NEW
YORK
psychiatrist
Robert
L.
Spitzer
was
always
a
rebel,
and
his
rabble-rousing
research
alternately
made
people
view
him
as
a
hero
and
a
saboteur
of
the
gay
rights
movement.
"I
admit,
there
is
something
in
me
that
is
always
looking
for
trouble
or
something
to
challenge
the
orthodoxy,"
Spitzer
says
in
an
interview
published
in
the
new
book
"Ex-Gay
Research:
Analyzing
the
Spitzer
Study
and
Its
Relation
to
Science,
Religion,
Politics
and
Culture."
The
book
brings
together
for
the
first
time
a
series
of
analytical
essays,
most
of
which
are
critical,
about
a
2001
study
by
Spitzer
that
suggested
some
"highly
motivated"
gay
men
and
lesbians
can
change
their
sexual
orientation
through
"reparative
therapy"
with
a
counselor
or
religious
group.
Scores
of
Spitzer’s
mental
health
colleagues
instantly
rebuked
what
they
considered
methodological
flaws
in
his
study,
namely
that
it
was
based
entirely
on
self-reports
gleaned
from
45-minute
telephone
interviews
with
200
people
who
said
they
were
no
longer
gay
or
lesbian.
More
than
65
percent
of
subjects
in
the
study
were
referred
by
religious
and
social
groups
dedicated
to
reparative
therapy,
and
78
percent
of
participants
at
one
point
served
as
spokespeople
for
"ex-gay"
therapies.
But
despite
much
of
the
mental
health
field
denouncing
Spitzer’s
study
—
and
even
Spitzer
himself
noting
that
someone
converting
from
completely
homosexual
to
completely
heterosexual
"rarely,
if
ever"
occurs
—-media
accounts
of
the
Spitzer
report
touted
it
as
"proof"
that
sexual
orientation
was
a
choice.
"An
explosive
new
study
says
some
gay
people
can
turn
straight
if
they
really
want
to,"
read
the
opening
sentence
of
the
Associated
Press
story
in
May
2001,
which
largely
set
the
tone
for
other
media
reports.
Religious
organizations
and
groups
dedicated
to
reparative
therapy
continue
to
laud
the
study
as
a
message
of
hope
for
those
who
want
to
escape
"the
gay
lifestyle."
"Basically
what
we’re
saying
is,
at
last,
the
Spitzer
study
is
giving
legitimacy
to
this
[reparative]
therapy,"
says
Joseph
Nicolosi,
director
of
the
National
Association
for
Research
&
Therapy
of
Homosexuality,
an
ex-gay
group
also
known
as
NARTH.
Nicolosi
is
also
a
contributor
to
the
new
book
examining
Spitzer’s
study.
Gay
rights
organizations
responded
to
the
study
by
criticizing
its
methodology,
and
by
attempting
to
paint
Spitzer
—
whom
they
once
considered
an
ally
—-as
being
in
bed
with
religious
conservatives.
Gay
psychiatrists
voiced
concern
about
the
impact
of
Spitzer’s
study
on
gay
rights.
"The
study
is
deeply
caught
up
in
the
gay
and
lesbian
civil
rights
movement
based
on
the
implicit
idea
that
people
are
born
gay
—-just
like
people
are
born
black,
or
born
belonging
to
another
minority
group
—-and
so
therefore
you
can’t
discriminate
against
them
because
they’re
born
that
way,"
says
Jack
Drescher,
who
co-edited
"Ex-Gay
Research"
and
is
also
editor
of
the
Journal
of
Gay
&
Lesbian
Psychotherapy.
As
provocative
as
the
study
was,
what
made
it
even
more
explosive
was
the
history
of
its
author,
Drescher
says.
"If
anybody
else
would’ve
done
this
study,
it
wouldn’t
have
ever
been
an
issue,"
Drescher
says.
"But
the
Religious
Right
and
people
who
market
these
types
of
therapy
are
exploiting
Spitzer’s
status
and
history."
IN
THE
EARLY
1970s,
Spitzer
became
the
"ring
leader"
of
an
effort
to
remove
homosexuality
from
the
American
Psychiatric
Association’s
roster
of
mental
disorders,
a
listing
many
critics
of
gay
rights
employed
to
justify
deeming
gay
people
sick
or
diseased.
Spitzer
arranged
a
meeting
between
gay
activists
and
the
task
force
revising
the
Diagnostic
&
Statistical
Manual
of
Mental
Disorders,
organized
a
symposium
on
the
matter,
and
in
1973,
marshaled
a
proposal
to
eliminate
homosexuality
from
the
DSM.
"As
far
as
the
’73
decision
itself,
I
certainly
think
more
people
have
been
helped
than
have
been
hurt,"
Spitzer
says
in
the
book.
"I’m
proud
that
I
had
something
to
do
with
it."
Ironically,
Spitzer
became
interested
in
ex-gay
research
in
much
the
same
way.
At
its
annual
conference
in
2000,
the
APA
adopted
a
position
statement
recommending
"that
ethical
practitioners
refrain
from
attempts
to
change
individuals’
sexual
orientation"
until
there
was
scientific
evidence
that
reparative
therapy
produces
a
greater
benefit
than
harm
to
patients.
A
group
of
ex-gay
protesters
at
the
APA
conference
caught
Spitzer’s
eye.
"I
got
the
idea,
‘Gee,
well
maybe
it’s
not
so
open
and
shut
about
changing
sexual
orientation,’"
says
Spitzer,
who
then
tried
to
organize
a
symposium
looking
at
whether
some
people
could
go
from
gay
to
straight.
After
gay
mental
health
experts
agreed
to
participate
in
the
symposium,
but
then
withdrew,
Spitzer
says
he
became
more
determined
to
look
into
reparative
therapy.
Spitzer
says
gay
colleagues
were
outraged
at
the
idea,
and
he
got
unexpected
support
from
religious
conservatives
who
would
later
turn
his
results
into
a
marketing
campaign
for
their
social
agenda.
"I’m
glad
I
did
the
study,
[but]
I’m
not
entirely
satisfied
with
the
way
I
wrote
it
up,"
Spitzer
says.
"I
have
given
aid
and
comfort
to
the
enemy.
I
suppose
more
people
were
hurt
than
might
be
helped
[by
reparative
therapy],
but
I
believe
the
study
has
some
scientific
value."
ALL
OF
THE
ESSAYS
...
