Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
A new review of studies by the American Psychological Association says what was obvious to most of us already, that gay reversion therapy doesn't work.
The American Psychological Association concluded Wednesday that there is little evidence that efforts to change a person's sexual orientation from gay or lesbian to heterosexual are effective.In addition, the 138-page report -- covering 87 peer-reviewed studies -- said that such efforts may cause harm.
Of course they cause harm. Tell a young gay kid that he can stop being gay if only his faith is strong enough and he loves God enough and prays hard enough and when they find out they're still gay that only adds to the self-loathing that is so often visited upon gays by an intolerant culture and bigoted parents.
"Contrary to claims of sexual orientation change advocates and practitioners, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation," said Judith M. Glassgold, chairwoman of the task force that presented the report at the group's annual meeting in Toronto, Canada. The Washington-based association represents more than 150,000 members."At most, certain studies suggested that some individuals learned how to ignore or not act on their homosexual attractions. Yet, these studies did not indicate for whom this was possible, how long it lasted or its long-term mental health effects. Also, this result was much less likely to be true for people who started out only attracted to people of the same sex."...
The group's Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation reached its conclusion after its review of 87 studies conducted between 1960 and 2007 and finding "serious methodological problems" in the vast majority of them.
Those few studies that did have "high-quality" evidence "show that enduring change to an individual's sexual orientation is uncommon," it said...
In addition, the report cited evidence that efforts to switch a person's sexual orientation through aversive treatments might cause harm, including loss of sexual feeling, suicidality, depression and anxiety.
Many who tried to change and failed "described their experiences as a significant cause of emotional and spiritual distress and negative self-image," it said.
If you want a textbook example of what's wrong with gay reversion "therapy," look at this Youtube video about the experiences of Patrick McAlvey. He's from Michigan and is the campaign manager for the current mayor of Lansing.
Politics
Comments
Well, if they still feel the need to change people, they could always go into Christian conversion therapy. As in, changing Christians into tolerable, rational human beings.
Posted by: David | August 7, 2009 9:42 AM
These idiots won't stop just because their cracked idea of a therapy doesn't work, they think they're trying to save our souls. From the video "he would give me prolonged hugs" and "He asked me to take my shirt off and show him how many push ups I could do", anyone else seeing a pattern here?
Posted by: Ramel | August 7, 2009 10:01 AM
I'm with David: it's much easier to stop being a bigot than to voluntarily change one's sexual orientation.
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 7, 2009 10:07 AM
But then you have snake oil salesmen hijacking this for their own crusades. A brief debunking of the "gay=fat" fallacy is here.
Posted by: bullfighter | August 7, 2009 10:10 AM
50 years of studies prove otherwise but these idiots will still think JAZUS can PRAY the GAY AWAY!
*sigh*
Posted by: dogmeatib | August 7, 2009 10:11 AM
I'm not sure what they call guys like "Mike" in the "Ex GAY ministries". I used to go to an Al-Anon meeting almost every Sunday for about 10 years. At one of the early meetings an old timer was telling me about the need to be aware of predatory attendees. Some folks would show up at meetings (this was true of guys and gals both) looking for a "hook up" with someone who was in a very vulnerable state. They would attend enough meetings to suss out the "talent pool" and then work their "mark" until they talked them into a relationship (and usually out of the meetings). Despicable fuckers is what they were, just like this "Mike" guy.
Posted by: democommie | August 7, 2009 10:19 AM
Whoops. Meant to say that the coyotes at the Al-Anon meetings were called "13th Steppers".
Posted by: democommie | August 7, 2009 10:21 AM
The question is even if conversion therapy did work should it be used? People opposed to homophobia may have a repreive with this report, but what if it becomes possible? Psychiatry is often about human manipulation for social control.
Posted by: Bill in NC | August 7, 2009 10:45 AM
The Wall Street Journal spun this story almost the opposite of CNN's. The sub-headline was,
This matched the focus of the story even though the experts responding in the story exclaimed that such therapy was not an optimal treatment plan. The experts even in this story instead argued gays should accept their sexual identity and live life to its fullest rather than remaining a prisoner of religious hatred, including self-imposed hatred.Posted by: Michael Heath | August 7, 2009 11:21 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the only reason these people insist that homosexuality can be changed is that they think it should be changed. It's wishful thinking at its most harmful. If you convince a child that something is inherently wrong with him/her, then eventually that child will believe it, and you've committed emotional child abuse of a particularly egregious flavor. The reason that some young gay people seek out bullshit reversion "cures" is precisely because they've been convinced by their parents that they are dirty, tainted. And when these reversion therapies don't work, the young people just experience their sense of shame and self-loathing all the more. It's a truly vicious cycle.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | August 7, 2009 11:24 AM
Sadie @10 - excellent point. In the light of the WSJ journal article's argument, it shows evidence of counselors encouraging their clients to encourage their own parents to continue to abuse them even throughout their adult life. Masochism as therapy? That was an aspect I hadn't considered until I read your post; it makes this sort of "counseling" even more insidious than I originally imagined.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 7, 2009 11:37 AM
The "reparative" movement is rotten all the way to its innermost core. It victimizes people who should be trying to be well-adjusted gays rather than pretend-straights. Four years ago, when I was a brand-new blogger, I wrote a post about NARTH in which I pointed out that one of the organization's founders had a gay son. Whenever I check my traffic stats at Sitemeter, I see that it's still one of my most frequently visited articles.
Richard Socarides is still gay
Posted by: Zeno | August 7, 2009 11:44 AM
If it wasn't for the (mostly) religious view that its wrong, we wouldn't need to try and see gays and lesbians as homosexual first, and people second. We certainly don't see straights as heterosexual first and people second. Straight's sexuality in fact, usually falls way lower than first or second place on a societal attribute list.
We need the APA to follow this up and look at whats wrong with people who sexualize(tm) gays but not straights. Something fearful or anxious in that I'm sure...
Posted by: MikeMa | August 7, 2009 12:04 PM
I hope that the report advises psychologists to refer such clients to religious leaders who affirm sexual and gender diversity as part of God's blessings, who can help them explore alternative understandings of seemingly homophobic sacred texts, and to understand that there are religious communities where they would be fully welcome and included. I work with people struggling with these issues all the time, and it often takes only a few sessions with a clergy person for people to feel affirmed and welcome. There have been many times where simply telling someone that I know that God loves them just the way they are...and that there are many denominations and religious leaders who feel that way...helps them reach self-acceptance.
No one should ever have to choose between their sexuality and their religion -- or vice versa. I hope the final APA report says that as well.
Rev. Debra Haffner
http://debrahaffner.blogspot.com
Posted by: Rev. Debra Haffner | August 7, 2009 1:01 PM
My dad who was born in 1916 was punished throughout school for being perversely left-handed, which then was considered an act of defiance. When he went away to college he was as adept at writing left-handed as he was right-handed. (And, yes, he had distinctly different 'hands'.)
As for gender preference, it's not just stupidity, there's a huge bit of baggage from religious psychosis, so it'll take a lot longer, is my guess, for 'them' to get over this.
Hey, they got over 'mixing of the races', didn't they?
Posted by: 6EQUJ5 | August 7, 2009 1:08 PM
"Reversion"? How could anyone "revert" to something they never were?
All of the coverage I've read about this report discusses how therapists are now recommended to help their gay clients adjust to their orientation, and how they might even consider switching churches or celibacy (if that will buy them acceptance in their present congregation). Am I right in suspecting that the APA nowhere suggests some people might do better by giving up religion entirely?
If so, what does it say about the state of the psychological art that its ranking professionals think that humans can get along better without sex than without superstition?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 7, 2009 1:13 PM
This doesn't surprised me. As a straight woman, I can't imagine anything that would be effective at making be be sexually attracted to other women. I might be able to suppress my thoughts of liking men for a little while, but not very long. The most I could hope for is being completely celibate while fantasizing about men. I imagine that gay men would feel exactly like I do.
In college, I knew a guy who "used to be gay". I felt sorry for him, even though he was so cute I considered hooking up with him, but that just wouldn't be good for anyone involved. I can only hope that some day he can accept himself for who is and have a satisfying love life.
But honestly, do you really think religious extremists will change their minds over this? They don't have a good history of caring about actual evidence and reality.
Posted by: catgirl | August 7, 2009 1:13 PM
Now the charlatans are pretty much ignoring the part where the APA said their "therapy" is harmful BS and working the angle that "some gay people consider their faith very precious". So it's going to be a false dichotomy of "Do you want to keep having sinful gay sex (because it's all about the sex to them) and making the Baby Jesus cry or do you want to have eternal life in Heaven? Same BS without the huge emphasis on "change". The results are the same though; gay people repressing who they are and living loveless lives of solitude to please the religious bigots.
Posted by: Buffy | August 7, 2009 1:38 PM
OneNewsNow already has a story in which they accuse the APA of ignoring science and harming patients in order to advance a political agenda.
I'm not qualified to judge such a specialised field - but if asked to trust either the APA or OneNewsNow, I'm siding with the first.
Posted by: Suricou Raven | August 7, 2009 1:57 PM
@13:
As Gore Vidal (I think) said, "gay" is an adjective, not a noun.
Posted by: Gonzo | August 7, 2009 2:03 PM
MikeMa:
Oh, I imagine an unwed straight mother probably gets the same hairy eyeball. IMO what matters to these folks is whether you're part of their group or not. They aren't sexualizing you so much as tribalizing you, with sexual preference being one of many judgemental decisions used to determine whether you count as part of the Saved tribe or not.
Posted by: eric | August 7, 2009 2:23 PM
Sounds like the really conflicted person was the therapist. That isn't at all what I would expect from such "therapy". You'd think there would be more praising Jebus, etc. It sounds like this guy never quite accepted his own sexuality, so now he's an old creep hugging teenage boys and telling them to do shirtless pushups. He rates your attraction to your face? That's messed up on so many levels. It's just a matter of time before this guy does something with an underage boy that lands him in jail. Religion sure has a way of mixing bigotry and pedophilia, doesn't it? Just ask the Irish Catholics.
Posted by: Eric R | August 7, 2009 2:57 PM
@20 Unless of course it's Enola Gay, then it heads into noun territory.
Posted by: Ramel | August 7, 2009 3:00 PM
eric @21,
I agree that Us vs Them can play a part as you say but I envision the whole 'eeeeewwww' response to the idea of gay sex providing a greater role in motivating these revolting reverters.
Posted by: MikeMa | August 7, 2009 3:11 PM
"The question is even if conversion therapy did work should it be used?"
I find myself torn over this question; in general I think people ought to be able to live their lives as they choose, and if they have a way to bring their first-order desires in line with their second-order desires, then that is largely a good thing. However it does seem like something that would be ripe for abuse.
I think at bottom this is an issue about who we 'really' are. I mean if Male 'X' has a first order desire to sleep with men and a second order desire to not want to want to sleep with men, then who am I to tell him that he is 'really' the person who wants to sleep with men as opposed to the person who doesn't want to want that. It seems to me that in an ideal world such a technology or technique would exist, but would be free of coercion, and would end up with as many heterosexuals using it as homosexuals.
Of course the problem with that vision is that the wingnuts would take such a technology as permission to continue to be bigots for jeezus, but frankly if we eschewed every technology that religion had the potential to fuck up, we'd still be hunter-gatherers.
Posted by: GBM | August 7, 2009 3:12 PM
@23 Which I guess means that the Japanese are pretty much the only ones with a legitimate excuse for hating "the gay".
Posted by: David | August 7, 2009 3:27 PM
"I agree that Us vs Them can play a part as you say but I envision the whole 'eeeeewwww' response to the idea of gay sex."
Something I've noticed in my reading of painful quantities of religious news is that a lot of it is concerned with homosexual acts, specifically anal sex. They go to great pains to talk about it at every excuse. They won't talk about homosexuals as if they are people who feel a sexual attraction to their own gender - no, they go straight for describing (in sometimes graphic detail) anal sex, making sure it sounds as dirty as possible.
They are going transparently for the disgust reflex - and it works, too.
I think this explains why they talk almost exclusively about male homosexuals - lesbians rarely even get a mention. You just can't stir up the same feelings as you can by getting the reader to imagine sticking his penis up another man's anus. Their propaganda value is far less.
Posted by: Suricou Raven | August 7, 2009 4:21 PM
Re Suricou Raven
onenewsnow is the Canadian equivalent of worldnutdaily, a thoroughly whackjob outfit. They also host the Canadian birthers contingent. The National Enquirer is the epitome of serious journalism compared to onenewsnow.
Posted by: SLC | August 7, 2009 4:44 PM
Father talking with his gay son, trying to come to terms with it.
Father: I get that you're attracted to other guys. But what is it that you two actually do together?
Son: You know all those things you wish mom would do with you? That's what we do.
Posted by: Abby Normal | August 7, 2009 4:52 PM
@Abby: Heh, thats fantastic I never thought of it from that angle.
Posted by: Ramel | August 7, 2009 5:11 PM
Gee, it took them that long to figure it out? If they'd only traveled around the world they'd see there are a few societies which have got no problem with teh gayz - they're just part of a normal society and are no threat whatsoever to any society. Of course the christian churches barge in with their lies and educate the savages about the evils of teh gay. Christians hate the homosexuals but they love murderous psychos.
Posted by: MadScientist | August 7, 2009 5:47 PM
American Hydrology Assocation: Water May Be Wet.
Posted by: Azkyroth | August 7, 2009 7:40 PM
Of course they don't work, and they cause harm. I had a friend whose parents forced her through ex-gay "therapy" of the aversion sort. She was instructed to cause herself pain every time she had a sexual thought about, or felt attraction to, another woman. So, of course, by the time she attained majority and disowned her family, she was a masochistic lesbian.
When you force people to view themselves as deviant, you prevent them from achieving healthy social interactions. (not that masochism is inherently unhealthy; I don't judge)
Posted by: valor | August 7, 2009 8:31 PM
MadScientist -
Not really, they had this shit mostly worked out before many of us were born...The only reason this is coming out now is because of the recent popularizing of the ex-gay movement.
Posted by: DuWayne | August 7, 2009 10:07 PM
DuWayne- "Not really, they had this shit mostly worked out before many of us were born...The only reason this is coming out now is because of the recent popularizing of the ex-gay movement."
I thought this announcement sounded familiar. It seems the APA said basically the same thing once they removed homosexuality from the DSM-IV (back in 1974). Their stance changed from trying to "cure" homosexuality as a therapy goal, to self-acceptance as the therapy goal. They figured out their own goals were doing more harm than good.
Posted by: Rick R | August 7, 2009 10:29 PM
Abby Normal:
Shouldn't that joke be on the "Tasteless Joke" thread?;)
Suricou Raven:
Perhaps they don't harp on lesbianism so much, because they've all seen the movies where the two lesbians are "gettin' it awn!!" and then some guy catches them at it and "converts" them both to heterosexuals, quicker than you can say "Ron Jeremy"!
Posted by: democommie | August 8, 2009 8:35 AM
"onenewsnow is the Canadian equivalent of worldnutdaily, a thoroughly whackjob outfit. "
Now, that's not fair.
OneNewsNow is full of paranoid lunatics. It's ridiculously biased politically. It has no intellectual honesty. But it is nowhere near as bad as WND. It's more a sort of WND-light - it's the same general idea, but the insanity isn't so open.
Posted by: Suricou Raven | August 9, 2009 6:55 PM
Let's shed some light on this research. The APA intentionally and deliberately rejected as committee members APA members holding 'a different view' of gender affirming therapy. The committee consisted of six individuals who are gay or gay activists. Of course, they found 'little evidence that this therapy is effective' -- they rejected over 600 studies that disagreed with the opinion they hold.
Let's get real here -- is this research really authentic – isn’t having six gay or gay agenda activists discount change therapy like me inviting 5 girl friends to lunch so we could discuss how we all successfully avoided prostate cancer!!!
we all successfully avoided prostrate cancer!!!
Posted by: Mary Sanchez | August 9, 2009 10:37 PM
I don't suppose you have anything to back up these claims with, do you?
From her CV, I can probably guess that Dr. Glassgold is gay, but I don't see where you're coming from on the others.
Posted by: DaveL | August 9, 2009 11:11 PM
Mary, what's a gay advocate? Whatever it is, I'm sure Lee Beckstead will be surprised to find out he is one, as he's one of the leading advocates for conversion therapy and was on that panel. In fact I'm familiar with 5 out of the 6 members of the panel and to only one of them I could I possibly see the term "activist" applied. That would be Roger Worthington. But as Chief Diversity Officer at the University of Missouri he stands as an advocate for a great many minority groups.
As to those "over 600 studies" you say the panel disregarded, can you name the top 10? I've read many papers claiming to be scientific studies that go against the APA findings. But none of them meet even the loosest standards of scientific creditability. They're full of cherry picked data, unsupported conclusions and sloppy methods. If that's the kind of "study" you're talking about, it's no wonder they were not considered. Can you show me anything better?
Posted by: Abby Normal | August 9, 2009 11:41 PM
To folk like Mary a gay activist is pretty much anyone who voices an opinion on gay people that does not involve burning them at the stake.
Posted by: Ramel | August 10, 2009 12:35 AM
Mary Sanchez stated:
Can you please cite three of the supposedly six hundred studies? Peer-reviewed and generally accepted of course.
I'm not aware of even one study whose framework allowed a statistically significant finding with high levels of confidence that results were representative of the population, let alone six hundred. So I look forward to considering your evidence.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 10, 2009 1:08 AM
Michael Heath:
I could be mistaken (boy, that would be a shocker!) but I believe Mary Sanchez has visited us before with equally absurd contentions. I'm thinking mroberts' sort of goofiness on teh GAY.
Ramel and Abby Normal:
I think Mary's definition of Gay Activist would be someone who isn't willing to burn, stone or otherwise help teh GAY to turn from their sinful desires.
Posted by: democommie | August 10, 2009 7:43 AM
It seems that both sides seem to be assuming that all these people fall into a dichotomy. I would expect, at least, that the gay rights friendly folks would recognize that there is a spectrum of 'orientation', not just gay or straight. I know people who have hooked up with different genders at different points in their lives, and indeed may 'switch' again depending on the right person coming along.
Posted by: jay | August 10, 2009 12:33 PM
Jay:
Why would that make any difference? As the old joke goes, "...but suck one cock!". The RRW has a zero tolerance policy, past, present and future where teh GAY is concerned. Fuck 'em.
Posted by: democommie | August 10, 2009 1:21 PM
#43 Democommie: Like many others I tried getting getting stoned, that didn't work either.
#44 Jay: Which bit of that was your point?
Posted by: Ramel | August 10, 2009 1:40 PM
I'm not defending the fundies because they don't allow for people to make their own choices. I am observing, however that there is also fluidity, and it should not be at all suprising that many people simply do not fit fixed orientation roles and there should be no surprise for people to appear to 'switch'.
Posted by: jay | August 11, 2009 9:27 AM
Jay, you're right about people's sexuality changing over time. None of the these psycologists have argued otherwise. However, that is not the same thing as saying it can be changed through therapy, which is what the panel reaffirmed in this report. Here's a repost of a comment I made back in July in a thread about one of the gay penguins at the San Francisco zoo going straight.
Sexuality appears to be both mutable and not a choice.
Posted by: Abby Normal | August 11, 2009 9:41 AM