallel study, a random sample of primarily straight men (n=3111 males who had had vaginal intercourse; of the total sample of n=3224 males, only 2.3% had indicated having had sex with both men and women), the mean number of sexual partners was 7.3, with 28.2% having 1-3 partners, and 23.3% having greater than 19 partners (Billy). This data indicates that gay men may have fewer number of sexual partners than heterosexuals.

J Billy-1993: Family Planning Perspectives 25:52-60
R Fay-1989, Science 243:338-348

In another set of studies, the first (n=2664) showed that gay men had an average of 6.5 sexual partners in the past 5 years. In fact, the authors of this paper report that "homosexual and bisexual men are much more likely than heterosexual men to be celibate" given the data in the table below, which compares their data to a second, parallel study of only heterosexual men (n=1235, age=18-49 yrs). The table indicates the percentage of men having the given number of sexual partners in the previous year [top row: Binson; bottom row: Dolcini]:
orientation no partners 1 partner 2+ partners
gay 24 % 41 % 35 %
straight 8 % 80 % 12 %

January 20, 2007 1:47 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

I said "Science has proven that being gay is not a disease"

Anonymous said "Nope. Depends on your definition of disease. Even ardent gay activists think it's a condition. Whether that condition leads to the inability to lead a normal and happy life is debatable.".

Absurd. You lie - name and quote those "ardent gay activists". According to the definition of disease of all the major medical and mental health organizations it is not a disease. There is no longer any debate that being gay does not interfere in the ability to lead a normal and happy life.

Gay and heterosexual couples matched on age, etc, tend not to differ in levels of love and satisfaction, nor in their scores on other standardized scales:

M Cardell-1981, Psychology of Women Quarterly 5:488-94
D Dailey-1979, Journal of Sex Research 15:143-57
S Duffy-1986, Journal of Homosexuality 12(2):1-24
L Kurdek-1986, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51:711-720
L Peplau-1982, Journal of Homosexuality 8(2):23-35 (see L Peplau-1991, Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy, ed by J Gonsiorek).

The following represents the evidence that homosexuality is not pathological, and comes from studies that were primarily done in the 60's, 70's and 80's. There were a flurry of studies done after the classical study by Evelyn Hooker in 1957, which produced the large body of studies from the 60's -70's. Then the studies dwindle down as the 80's progress, and very few studies can be found in the 90's. This is because all of the evidence is convergent, so no further studies were warranted, and the conclusion was that homosexuality evidenced no pathological characteristics that were significantly different from heterosexuals.
a) MMPI data:

L Braaten-1965, Genetic Psychology Monographs 71:269-310
R Dean-1964, J of Consulting Psychology 28 483-86
W Horstman-1972, Homosexuality and Psychopathology(dissertation)
Adelman-1977, Arch of Sex Beh 6(3):193-201
Oberstone-1976, Psychology of Women Quarterly 1(2):172-86

b) Other tests (Eysenck's Personality Inventory, Cattel's 16PF, California Personality Inventory, etc)

R Evans-1970, J of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 34:212-15
R Turner-1974, Br J of Psychiatry 125:447-49
M Siegelman-1972, Br J of Psychiatry 120:477-481
M Siegelman-1972, Archives of Sexual Behavior 2:9-25
M Freedman-1971, Homosexuality and Psychological Functioning, Brooks/Cole Publ.
J Hopkins-1969, Br J of Psychiatry 115:1433-1436
M Wilson-1971, Psychological Reports 28:407-412
N Thompson-1971, J of Abnormal Psychology 78:237-40
E Ohlson-1974, J of Sex Research 10:308-315
D Christie-1986, Psychological Reports 59:1279-1282
H Carlson-1984, Sex Roles 10:457-67
T Clark-1975, Am J of Psychoanalysis 35:163-68
R LaTorre-1983, J of Homosexuality 9:87-97
P Nurius-1983, J of Sex Research 19:119-36
C Rand-1982, J of Homosexuality 8(1):27-39 J Harry-1983, Archives of Sexual Behavior 12:1-19
E Hooker-1957, J of Projective Techniques 21:18-31

c) Reviews

B Harris-1977, Bulletin of the Am Acad of Psychiatry and Law 5:75-89
J Gonsiorek-1977, Psychological Adjustment and Homosexuality, Select Press.
W Paul-1982, Homosexuality: Social, Psychological and Biological Issues; Sage Publ.
M Hart-1978, J of Clinical Psychiatry 39:604-608
R Meredith-1980, Professional Psychology 11:174-93
B Reiss-1974, J of Homosexuality 1:71-85
B Reiss-1980, Homosexual Behavior a modern reappraisal, Basic Books
P Falk-1989, Am Psychologist 44(6):941-947
Kingdon-1979, Counseling Psychologist 8(1):44-45
V Armon-1960, Journal of Projective Techniques 24:292-309
N Thompson-1971, J of Abnormal Psychology 78:237-40

d) Psychiatric Interviews
R Pillard-1988, Psychiatric Annals 18:51-56
M Saghir-1970, Am J of Psychiatry 126:1079-86

January 20, 2007 1:59 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

I said "and the best science available strongly suggests being gay is not a choice."

Anonymous said "Absolutely wrong. There is debate among researchers about whether the brain controls the mind or the mind controls the brain. The assumption among materialists that biological forces irrevocably control your feelings is increasingly questioned. In the last 15 years, neuroscientitsts have overthrown the dogma that the brain can't change. Its structure and activity can change in response to experience and thought, an ability called neuroplasticity.

The idea that feelings are beyond one's ability to alter by will or conscience is, frankly, old school.".

The overwhelming failure of efforts to change sexual orientation shown in the studies by Shidlo and Shroeder and Spitzer shows that being gay is not a choice and is not something that can be altered by willpower or any other concious act. "Neuroplasticity" is just a buzzword dreamt up by anti-gay bigots trying to rationalize their asking people to do that which is virtually always impossible.

January 20, 2007 2:05 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

Anonymous at January 20, 2007 9:24 AM

Just as in a monogamous heterosexual relationship there is no risk of disease in a monogamous gay relationship.

January 20, 2007 2:08 PM  
Blogger Orin Ryssman said...

Took a glance at this website...what a joke...definitely not a serious player.

Who said patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel? Wasn't it Samuel Johnson?

January 20, 2007 3:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

About all your studies about the habits of gay men are subjective. There's a reason AIDS is so disproportionately widespread among gays. They introduced it and sustained it in North America.

January 20, 2007 3:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Absurd. You lie - name and quote those "ardent gay activists"."

You, for one. You insist it is an innate condition.

January 20, 2007 3:22 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Anon, I am letting you continue to comment today. Remember, though, I can see in the server logs that your family thinks your working, that you've gone into the office on a Saturday. I will cut you off in a heartbeat if I think you're getting out of line.

If you want to represent a conservative point of view, please feel free. If you want to be rude and insult people, I'm cutting you off. No judge, no jury, just my perception.

JimK

January 20, 2007 3:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The overwhelming failure of efforts to change sexual orientation shown in the studies by Shidlo and Shroeder and Spitzer shows that being gay is not a choice and is not something that can be altered by willpower or any other concious act."

Please. There were 250,000 cases of just this. Spitzer took a small sample and pronounced that change was possible- until he got pressure from gay activists.

Even it that weren't the case, it wouldn't prove that change is not possible but simply that whatever method being used wasn't effective.

""Neuroplasticity" is just a buzzword dreamt up by anti-gay bigots trying to rationalize their asking people to do that which is virtually always impossible."

No, it isn't. Read Sharon Begley's new book detailing the progress in this area. Meanwhile, I've never heard any "anti-gay bigots" say anything about the concept. Document your statement.

January 20, 2007 3:28 PM  
Blogger Dana Beyer, M.D. said...

So you fish out a term, "neuroplasticity," of which you know nothing and understand even less, and yet you quote me Webster's dictionary on gender? I've been studying sex and gender for forty years, and you dare quote me Webster's, as the highest authority? Pathetic.

Simply, the word "gender" was coined back in the 50's to distinguish it from the basic biological definition of sex and the usual lay use [pun intended] of the word "sex," because there are so very many aspects and attributes of sex. To your simplitic mind, Wyatt, it's just your genitals. Well, good for you. Enjoy tax season.

January 20, 2007 10:11 PM  
Anonymous Warning, facts ahead said...

Spitzer took a small sample and pronounced that change was possible- until he got pressure from gay activists.

Spitzer said change might be possible for some highly motivated people employed by the conversion therapy industry who were the research subjects in his study, but he also said, "It is unclear how many gays and lesbians in the general population would want to change their sexual orientation...the marked change in sexual orientation reported by almost all of the study subjects may be a rare or uncommon outcome..."

In the Discussion section of his paper published in the October 2003, Archives of Sexual Behavior, Spitzer pointed out several flaws in his study:

"...There are several limitations to the study. Ideally, the research interviewer in a study is blind to the research hypothesis and has no vested interest in the results. Because the author conducted the interview, this was not the case in this study..."

"...The study relied exclusively on self-report, as is almost always the case in psychotherapy treatment efficacy studies. The study would have greatly benefited by also using objective measures of sexual orientation, such as penile or vaginal photoplethysmography. This was judged to be not feasible as funds were not available for the high cost of regional testing and of having a large number of individuals travel long distances to the testing sites.

Given the fallibility of memory for past events, it is impossible to be sure how accurate individuals were in answering questions about how they felt during the year before starting the therapy, which on average was about 12 years before the interview. Using a prospective design, in which participants were evaluated before entering therapy and then many years later, would provide much more information than the design that was used. It would be extremely expensive, would require outside funding, and the results would not be available for at least 6 years (assuming a year to enter participants and a follow-up period of 5 years).

Are the participants' self-reports of change, by-and-large, credible or are they biased because of self-deception, exaggeration, or even lying? This critical issue deserves careful examination in light of the participants' and their spouses' high motivation to provide data supporting the value of efforts to change sexual orientation..."

"It is unclear how many gays and lesbians in the general population would want to change their sexual orientation or how representative the study sample is of those who would be interested in therapy with that goal. Obviously, this study cannot address the question of how often sexual reorientation therapy actually results in the substantial changes reported by most of the participants in this study. To recruit the 200 participants, it was necessary to repeatedly send notices of the study over a 16-month period to a large number of participants who had undergone some form of reparative therapy. This suggests that the marked change in sexual orientation reported by almost all of the study subjects may be a rare or uncommon outcome of reparative therapy."


A review of Spitzer's prepublication presentation of his study's findings at the American Psychiatric Association Annual Convention in New Orleans, on May 9, 2001, was written by "Rob G" of the New Direction for Life Ministries of Canada, Inc. and cached at: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:hgJC21iMJbIJ:www.newdirection.ca/research/spitzer.htm+Spitzer+study&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4&ie=UTF-8

"Rob G." reported: "Limitations and Shortcomings...2. Not a random sample nor a controlled study. Also, 78% of the subjects had spoken or written publicly in favour of efforts to change. The results can therefore not be applied to same-sex-attracted people in general... "

January 21, 2007 10:31 AM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

I said "Science has proven that being gay is not a disease"

Anonymous said "Nope. Depends on your definition of disease. Even ardent gay activists think it's a condition.".

I said "Absurd. You lie - name and quote those "ardent gay activists"."

"You, for one. You insist it is an innate condition.".

Again, you lie. You say "condition" as in terms of a disease. I never said being gay is a "condition" as in terms of a disease. In fact I never said it was a "condition" at all - I just said it was innate.

January 21, 2007 2:36 PM  
Blogger Randi Schimnosky said...

I said "The overwhelming failure of efforts to change sexual orientation shown in the studies by Shidlo and Shroeder and Spitzer shows that being gay is not a choice and is not something that can be altered by willpower or any other concious act."

An anonymous said "Please. There were 250,000 cases of just this. Spitzer took a small sample and pronounced that change was possible- until he got pressure from gay activists.".

You lie. Out of the estimated 250,000 NARTH clients available to be selected for the study Spitzer struggled to come up with 200 supposed success stories. Narth was able to refer only 46 people claiming to have been successful at changing their orientation. Obviously if Narth had 250,000 successes they wouldn't have struggled to come up with a mere 46 of them and Spitzer wouldn't have said change is rare.

January 21, 2007 2:46 PM  
Blogger digger said...

Many thanks to Randi for all the valuable research she brings to our attention. Very useful information.

On another note, can we just stop saying HIV is a fatal disease. Though serious, it is not fatal or debilitating if treated.

Robert

January 23, 2007 2:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well said Randi.

Therapy conducted by NARTH-sponsored therapists produced 46 ex-gays for Spitzer's study. The other 249,954 NARTH clients are undoubtedly ex-ex-gays now.

What does NARTH charge for this ineffective as snake oil therapy? Whatever it is, when multiplied by a quarter of a million people, that's a lot of money. Is any of that money taxed or does it all fall under untaxed church revenue?

January 25, 2007 9:39 AM  
Anonymous Phentermine said...

Nice design of blog.

August 13, 2007 3:40 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home