Anti-gay activists have argued for years that sexual orientation is a choice and changeable — but only for lesbians and gay men, not heterosexuals. They often claim homosexuality is a form of mental illness or an emotional disorder that can be "cured" through psychological or religious intervention. Relying heavily on the testimony of so-called "ex-gays," anti-gay activists claim that homosexuality is a curable condition, and therefore lesbians and gay men do not need or deserve equal rights or protection from discrimination.

The American Psychiatric Association has condemned the "treatment" of homosexuality, saying "The potential risks of 'reparative therapy' are great, including depression, anxiety and self- destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient." In addition, the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the National Mental Health Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics also have spoken out against these attempts to "cure" gays and lesbians. And many who have undergone such "treatment" have stepped forward to debunk it and to unmask the political motivations of its proponents.

THE SPITZER STUDY

In May 2001, Dr. Robert Spitzer of Columbia University released the results of a short-term study of "conversion" therapy. Based on telephone interviews with a convenience sample of 200 subjects, Spitzer concluded that some "highly motivated" gay people could change their sexual orientation through therapy or other means.

Many in the scientific community have dismissed Spitzer's study because of its serious methodological flaws, among them:

• Spitzer recruited most of his subjects through two anti-gay activist groups: Exodus and the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH).

• Spitzer intentionally excluded from his study anyone whose experiences with "conversion therapy" were not successful.

• Spitzer's research did not mention or account for the existence of bisexuality on the continuum of sexual orientation, nor for the possibility that some of his subjects may have been bisexual.

Initial media coverage of the Spitzer study was largely inaccurate and sensationalistic. Outlets viewed the study solely through social and political filters, rather than on scientific merits (in fact, many media outlets sought religious or political spokespeople to discuss the scientific implications of the study). And many outlets misstated Spitzer's conclusions, resulting in headlines such as: "An explosive new study says some gay people can turn straight if they really want to." This is a notion Spitzer himself has vehemently disputed in the public record.

Anti-gay and ex-gay groups continue to routinely misrepresent Spitzer's study and misstate the findings in his report. Please scrutinize ex- or anti-gay activists' sweeping claims about the Spitzer study and any unsubstantiated notion that it "proves" gay people can be turned straight. Compare these inaccurate statements with Spitzer's public criticism of anti-gay groups and their misstatements about his report, and evaluate them in light of the study's methodological flaws. (In fact, Spitzer told the Los Angeles Times in 2006 that he now believes some of the subjects in his study may have been either deceiving themselves or lying to him.)

SCIENCE, RESEARCH & REPORTING

When reporting on scientific opinions or research on sexual orientation/gender identity issues, please solicit information and opinions from qualified experts in the appropriate scientific discipline so that coverage does not overstate or misstate the implications of new research.

Recently, a researcher named J. Michael Bailey claimed, via a methodologically dubious study employing a very small sample, that bisexuality does not exist in men. However, before the study could be properly reviewed and scrutinized, it was trumpeted in newspapers with sensationalistic headlines like "Straight, Gay or Lying? Bisexuality Revisited," which once again turned a questionable study of limited scientific value into front-page news. Whenever possible, please consult with acknowledged, qualified experts to assess the quality of scientific studies and methods before legitimizing them through media reports.