Transgendered Men in Women’s Facilities?

Transgendered Men in Women’s Facilities?

James R. Aist

Scientific studies have found that 73%-81% of male-to-female transgendered “females” are still sexually attracted to females.

Introduction

This article is about why men of any gender – real or perceived – should not be allowed in women’s public facilities. I will begin with two brief, complementary explanations of what gender identity disorder is, and then explain why allowing transsexual men into such facilities is a freedom way too far. Sprigg (7) has presented pertinent facts and strong arguments along the same lines.

What is Gender Identity Disorder?

Gender Identity Disorder (GID) – often called “Gender Dysphoria” to de-emphasize the mental delusion involved – is a mental disorder characterized by the feeling and belief that you are not really the gender of the body you were born in, but that of the opposite gender. Thus, a person born a male feels and believes that he is really a female trapped in a male body and identifies his gender as female, and a person born a female feels and believes that she is really a male trapped in a female body and identifies her gender as male. Such a person is said to be transgender, because he/she perceives their real gender to be opposite (trans) their birth gender. Conversely, a cisgender person feels and believes their real gender to be the same (cis) as their birth gender. Transgender people experience intense anxiety, distress and inner conflict, because their perceived gender does not match their actual, birth gender. These feelings and beliefs are, themselves, very real to the person experiencing them, but they do not correspond to the actual, biological gender. Therefore, they represent a virtual, rather than an actual, reality. That is to say, persons with GID are delusional with respect to their gender. The best estimates of the prevalence of GID put it in the range of 0.33%-0.47%, or less than one-half of one percent, of the general population (8). Thus, GID is not “normal.”

A Family of Psychoses

As Barber (3) and McHugh (5) have pointed out, GID belongs to a family of mental disorders, or “psychoses”, which are characterized, in part, by a mental departure from reality, referred to by psychiatrists as “delusion” (4). Perhaps the best known mental disorder of this family is anorexia. Anorexic people are actually skinny, but they feel and believe that they are grossly overweight. Transabled is another mental disorder belonging to this family of psychoses. Transabled people feel and believe that they are disabled, yet they are, in reality, physically whole and healthy people. And that brings us to transgender people. As mentioned above, they feel and believe that they are not really the biological gender of the body they were born in, but that of the opposite gender. This delusion has been likened to that of the Emperor in Hans Christian Andersen’s tale, “The Emperor’s New Clothes” (5). In that tale, the Emperor, believing that he wore an outfit of exquisite beauty imperceptible to the common man, paraded naked through the streets of his town for all to see. The people knew very well that the Emperor was deluded, but they were afraid to say anything to him about his nakedness, for fear of retribution.

A Freedom Too Far

For purposes of clarity, let me first point out that I am using the term “public facilities” to refer to all shared restrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, dressing rooms and shower rooms (Did I leave anything out?) in the public arena (i.e., outside of private residences).

The review article (6) touched on this issue briefly, pointing out that male-to-female transgendered “females” are perceived to be less of a threat to real females in public facilities than are gender-normal males pretending to be transgendered, and that may be true. The threat is not only regarding actual sexual assault, but also voyeurism, where a gender-normal male would behave as a “peeping Tom” (a person who gets pleasure, especially sexual pleasure, from secretly watching others), as it were, and thus invade the bodily privacy of unsuspecting females. As Sprigg (7) put it, transgender activists are putting gender ideology above public safety and the fundamental right to bodily privacy.

And here’s an eye opener for you. I have discovered a couple of little-known facts that should, perhaps, be of even greater concern than the “transgender pretender.” Let’s assume, for a moment, that transgender activists are correct in asserting that the male-to-female transgendered “females” using women’s public facilities are going to outnumber the transgender pretenders. Then, the greatest threat could come, hypothetically, from the male-to-female transgendered “females” themselves, based on sheer numbers. But, you may ask, “Why would the male-to-female transgendered “females” pose a threat to the real females in women’s public facilities?” Here’s why: scientific studies (1, 2) have found that 73%-81% of male-to-female transgendered “females” are still sexually attracted to females! Moreover, only 25%-30% of transgender people having undergone gender re-assignment have had any kind of gender-confirming surgery, meaning that more than two-thirds of male-to-female transgendered “females” using women’s public facilities will still have their God-given, male genitals intact (9). Think about that for a moment, and then let me ask you this: Do you want male-to-female transgendered “females” with fully functional male genitals getting “turned on” sexually by your wife or daughter while using women’s public facilities? I didn’t think so. Moreover, it’s not difficult to guess what else they might feel compelled to do once they are sexually “turned on.” This is why I believe that male-to-female transgendered “females”, rather than transgender pretenders, could prove to be the greatest threat to women using unrestricted public facilities.

At present, we have laws against “peeping Toms.” They are arrested, tried in a court of law, and, if found guilty, given an appropriate jail sentence. But if male-to-female transgendered “female” peeping Toms can legally be in women’s public facilities and are, somehow, “caught in the act” by the victim, they could get off scot free, because it would be virtually impossible to prove that they were actually peeping, and they would have a legal right to be in the facility. Thus, legally enforced, unrestricted access to public facilities, in effect, legalizes voyeurism. And that just isn’t right!

The absurdity of shared public facilities has to stop! Gender-normal persons outnumber gender-deluded persons by a ratio of about 250:1. It makes no sense to put the personal interests of such a tiny minority above the personal interests of such a vast majority. Gender-normal persons’ safety and feelings matter too! Accommodating the needs of transgender persons by providing gender-neutral facilities is going far enough. Surely they can deal with their feelings and distress privately for a few minutes while they “do their business”, without having to victimize the gender-normal public to accommodate their mental disorder in the process! Furthermore, a policy of shared public facilities opens the door to sexual perverts and sexual offenders, making it easier for them to gain access to their potential victims and, potentially, to get away with it. No one is even allowed to ask about their perceived gender status. To force the gender-normal majority to compromise their safety (real or imagined) and their very real right to bodily privacy in public facilities is clearly “a freedom way too far!”

Transgender activists accuse gender-normal activists of creating an anti-transgender hysteria based on fear mongering, rather than real-life events, concerning unrestricted public facilities. So that you will know the truth, I have assembled just a few of the many recent reports where real-life conflicts have been caused by unrestricted public facility policies. You can decide for yourself if you think this is just anti-transgender hysteria based on fear mongering:

  • Sexual assault victims speak out (click HERE)
  • Man lounging around naked in girl’s locker room at college (click HERE)
  • Man strips in front of girls in locker room at pool (click HERE)
  • Nine-year-old girl in boys bathroom at school (click HERE)
  • Store lets men use women’s dressing room (click HERE)
  • “Transgender” sexual predator in women’s shelter (click HERE)
  • Men in women’s restroom prompts ACLU leader to resign (click HERE)
  • Finally, a tried and convicted case of rape of  a 10-year old girl in the bathroom of a private home (click HERE).

References Cited:

  1. Auer, M., et al., 2014. Transgender Transitioning and Change of Self-Reported Sexual Orientation. PloS One. (click HERE)
  2. Author unspecified. 2016. Transgender sexuality, References 7 and 8. Wikipedia. (click HERE)
  3. Barber, M. 2015. Transwhatever. RenewAmerica. (click HERE)
  4. Definition of Psychosis, New York Times Health Guide. (Click HERE)
  5. McHugh, P. 2015. Transgenderism: A Pathogenic Meme. The Public Discourse. (click HERE)
  6. O’Leary, D. and P. Sprigg. 2015. Understanding and Responding to the Transgender Movement. Family Research Council. (click HERE)
  7. Sprigg, P. 2016. Transgender Activists Put Ideology Above Safety. Family research Council. (click HERE)
  8. Yarhouse, M. 2015. Understanding the Transgender Phenomenon. Christianity Today. (click HERE)
  9. Bernstein, L. 2015. Here’s how sex reassignment surgery works. The Washington Post. (click HERE)

(For more articles on transgenderism and homosexuality by Dr. Aist, click HERE)

Born-Gay Hoaxes “Outed” by Real Science!

Born-Gay Hoaxes “Outed” by Real Science!

 James R. Aist

“You cannot prove a point by appealing to an assumption. Proof requires objective evidence.”

Since the early 1970s, homosexual people have increasingly claimed that they were “born gay” and that, therefore, they could not change even if they wanted to. By repeating this claim over and over again for decades now, gay activists have managed to win over a large percentage of heterosexual “believers” to their cause, without any substantial basis in fact to validate the claim that they were “born that way.” And yet, this hoax remains deeply ingrained in our culture at all levels. Therefore, it is necessary to re-examine carefully the scientific and other documentable facts concerning the origins and development of homosexuality to see if there is any truth at all to the “born gay” claim and its spawn, the “immutability” claim. The critical questions are 1) is homosexuality already determined at birth by biological factors and 2) is homosexuality, immutable (unchangeable). We now have several recent research and review articles to help us to arrive, once again, at the correct answers to these questions.

Is Homosexuality Already Determined at Birth by Biological Factors?

By far, the most powerful and reliable way to test the claim that homosexuals are born gay is to conduct scientific studies on data taken from large “twin registries.” The data in these large data bases are obtained randomly with little or no sample bias and are relatively representative of twins in the general population. In twin studies, the “concordance” answers the simple question, “Where one twin of an identical pair is homosexual, what percentage of co-twins is also homosexual?The concordance of the twin pairs is a measure of the level of influence of biological factors (generally assumed to be the genetic influence) on whatever trait is being studied, in this case, homosexuality. If homosexuals are born gay, then whenever one twin of an identical pair is homosexual, the co-twin will also be homosexual, giving a concordance value of ~ 100%, indicating a very strong, determinant genetic influence. A concordance value of ~ 20%-30%, on the other hand, would indicate a weak, non-determinant influence of genetics.

The reader is referred to Aist, 2012 (click HERE), Diamond and Rosky, 2016 (click HERE) and Whitehead and Whitehead, 2012 (click HERE) for more extensive reviews of the pertinent scientific literature on twin studies. The recent study by Zietsch, et al., 2012 (click HERE) can be used to illustrate representative research results obtained with large samples from twin registries. They used a very large sample (9,884) of twins from the Australian Twin Registry, one of the largest samples to date for twin studies of homosexuality. In this sample, there were 1,840 identical twin pairs (1,133 female and 707 male). Their calculated value of 24% concordance for homosexuality indicates a weak genetic influence. Moreover, their calculated figure of 31% for heritability of homosexuality also indicates a weak genetic component. This leaves around 68% of the variance in the data set represented by post-natal, “shared environment” and “residual” environmental influences combined.

That brings us to the conclusion that homosexuality is not already determined at birth by biological factors (e.g., genetics). Simply put, these results not only do not provide scientific evidence to support the “born gay” claim, they provide definitive and conclusive, scientific proof that “born gay” is, in fact, a hoax. Real science has “outed” the born-gay hoax.

Is homosexuality immutable (unchangeable)?

The claim that homosexuality cannot change is a direct extension of the claim that homosexuals are born gay, and, as we have seen above, “born gay” is, itself, a total hoax. Nevertheless, it is possible to evaluate this claim scientifically on its own merit. Previously, several authors have assembled extensive and persuasive evidence to show that sexual orientation, including homosexual orientation, is not fixed, but is, instead, amazingly fluid (Aist, 2012, click HERE; Sorba, 2007, click HERE; and Whitehead and Whitehead, 2016, click HERE). A new and comprehensive review article written by two supporters of so-called “gay rights”, Diamond and Rosky (click HERE), focuses on four relatively new scientific studies that demonstrate conclusively that homosexuality is, in fact, a fluid trait. These studies all used large data bases that followed the self-identified sexual orientation of individual subjects over long periods of time. Such “longitudinal” studies are the only way that the fluidity of sexual orientation in a representative sample of people can be documented and quantified. All four of these studies gave similar results regarding the considerable fluidity of sexual orientation. Here are some of the highlights, as reported by Diamond and Rosky:

  • In just 7 years, 30% of young adults with same-sex attraction changed to opposite-sex attraction;
  • Most, but not all, of this change involved bisexuals;
  • Of the homosexual young adults whose sexual orientation changed, 66% changed to heterosexuality;
  • All of these changes in sexual orientation occurred spontaneously;
  • Sexual orientation involved some degree of choice for many (10% of gay men, 30% of lesbians and 60% of bi-sexuals), according to one of the studies cited;
  • Homosexuality is fluid, not immutable;
  • The “born gay” claim is unscientific (i.e., not supported by the scientific research).

Perhaps the most often utilized and reliable of the several databases employed in such studies is the one called “Add Health.” Using this database, Udry and Chantala (Journal of Biosocial Science 37:481-497) found that 83% of 16-year-old, adolescent gay boys were neither gay nor bisexual one year later, at age 17. This same figure can be arrived at by doing the math on the data published by Savin-Williams and Joyner (Archives of Sexual Behavior 43:413-422), also from the Add Health database. Finally, Whitehead and Whitehead (click HERE) used the same Add Health data set to calculate that 98% of the 16-year-olds who were either homosexual or bisexual moved towards heterosexuality by age 17. In these studies, there was also a small percentage that moved from heterosexuality toward homosexuality. All of these changes in sexual orientation were spontaneous.

Whitehead and Whitehead (click HERE) also made the following pertinent observations from the published scientific literature:

  • Homosexuality is much more fluid than is heterosexuality, as 50% of homosexuals become heterosexual, but only 1.9% of heterosexuals become homosexual;
  • One study reported that 63% of lesbians and 50% of gay men, from age 18 to age 26, changed sexual orientation at least once;
  • Because of the higher levels of sexual orientation fluidity among homosexuals, at any given time there are more ex-gays than actual gays in the general population;
  • All of these reported changes in sexual orientation were spontaneous.

Mayer and McHugh (click HERE) recently published an extensive review of the scientific literature on sexual orientation. They supported the conclusions of others that:

  • There is strong scientific evidence that sexual orientation is fluid;
  • Women’s sexual orientation is consistently more fluid than men’s;
  • The sexual orientation of adolescents is more fluid that that of young adults;
  • Choice is a factor in the development of homosexuality.

So, in view of the sound, scientific evidence discussed above, we can conclude that the answer to this question is, “No, homosexuality is not immutable, but is, in fact, quite fluid.” Whitehead and Whitehead (click HERE) even went so far as to state that, “Rather than homosexuality being an unalterable condition, it is actually a good example of a changeable condition.” Thus, as with the born-gay hoax, real science has “outed” the immutability hoax.

Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (S.O.C.E.)

In view of the considerable amount of spontaneous fluidity of homosexuality, it should not be surprising that dissatisfied homosexual people can, in fact, change through S.O.C.E., the deceitful denials of gay activists notwithstanding. The success of efforts to help dissatisfied homosexual people change their sexual orientation toward heterosexuality through therapy and counseling is an integral part of the evidence against the “born gay” and the “immutability” claims. Such changes in sexual orientation have been amply documented for both secularly (click HERE) and religiously (click HERE) mediated efforts. Both approaches can be successful at a rate (~ 25%-30%) that is comparable to that for psychological disorders and for behavioral problems, such as alcoholism. While most of the individuals seeking S.O.C.E. have not experienced a 100% reversal in all aspects of sexual orientation, many, by their own testimony, have achieved substantial and meaningful changes in their sexual orientation that enable them to live celibate or exclusively heterosexual lifestyles that satisfy their personal goals. For the originally dissatisfied homosexual person, that is real, substantial and meaningful change. And there are thousands of former homosexuals who testify that they have changed (for examples, click HERE).

If homosexuality were determined by biological factors and immutable, then such transformations would not be possible. Thus, S.O.C.E. have “outed” both the “born gay” and the “immutability” hoaxes.

What Difference Does It Make?

The short answer is, it makes a huge difference, as discussed by Mayer and McHugh (click HERE) and Whitehead and Whitehead (click HERE). The homosexual movement has used the “born gay” hoax and its correlate, the “immutability” hoax, to not only deceive the public and gain popular support for their “gay agenda” (click HERE), but they have managed to deceive also medical societies, church leaders, teachers, politicians and judges at all levels. The result is that, based largely on these and other hoaxes perpetrated by the homosexual movement (click HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE), many churches, teachers and politicians have come to believe (erroneously) that homosexual behavior is not only normal, but also natural, healthy, desirable and moral. This development represents a serious spiritual and moral decay in America.

Furthermore, politicians and judges are hard at work codifying homosexuality into laws (e.g., so-called “gay marriage” and anti-discrimination laws). Laws criminalizing the practice of S.O.C.E. to help children and adolescents overcome unwanted homosexuality (click HERE and HERE) are particularly heinous, because they selectively deny professional help to people who are at the most sexually confusing and unstable phase in their lives. This gives gay activists an “open season”, as it were, to target these vulnerable minors for recruitment into a life of homosexuality without interference from contrary influences, such as professional counselors and therapists. And, in the process, children and adolescents are denied their right to self-determination and parental rights are trampled underfoot, all in the name of sexual liberty.

If not checked soon, the homosexual movement will seriously erode our First Amendment right to the “free practice of religion” in America. Already, sexual liberty is being put ahead of religious freedom, and laws have been passed forcing even churches, under penalty of law, to accommodate homosexuals and transgenders on their terms (click HERE and HERE). The “gay agenda” is a mammoth social experiment – based largely on lies, myths and hoaxes – that is reaping dire consequences for America and proving to be a mistake of biblical proportions.

Summary

Multiple, scientific studies of homosexuality in identical twin pairs have demonstrated conclusively that biological factors (including genetics) do not determine the development of homosexuality. “Born gay” is a hoax. Several large-scale, longitudinal, scientific studies, numerous personal testimonies and the success of both secularly and religiously mediated sexual orientation change efforts prove that homosexuality is, in fact, quite fluid, not immutable. “Immutability” is also a hoax. Unfortunately, the homosexual movement has been able to dupe our society and its religious leaders, politicians, medical societies and judges into believing their lies, myths and hoaxes. This charade is causing serious damage to the spiritual and moral condition of American society, and it is eroding the constitutional provision to practice religion freely, as sexual liberty is increasingly being placed above religious freedom in the formulation and application of anti-discrimination laws and ordinances. The homosexual movement is a social experiment that will have dire consequences, unless America repents and God intervenes.

(For more articles on homosexuality by Professor Aist, click HERE)

Homosexuality: Religiously Mediated Change

Homosexuality: Religiously Mediated Change

James R. Aist

Contrary to the fallacious claims of gay activists, homosexual people can change their sexual orientation if sufficiently motivated, as evidenced by numerous personal testimonies (click HERE). I have briefly reviewed such change resulting from secular counseling and therapy (click HERE). In the present article, I focus on religiously mediated change, which has been around for a very long time and has been scientifically documented, as you will see. (Note: numbers in parentheses refer to numbered references at the end of the article.)

It’s important to realize, at the outset, that the God of the Bible wants to change homosexual people Himself, through the “name” (i.e., the power and authority) of Jesus Christ, as recorded in the Bible (I Corinthians 6:9-11)! Interestingly, this is probably the first-ever published report of homosexual transformations. Now, Paul was well aware that the condition of homosexuality has two aspects: 1) same-sex attractions (SSA), which he described as “shameful lusts” and “inflamed with lust for one another” (Romans 1:26-27); and 2) the practice of homosexuality (Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9). Thus, when Paul states “…that is what some of you were”. But you were washed…” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11), he is not just speaking about the abandoning of homosexual practice (celibacy), but also the cessation of SSA. On the other hand, Paul did not say whether or not these particular transformed homosexual people became heterosexual. Moreover, Jesus himself wants homosexual people to be changed, else why would these Corinthian homosexual people have been changed through His power and authority? Jesus did not come to save us and our sins, but to save us from our sins.

More recent examples exist of religiously mediated change from a homosexual to a heterosexual orientation (1, 2). Here are some specifics of one of these studies. Pattison and Pattison (3) conducted a scientific study of 11 men who changed from exclusive and active homosexuality to exclusive or almost exclusive heterosexuality after converting to Christianity in a Pentecostal church fellowship. On the Kinsey 7-point sexual orientation scale, all subjects manifested major before-after changes. Eight of the 11 subjects became exclusively heterosexual. Although the men participated in prayer groups with heterosexual men and women, no effort was made to effect the change of sexual orientation. NARTH (4) has listed 24 autobiographies and 14 case histories of homosexual people who have undergone religiously mediated change from homosexual to heterosexual. Jones and Yarhouse (5) conducted a scientific study that was designed to meet high standards of empirical vigor and is perhaps the best scientific publication to date in this regard. They studied 61 subjects who completed the study, which included six independent assessments over a total time span of 6-7 years. Standardized, respected measures of sexual orientation were used. Of the 61 subjects, 23% reported successful conversion to heterosexual orientation and functioning, while another 30% reported stable behavioral chastity with substantive dis-identification with homosexual orientation. Moreover, there was a statistically significant increase of heterosexual attraction. The authors concluded that their results demonstrate meaningful shifts along a continuum that constitute real changes for some of the subjects. For comparison, a success rate of around 25%-30% is generally achieved by therapists and counselors for psychological disorders and behavioral problems, such as alcoholism (6, 7, 8).

Restored Hope Network is a membership-governed network dedicated to restoring hope to those broken by sexual and relational sin, especially those impacted by homosexuality. They proclaim that Jesus Christ has life changing power for all who submit to Christ as Lord; they also seek to equip the church to impart that transformation. Their website (click HERE) is able to connect many with a nearby ministry that will offer help in overcoming homosexuality. Also, P.A.T.H. (click HERE) has a list of religious and secular organizations and ministries offering help for dissatisfied homosexuals seeking change. I can also recommend two online resources that will enable almost anyone, anywhere, to obtain Christ-centered help in overcoming unwanted homosexuality: Taking Back Ground (click HERE)  and  Reach Truth (click HERE).

References Cited:

  1. NARTH, 2012. 6) Religiously Mediated Change. (click HERE)
  2. Phelan, J.E., N. Whitehead and P.M. Sutton. 2009. What Research Shows: NARTH’S Response to the APA Claims on Homosexuality. Journal of Human Sexuality, Volume 1, Pages 9-39. (click HERE)
  3. Pattison, E.M. and M.L. Pattison. 1980. “Ex-Gays”: Religiously Mediated Change in Homosexuals. American Journal of Psychiatry 137:1553-1562.
  4. NARTH. 2012. Autobiographies of Religiously Mediated Change. (click HERE)
  5. Jones, S. L. and M.A. Yarhouse. 2011. A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Sexual Orientation Change. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 37:404-427.
  6. Whitehead, N. and B. Whitehead. 2016. My Genes Made Me Do It! – Homosexuality and the Scientific Evidence. Chapter 12. Can sexual orientation change? (click HERE)
  7. Socarides, C.W. 1995. Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far. Adam Margrave Books, Phoenix AZ.
  8. Satinover, J. 1996. Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Hamewith Books/Baker Books, Grand Rapids MI.

 

(For more articles on HOMOSEXUALITY by Dr. Aist, click HERE.)

Homosexuality: Secularly Mediated Change

Homosexuality: Secularly Mediated Change

James R. Aist

“Truth is not arrived at by wishful thinking or vacuous argument. It comes, instead, by careful examination of factual evidence.”

A comprehensive history of this topic was published by Phelan, et al. (1), and numerous personal testimonies of change are available online (click HERE). Many professional therapists have reported the clinical results of their own efforts to help dissatisfied homosexuals to change. The results presented by Socarides (7) seem to be representative of successful treatment therapy. Out of around 1,000 dissatisfied male homosexuals, about 35% became heterosexual (able to have complete, satisfactory sex with a woman and develop the capacity to really love her). Another 31% were able to control previously uncontrollable impulses toward same-sex sex (abstinence). The remaining 34% discontinued treatment for various reasons.

Satinover (2) compiled the results of nine outcome studies of clinical results reported in the 1950s through the 1980s. Out of a total of 341 dissatisfied homosexuals treated, success rates varied from 27% to 100%, where success was defined “as considerable to complete change.” In these reports, the average success rate was 52%. A range of reported success rates often reflects varying degrees of success with different therapy approaches; some approaches and some therapists are more effective than others.

Individual therapists have also reported long-term success in homosexual to heterosexual changes. Masters and Johnson (3) reported that 71.6% of their transformed homosexual subjects were still heterosexual after five years (when the study was terminated), indicating that these sexual orientation transformations represented long-term changes. Mayerson and Lief (4) found that 47% of their patients were functioning heterosexually after a mean follow-up period of four and a half years. And some transformed homosexuals were reported to have remained exclusively heterosexual for as long as 20 years (5)!

Surveys and meta-analyses also show the reality of secularly mediated change. Bieber et al. (6) is a good example. Out of 106 homosexual men in the studies they reviewed, 35 (33%) changed to exclusively heterosexual. And in a follow-up study conducted three years later on 15 of these formerly exclusively homosexual men (all those for whom data could be reclaimed), Socarides (7) found that 12 (80%) had remained exclusively heterosexual. Clippinger (8) reported similar results from 12 independent studies. Of 785 patients, 307 (38%) were “cured” (i.e., changed from homosexual to heterosexual). Goetze (9) conducted a carefully designed meta-analysis of the results of 17 studies. He determined Kinsey ratings before and after therapy and obtained follow-up information. Of 396 subjects who were exclusively or predominately homosexual, 283 (71.5%) experienced a partial shift in sexual orientation, 69 (17.4%) acquired heterosexual behavior and 44 (11.1%) experienced a full shift to heterosexual orientation. Thus, 28.5% (17.4% + 11.1%) became exclusively or predominately heterosexual.

Again, a success rate of around 25%-30% is generally achieved by therapists and counselors for psychological disorders and behavioral problems, such as alcoholism (2, 7, 10).

The National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (click HERE) is a professional, scientific organization that offers hope to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality. They have extensive published resources available and can provide referrals to treatment programs and professional, experienced therapists who also can provide compassionate guidance and support to help dissatisfied homosexual people in their journey out of homosexuality.

Conclusion: Despite the vacuous denials of gay activists and their heterosexual supporters, there is more than enough clinical evidence to establish the fact that professional, secular treatment of unwanted homosexuality can be successful at a rate comparable to that for psychological disorders and for behavioral problems, such as alcoholism.

(For more articles on HOMOSEXUALITY by Professor Aist, click HERE)

References Cited:

  1. Phelan, J.E., N. Whitehead and P.M. Sutton. 2009. What Research Shows: NARTH’S Response to the APA Claims on Homosexuality. Journal of Human Sexuality, Volume 1, Pages 9-39. (click HERE)
  2. Satinover, J. 1996. Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Hamewith Books/Baker Books, Grand Rapids MI.
  3. Masters, W. H. and V. E. Johnson. 1979. Homosexuality in Perspective. Little, Brown & Co., Boston.
  4. Mayerson, P., and Lief, H. 1965. Psychotherapy of homosexuals: a follow-up study. In, Sexual Inversion: The Multiple Roots of Homosexuality, ed. J. Marmor. New York: Basic Books.
  5. Bieber, I. and T.B. Bieber. 1979. Male Homosexuality. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 24: 409-421.
  6. Bieber, I., et al. 1962. Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals. Basic Books, New York.
  7. Socarides, C.W. 1995. Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far. Adam Margrave Books, Phoenix AZ.
  8. Clippinger, J. 1974. Homosexuality can be cured. Corrective and Social Psychiatry and Journal of Behavior Technology Methods and Therapy. 21:15-28.
  9. Goetze, R. 1997. Homosexuality and the Possibility of Change: A Review of 17 Published Studies. Toronto Canada: New Directions for Life.
  10. Whitehead, N. and B. Whitehead. 2012. My Genes Made Me Do It! – Homosexuality and the Scientific Evidence. Chapter 12. Can sexual orientation change? (click HERE)