Should he have known better? Yes, he should have. Did he intentionally set out to have this impact? I really don’t think so. Did he feel that his career had possibly been unbalanced precisely because of his impact in the 70′s in removing homosexuality as a disorder, and perhaps wanted to put in some work that maybe supported how he sees himself (more balanced, not an activist)? I wouldn’t be at all surprised.

It’s all very sad, and he should never have waited this long. That said, as a former research scientist, let me remind everyone here how extremely rare it is to have someone come out and not only disown, but apologize for their previous research. Usually, they fight tooth and nail (including sabotaging other researchers grants and publications, etc.) before they’ll ever admit an error of the nature he admits here: a poorly constructed study that failed in the basics of scientific rigor.

His adminition comes at a very high price, professionally. I appreciate it for it’s intent.

Nice empty dismissal.

I expected Jim and Priya to make excuses for their double standard – and that’s what they did.

“One can’t apologize for the misbehavior of others.”

Oh the irony.

No he isn’t. He specified at the beginning of his writing that it was satire, he’s not responsible for dishonest bigots pretending it was serious, heartfelt and excluding his disclaimer when they reproduced it.

You’re not making any sense. The issue wasn’t that “homophobes,” as you call them, misrepresented Spitzer’s study and that’s why he apologized (although some anti-gay people did misrepresent his study). The issue was that Spitzer’s very poorly constructed study which Spitzer himself tried to spin into something the data did not and could not say. That’s why Spitzer apologized.

As for Swift (and me), he has nothing to apologize for. One can’t apologize for the misbehavior of others.

will you hold yourselves accountable?

We get irate when some bigot takes the Michael Swifts; “gay manifesto”, misrepresents or exaggerates it, and uses it to condemn homosexuals. By the lack of logic so many are employing regarding Dr. Spitzer’s study, Michael Swift is responsible for all the ways his words have been misused.

And when some homophobe uses the essays here, like “The Heterosexual Agenda” – to foment further abuse of GLBTQ people, will Jim apologize?

http://thechive.com/2012/04/26/a-little-inspiration-goes-a-long-way-25-photos-3/inspire-others-8-5/

Career professional through and through.

Thus, there is evidence that change in sexual orientation following some form of reparative therapy does occur in some gay men and lesbians.

From the body of the study:

P413: Finally, real change in sexual orientation seems plausible (again, at least to the author) as the participants used change strategies commonly effective in psychotherapy (Mahoney, 1991). For example, participants often developed a narrative linking childhood or family experiences to current problems, received support from a group or individual, used thought stopping, and avoided situations that triggered homosexual feelings.

and:

P414: Critics of reparative therapy assert that the claims of success in changing sexual orientation are limited to anecdotal reports of individuals who have had the reparative therapy, or of therapists who provide such therapy. This study, with the database available to other researchers, clearly goes beyond anecdotal information and provides evidence that reparative therapy is sometimes successful.

[From Robert Spitzer, "Can some gay men and lesbians change their sexual orientation? 200 participants reporting a change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation." Archives of Sexual Behavior 32, no. 5 (Oct 2003): 403-417.]

Spitzer went much farther than stopping at how individuals described their experience. He said their descriptions were accurate, that they weren’t lying, and that they really did change, and devoted some half-dozen paragraphs to that argument. He now disavows that argument.

I’m not sure what you mean by “it is not a study.” It was a study of 200 people, and it fits the profile of other studies published not just in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, but hundreds of other journals as well. Our criticism was never that it was not a study, but that it was a deeply flawed one.

It is not the study, but rather those who misappropriated it, who said it offered proof.