Dr. Phil Gets It Wrong

[Dr. Shane]

Over the years we have had many conversations here about homosexuality. We have a few here that are PhD-WANT-TO-BEs and talk like they have some kind of authority. I worked in the trenches in a homosexual-exit ministry for three years but readily admit my experience to be of a personal nature and not of a scientific one. Now Dr. Phil is respected by many, including me, but it seems he doesn't got it right about homosexuality.

[:"blue"] Christine: My 22-year-old daughter is in a relationship with a woman. I don't believe she is a lesbian. Could this be a form of rebellion and a result of getting in with the "wrong" crowd? Can homosexuality be learned and unlearned?

Dr. Phil: Homosexuality is not a learned behavior. A sexual orientation is inherited; you are wired that way. Certainly some people will experiment with a gay lifestyle, and a gay person might experiment with a heterosexual one. If she is really gay, she will find a place in that life and in that community. The important thing is that you just love her through that. What difference does it make if she is gay? Accept her, support her and do not be judgmental. It is difficult enough for her to live openly and honestly in this society; don't put your judgment on top of that.

Dr. Phil is wrong, according to NARTH President Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D. Dr. Nicolosi responds:

Dr. Phil says sexual orientation is 'inherited,' which would mean 'genetic.' Dr. Phil should study this issue more carefully. There is no respected researcher who would agree with Dr. Phil. First, the biological components researchers have been finding are not primarily 'genetic.' Second, no one in the field is discounting environment-that is, parental and social-influences.

NARTH leader, Dr. Louis Berman, has also responded to Dr. Phil's comments on sexual orientation and lesbianism. Dr. Berman notes:

Lesbians are more likely to share many of the values as the heterosexual majority: permanent mating, monogamy, and raising a family. But what is true of a majority of lesbians applies only to a minority of gay men.

Dr. Phil claims that lesbians are "hard wired" for their behavior. The fact is that a significant number of women adopt the practice of lesbianism after experiencing a bad marriage, or have had (presumably unsatisfying) heterosexual experience--less characteristic of gay men.) We see in the newspapers that when the famous lesbian comedienne Ellen DeGeneres broke up with her partner, her "lesbian" partner married a man. Understanding human behavior is an absorbing challenge, but seldom simple.

[/]

[Bravus]

Hmm, I dunno, Shane. You wanna challenge 'PhD-wannabes'[1], but then do that on the basis of a PhD from an advocacy group with a strong agenda to push.

I agree with Dr Berman that orientation is a complex thing, and does seem to be more malleable in (some) women than in (most) men. But there's an enormous body of strong research, including quite a bit of genetic research, that at least shows correlations between particular genes and homosexuality.

But basically quoting one authority - and one with an identified role and agenda - to refute another authority (or someone who plays one on television) is doubtful practice. What does the actual research say?

[1] I don't generally flash it in anyone's face, but I have an actual earned PhD, and teach masters and doctoral level research methods and philosophy of science courses. Doesn't mean my opinions should be simply accepted on the basis of my authority, but it does mean that when I talk about research methods I have more than an armchair knowledge of what I'm talking about.

[Bravus]

Here's a recent review from a credible source:

A therapist's guide to the genetics of human sexual orientation. By: Mustanski, Brian S.; Bailey, J. Michael. Sexual & Relationship Therapy, Nov2003, Vol. 18 Issue 4, p429-436.

I have access to, and have read, the full text via my university library. Others with similar access should check it out.

These authors conclude: "Although there are many questions that cannot be answered at this time, there is sufficient relevant scientific data to allow some definitive statements to be made."

There are three kinds of genetic evidence that are relevant to establishing whether orientation is genetic: family studies, twin studies and molecular genetics. Here's Mustanksi and Bailey's summary paragraph:

"Although no specific genes for male sexual orientation have currently been identified, and no chromosomal regions have been implicated in women, it is possible to make several conclusions about the role that genes play in determining sexual orientation. Twin and family studies have demonstrated that genetic influences do explain a portion of the variability in sexual orientation within the populations that have been studied. Genes also seem to be more influential in male sexual orientation. Finally, there is some evidence that the chromosomal region Xq28 may play a role in male sexual orientation, but further research is needed before any definitive conclusions can be made."

Science is nuanced, and humans and sexuality are both complex. But for Dr Berman to dismiss genetic factors in homosexuality is either ill-informed or dishonest.

[Jeannieb43]

My source [an M.D./Ph.D. psychiatrist/psychoanalyst who specialized in patients with sexual problems] said sexual orientation is a continuum. Everyone is born with both male and female attributes (characteristics?...genes/chromosomes??... I can't recall exactly what word he used). Those who are farthest toward the homosexual end of the continuum probably have no choice about it; they're homosexual. Most of the population falls on the heterosexual end of the spectrum. But those who are in the middle are not "born" with their orientation; they adopt it during their lifetime, based upon a myriad of factors in their environment.

Whether they can ever be "reoriented" or not is problematic.

[Gregory Matthews]

In my opinion, each one of you has posted something that is accurate:

1) The first studies to come out that homosexuality was genetic, and we were wired that way, were flawed, and unconvincing. As has been stated, we have not discovered a specific gene that causes homosexuality.

2) But, as has also been stated, we have discovered genetic evidence that homosexuality can be geneticly influenced.

Because of # 1 & # 2, there is some controversy as to whether or not homosexuality is genetic. Honest people may differ.

3) The statement that our human sexuality is on a continuum is correct. It is this fact that lies behind the issues that I, and others, raise in regard to how one defines homosexuality. I say that people at both ends of that continuum have a fixed gender orientation, that has not been demonstrated to be either chosen or changable. I acknowledge that there ae people at other places on the continuum who may transit between the homosexual and the heterosexual life style. But, I do not define them by their actions.

4) To me, I consider that gender orientaion may involve the following, and possibly more:

a) genetic influences.

pre-natal experiences in the woumb.

c) early pshcho-social issues during developmental stages that served to fix gender oritntation.

d) issues involving hard-wiring of the brain that are unrelated to genetic issues. Folks our brains are wired in ways unrelated to genetic factors.

e) pre-natal neuro-chemistry, which is unrelated to genetic factors.

Fundamental to all of this is a belief that I hold that there is no one cause that fixs the gender orientation of every true homosexual. I have worked closely to a large enough group of homosexuals to clearly come to beleive that the people whom I was working with became homosexual for reasons that differed among them. I think that I have seen a pretty good cross-section of the male homosexual population.

Shane tells us that he has worked with a homosexual exit ministry. No scientific researcher would ever claim that a homosexual exit ministry represented a valid cross-section of the homosexual population. At best, it could only repreent a sub-set.

How can I say that I worked with a valid cross-section? The group that I worked with was part of a research study, conducted with scientific rigor. It was not a group of people seeking to change lifestyle. It was a medical group. In numbered into the hundreds of people. It was considered to be a valid cross-section of the adult male homosexual population.

Yes, we had women and children in our group. But, they could not be scientificly considered to be a valid cross-section of the homosexual population.

To expand upon, and clairfy a comment that I made earlier: Our study group was focused upon peple who either had AIDS, or were HIV positive. As such it contained people who were not homosexual. But, it was considered to repreent a valid cross-seciton of the adult male homosexual population. That is who most of our people were--adult, male homosexuals.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

You wanna challenge 'PhD-wannabes'

---

Sorry if that didn't come accross right. I was trying to encourage a humble tone in the thread. Since experts disagree and research is conflicting, I would hope no one here would claim to know what the experts cannot even agree on.

I tend to think Dr. Phil answered the way he did because he saw what happened to Dr. Laura for her position and didn't want to deal with the same. Dr. Phil has to know the disagreement on the issue and that there is no consensus.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

No scientific researcher would ever claim that a homosexual exit ministry represented a valid cross-section of the homosexual population. At best, it could only repreent a sub-set.

---

They call themselves the minority of the minority. They are not doctors or scientists. They are born-again Christians looking forward to the return of their Lord.

Quote:

---

But, as has also been stated, we have discovered genetic evidence that homosexuality can be geneticly influenced.

---

A study done on identical twins in which one was gay has shown there is a genetic influence but at the same time showed that it is not completely genetic. So it seems it is a combination of genetic with other factors that need to come into play.

[Bravus]

Thanks, Shane, and my apologies for bristling a little too: I think we're basically agreed that authority (except perhaps Biblical authority) is a bad basis for settling these points, and we can line up 'experts' until they reach to the moon without solving things.

I also agree (with Shane and Gregory) that there are a number of factors involved. There's no single 'gay gene' and the genetic component is only one of the factors. I was purely responding to Dr Berman's sweeping dismissal of genetic factors... and yes, I probably should also have acknowledged Dr Phil's over-enthusiastic embrace of genetic factors: he may have made it sound deterministic, which I don't think it is.

As noted above, there are twin studies, inheritance studies and molecular genetics studies that strongly suggest something genetic is involved. This in itself should get us down off our high horse of 'choice' and force us to acknowledge the complexity of the issues. We're still tending to point too many fingers and offer too few hugs to people who are hurting.

Edit: the 'we' in that last paragraph points to the Christian church as a whole, including me, and does not specifically refer to Shane or anyone else here at CA.

[Gregory Matthews]

Re: "

They call themselves the minority of the minority. They are not doctors or scientists. They are born-again Christians looking forward to the return of their Lord."

As a ministry to the minority of the minority, one cannot generalize lessons learned there to the whole of the population.

[Amelia]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

I have an actual earned PhD

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

I bought mine on a TV infomercial. <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/tomato.gif" alt="" />

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Amelia said:

Quote:

---

I have an actual earned PhD

---

I bought mine on a TV infomercial.

---

Isn't that from the "Consolidated Topmost Extended Instute" where they issue the piled higher, deeper certificates?