Comments on: NARTH Cites Aversion Therapy As Evidence That “Change Is Possible”

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Tue, 15 May 2012 00:24:57 +0000

Julia,

Unfortunately like so many medical studies, most research on homosexuality is on men. And while there is very little on gay women, what there is suggests that orientation may be less fixed and more flexible. So I understand your frustration.

But don’t let Whitehead’s opinions throw you. “Neuroplasticity” is a very wonkly sounding word, but that doesn’t give it credibility. It’s his guess and he’s entitled to guess.

However, his guesswork is not science and to refute something it must have basis. If there has been no foundational work – there there’s nothing to debunk or refute. It shares the same scientific value as my much less impressive sounding “guess” of Gerber’s Strained Peas.

I could no more set out to disprove his notions than I could about the peas or, for that matter, that it is all God’s Plan for the universe. But the proof is, as they say, in the pudding.

After some 40 years of ex-gay ministries and 20 years of NARTH, there are no cases of restructured neuroconnections or whatever it is that he hypothesizes. No one turned straight.

Yeah, there are some who claim it (and, to err on the side of the possible, I’ll allow that a small handful of women who claim to now be heterosexual seem not to be either frauds or delusional) but as the head of Exodus recently said, 99.9% do not change their orientation.

One can postulate on the aerodynamics of porcine species and theorize about velocity and wind friction, but it means nothing until pigs fly.

By: Julia

Julia — Mon, 14 May 2012 21:30:37 +0000

Please don’t get snippy with me. I’m not some right-wing nutjob out to prove that homosexuality is a “choice”. I am, in fact, a lesbian myself. The only reason that I ask is because I have been doing research into the biological basis for homosexuality and found that the Karolinska study on brain differences seems to be not only the most conclusive, but one of the few that addresses lesbianism. However, I was a little disheartened after reading Whitehead’s article on neuroplasticity. I scoured the internet for a refutation of his claims, but found none. That’s why I came here to ask about it. I appreciate all the non-sarcastic responses. They have cleared things up a bit. During my search, I found that Whitehead’s theory was frequently quoted by religious groups as evidence of the mutability of sexual orientation. Thus, I would love to see one of the authors of this blog write an article about it, but only if they think that it is something worth addressing.

By: William

William — Mon, 14 May 2012 19:43:16 +0000

Julia, an anonymous 18th century English writer wrote a pamphlet on the reasons for the growth of homosexuality – or, as he called it, “sodomy”. He thought that it was caused by drinking tea and listening to Italian opera. Since this fits my profile, I would like to hear someone address this argument.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Mon, 14 May 2012 18:58:16 +0000

Julia,

My theory is that homosexuality is caused by Gerber’s strained peas. I would like to hear someone address this argument.

By: Priya Lynn

Priya Lynn — Mon, 14 May 2012 14:30:30 +0000

Julia, as well, if that were true then virtually no men would have become gay in the first place because there historically has been a huge social stigma with being gay and strong disincentives so if one had no interest in gay sex to begin with it isn’t conceivable that one would begin and repeatedly have gay sex resulting in changing one’s brain.

By: William

William — Mon, 14 May 2012 13:05:43 +0000

Julia, Whitehead’s theory is pure armchair theory, and pretty fatuous armchair theory at that, and is based on no empirical evidence. I am certainly no expert on brain plasticity, but if it applied to sexual orientation, homosexual men who refrain from gay sex and adopt a heterosexual lifestyle in the hope of thereby transforming their homosexual attractions into heterosexual ones would eventually be successful. They seldom or never are.

Read here:
http://wthrockmorton.com/2009/09/17/brain-plasticity-and-sexual-orientation-wrapping-up-with-a-couple-of-experts/

By: Julia

Julia — Mon, 14 May 2012 05:47:15 +0000

Has any one ever addressed Whitehead’s argument for neuroplasticity as a cause of homosexuality? His argument is that the brain is capable of changing over time in response to external stimuli. As a result, the structure of the brain can shift in response to certain sexual stimuli, turning someone homosexual. He also suggest that if one can turn homosexual due to neuroplasticity, then one can turn heterosexual also. His article is called “Are Brains ‘Gay’” and it’s a refutation of the brain study done at the Karolinska Institute showing that homosexuals brains have more in common with the brains of heterosexuals of the opposite sex. I would like to hear someone address this argument.

By: The California Marriage Act, eller Prop 8.

The California Marriage Act, eller Prop 8. — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 11:32:45 +0000

[...] hjelp av denne Rekers? Fordi han er tilknyttet organisasjonen NARTH, som er eksperter (sic) på å kurere homofili (sic2). Men vent litt litt. Er det ikke han med bagasjen på dette bildet? Han som står og ser på [...]

By: “Everyone deserves equal rights. That’s why they’re called ‘equal’ and ‘rights’”

Mon, 09 Aug 2010 10:18:12 +0000

By: Together: Why the George Rekers Story Matters « The Grotto Blog

Together: Why the George Rekers Story Matters « The Grotto Blog — Sun, 09 May 2010 02:27:42 +0000

[...] in their terminology, “cure” it—but that aversion therapy is effective as well. This was broken wide open at the time by blogger Jim Barroway, author of the fantastic LGBT blog The Box Turtle [...]