Problems in LGBT Studies

Summary

There are times when a scientific field at large abandons science and becomes agenda driven, for example:

Internal sugar industry documents [show] five decades of research into nutrition and heart disease, including many of today’s dietary recommendations, may have been largely shaped by the sugar industry.¹

Other such examples abound.^{2 3 4 5}  A similar phenomenon appears to be happening in LGBT studies.  Some gays and transgenders are deeply offended by data showing their lifestyles are associated with negative outcomes, or conversely that therapy is sometimes successful to resolve unwanted same-sex attraction and gender identity.^{6 7 8 9}  A new LGBT "civil rights" movement has emerged, taking control of LGBT studies and conforming it to meet activists' demands. 

LGBT studies isn't an isolated trend.  Psychology as a whole has moved far left since 1980:¹⁰

In LGBT studies we see frequent publication of obviously incorrect data, fabricated stories, intense pressure to conform to LGBT narratives, and discrimination against those who don't comply.  In the points below, click the references to see relevant examples.

• Politicization and Researcher Discrimination

  • Politics has replaced science and politically correct objectives have led to inferior research, damaging the field's credibility.^{11 12 13}
  • Obviously biased sampling techniques are used to arrive at desired conclusions.^{14 15 16 17}
  • Professional organizations cherry-pick what research is funded and published.^{18 19 7 20 21 22}
  • Researchers with contrary views are attacked and ostracized.^{23 7 24 24 16 25}
  • Research that has previously passed peer review is retracted for suspicious reasons.^{22 25}
  • Decision-making panels are often staffed with activists.^{20 21} A former president of the American Psychological Organization even says the APA has been captured by the gay rights movement,¹⁹ abandoning science for politics.¹⁹
  • Medical professionals are being forced into silence and coerced into providing treatments they know are dangerous to children.¹³
  • Foreign medical experts from some countries are surprised that the U.S. hasn't banned or severely restricted hormonal treatments for gender dysphoric children.^{13 12 26}

• Lies and Propaganda

  • From 1976 to 2015, a staggering 161 articles published in law, social science, and medical journals estimated that more than one million kids, and sometimes as high as 14 million kids in the US were being raised by same-sex parents.²⁷ An absurd estimate since the total kids in the US is around 60 to 70 million.¹⁶ Only 17 papers were found during this time estimated below one million kids.²⁷ These fabricated numbers were used to bolster support for legalizing same-sex marriage.¹⁶
  • Many falsely claim scientific consensus says there's no difference between kids raised by same-sex and opposite-sex parents.
  • Nearly all major medical organizations say sexual orientation change efforts don't work and are harmful. And many say the same about gender identity change efforts.
  • In 2018, LGBT activist Sam Brinton claimed his childhood "conversion therapy" involved being strapped to a table and tortured with ice, heat, and electricity as he was forced to watch gay sex. Major news outlets including the New York Times shared his story to advocate for an end to all sexual orientation change efforts.²⁸ Even after pro-LGBT journalist Wayne Besen found many fatal inconsistencies in Brinton's story,²⁹ the news outlets never issued retractions or disclaimers. One wonders how much these lies contribute to the negative perception of sexual orientation change efforts.

These among other issues are all discussed in greater detail below.

Politics Over Science

In 2009 the American Psychological Association (APA) republished its opposition to sexual orientation change efforts.  But they rejected all conservative nominations to the task force that was to review the literature and write a position.  They instead filled all seven positions with gay rights activists.  Five were openly homosexual and one was bisexual.^{20 21}

Other indicators of politicization:

1. In 2011, the APA's leadership body voted 157-0 to support same-sex marriage.²¹
2. The leadership of the National Association of Social Workers endorsed 169 Democrats in the 2014 federal elections, and zero Republicans.²¹

In 2023, 21 clinicians from 9 different countries published a statement in The Wall Street Journal:

The politicization of transgender healthcare in the U.S. is unfortunate. The way to combat it is for medical societies to align their recommendations with the best available evidence—rather than exaggerating the benefits and minimizing the risks.¹²

Bias against Conservatives

Darel E. Paul is a professor of political science at Williams University whose research focuses on "elite ideologies in Western countries and the manifestation of those ideologies in public policies."³⁰  In 2018, he described how those with traditional views of marriage were purged from psychological and related research:

Active proponents of "traditional" marriage are regularly discouraged from practicing or purged from professions such as psychiatry, psychology, social work, law, and higher education. The perceived incompatibility of professional status with cultural conservatism is so accepted that the former chair of the American Psychological Association’s Policy and Planning Board recommends that dissenters from "the demands of multiculturally informed, ethical practice... should probably find a different line of work."

In 2014, Reuters reviewed more than one hundred court filings on the subject of same-sex marriage and found that thirty of the country’s two hundred largest law firms represented challengers to state Defense of Marriage Acts, while not a single Am Law 200 firm was representing state DOMA supporters.  Judicial refusal to conduct same-sex marriages is considered a violation of professional ethics in nearly all states, and judges in Washington, Oregon, Alabama, Ohio, and Wyoming have been subjected to disciplinary procedures.

A 2007 survey found that Evangelicals and Mormons are the least liked religious groups among American university faculty by a wide margin. A 2008 survey revealed that Christian fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Mormons were the most likely of twenty-seven social groups to experience discrimination in academic hiring. Across nine different fields in the humanities, social sciences, and physical sciences, even transgender and communist applicants faced better job prospects.²⁴

Given the above, it's unsurprising that the vast majority of mental health professionals reject sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE).  A journalist for the Jerusalem Post summarized in 2013:

The vast majority of mental health professionals, and nearly every gay rights group, reject out of hand the notion that homosexuality can be reversed.  They point to the fact that homosexuality was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), published by the American Psychiatric Association, in 1973, indicating a revolution in the psychological treatment offered to gay people who sought therapy... As one Jerusalem therapist told this reporter, "There is not one case of a successful reversal of one’s sexual orientation. Homosexuality is not diagnosable nor treatable because it’s not a mental illness."⁷

SOCE will be a recurring theme in this article.

Resistance to Studies

The field seems particularly averse to research on the effectiveness of sexual orientation change therapy, as well as studies on whether hormonal and surgical treatments for transgenderism are safe.

Dr. Donald F. Calbreath's research focuses on the relationships between brain neurochemistry and human behavior.  He describes discrimination against SOCE proponents:

Proponents of SOCE [Sexual Orientation Change Efforts] argue that there have been many successes in changing homosexual behavior and desires in a number of individuals.  Professional groups argue that there are no good peer-reviewed studies, but also prohibit their members from being involved in these studies.  Policy statements attacking these treatments are not written by an unbiased group; one major statement was written by a team that (with one exception) were all homosexual or bisexual, with all members of the team being well-known homosexual activists.²⁰

Conservative psychologist Christopher Rosik noted how the APA applies a much higher standard to papers claiming success with sexual orientation and gender identity change than those claiming such practices cause harm:

You will notice that opponents have a much higher standard for methodological rigor when it comes to efficacy of [sexual orientation and gender identity] change interventions than they do when addressing the potential for harm... They demand randomized, controlled research designs to prove efficacy and reject case studies of success, but are quick to tout anecdotal accounts of harm in the absence of any controlled, representative research showing harm...  It’s been years now since I and some colleagues invited anyone in the APA to do collaborative work with us to address the issues of efficacy and harm... but we have not had a single hint of interest.  This makes me question the sincerity of opponents’ demands... especially when many of these same folks are working to create a professional and legal environment completely hostile to the conducting of such studies.²¹

Paul McHugh is a Harvard trained psychiatrist, former psychiatrist-in-chief at the Johns Hopkins Hospital, and well known for debunking the idea of recovered memory.  He served under the President's council on Bioethics under George W. Bush.  He's a conservative Catholic who is against transgender surgery.  He notes:

Even controlled trials or careful follow-up studies to ensure that the practice itself [of transgender surgeries] is not damaging are often resisted and the results rejected."¹⁸

The American Academy of Pediatrics resists conducting studies to evaluate the safety of hormonal and surgical transgender treatments:

These doctors have repeatedly tried to introduce resolutions in the AAP [American Academy of Pediatrics] calling for systematic evidence reviews [of hormones and transgender surgery], the gold standard in medicine.  AAP leadership has ignored them even though one resolution questioning support for gender transition garnered 80% support from those who voted.²⁶

Dissent against the Endocrine Society Leadership

In 2023, two conservative medical professionals attended an Endocrine Society meeting.  They found widespread doubt about hormonal transgender treatments among its participants, who were afraid to speak up against the society's leadership.  They described their experience in the Wall Street Journal:

[W]e attended the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society, of which one of us (Dr. Eappen) is a member.  We found that endocrinologists are aware of the society’s failings and rue its elevation of transgender activism over medical expertise and patient needs...

At this year’s meeting, we had frank and fruitful discussions with endocrinologists who provide hormonal treatments to kids with gender dysphoria, as well as some who don’t.  Without exception, they acknowledged that the society’s evidence base for pediatric gender transition is weak, at best.  Yet while they’re aware of the guidelines’ shortcomings, they’re afraid to voice their concerns.  The society’s full-throated endorsement of gender-affirming care implied condemnation of anyone who holds differing views.  Medical professionals are being cowed into silence and coerced into providing treatments they know are dangerous to children.  Perhaps the most telling interactions were with European endocrinologists, who were there to discuss the latest research and treatments in the specialty.  Those we spoke with expressed surprise that the U.S. hasn’t banned, or at least severely restricted, such treatments for adolescents and children.¹³

Their article garnered a critical response from Endocrine society president Stephen R. Hammes,³¹ and Hammes in turn was criticized in another response from 21 doctors in 9 countries.¹²

Nicholas Cummings and the APA

Former American Psychological Association (APA) president Nicholas Cummings is pro gay¹⁹ and was involved in convincing the APA to no longer consider homosexuality a mental disorder.^{19 19}  In a 2013 interview he detailed:

1. At first "the APA would never take a position publicly that wasn't supported by scientific evidence" then "all of a sudden things began to change as things became more political than scientific."¹⁹
2. By the mid 1990's, "political stances seemed to override any scientific results" and "the gay rights movement sort of captured the APA."¹⁹
3. About "200 to 250 people were running the APA" who "were ultra liberal and anything that wasn't ultra liberal was anathema... It became a civil rights issue rather than a scientific issue."¹⁹
4. "Right now certain research doesn't get funded. The funding agencies cherry-pick what they fund... right now we're in turmoil."¹⁹

Walter Schumm and Same-Sex Parenting

Walter Schumm is a conservative professor in the Department of Family Studies and Human Services at Kansas State University, and editor in chief of the academic journal, Marriage and Family Review.  Schumm has over 300 publications listed on Google Scholar.  He describes the politics in his field:

In many cases the role of politics has overridden scientific common sense and standard methodological protocols, damaging the credibility of social scientists, the field of social science, and the integrity of many social science professional organizations.  The acceptance of such inferior research... as long as it appeared to support politically correct objectives, suggests the use of an approach to science whereby the ends justify the mean¹¹

Schumm conducted a massive literature review of nearly 400 studies specifically on the topic of children with same-sex parents.  He concluded:

It is remarkable that one could find 90% of over 70 literature reviews having drawn incorrect conclusions about some aspects of same-sex parenting.¹⁶

Researcher Discrimination

Here we document discrimination reported by specific researchers.  This list is certainly not exhaustive.

Walter Schumm

Conservative marriage and family researcher Walter Schumm wrote in the prologue to his 2018 book on Same Sex Parenting:

There are many people to whom I owe much gratitude for encouraging me in my life and even in the production of this book. I hesitate to mention them by name lest they come under attack for having any association with me.  Some very Christian scholars have gone out of their way to avoid any association with this book because of the stigma or discrimination they fear."¹⁶

Mark Regnerus

Mark Regnerus is a professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin who specializes in sexual behavior, family, marriage, and religion, who takes a conservative perspective.  He wrote in 2010:

Prejudice and stigma can be real, consequential, and harmful. As a rare skeptic in a very progressive and aggressively activist discipline—sociology—I know about social stigma. I feel it every day. Enduring such stigma, however, is the cost of doing business as a dissenter from the lucrative world of health research about sexual orientation and gender identity.²³

Robert Spitzer and SOCE

Along with Nicholas Cummings, Robert Spitzer (the psychiatrist, not Robert Spitzer the priest) was also involved in the APA no longer classifying homosexuality as a disorder.³² 

Spitzer later began studying sexual orientation change efforts as he believed "previous studies had been biased and inconclusive."³²  He interviewed 200 men and women who had reported at least mild success with SOCE, finding:

The majority of participants gave reports of change from a predominantly or exclusively homosexual orientation before therapy to a predominantly or exclusively heterosexual orientation in the past year.³³

Additionally, "Spitzer recorded changes not just in participants’ behavior, but also in their feelings, fantasies, attractions, and how they performed sexually," which exceeded the measures of previous studies.⁶  Spitzer stated, "When I listened, I [had] a kind of a clinical feeling that these people were telling me the truth."⁶

Spitzer completed the research in 2001 and it was published in 2003.  During this time:

1. Spitzer said, "people at the time did say to me, ‘Bob, you’re messing with your career, don’t do it.'"³²
2. Spitzer reported that "several colleagues tried to stop the study in its tracks, and urged him not to publish it."³²
3. 15 researchers at a facility where Spitzer was affiliated, responded by citing "the Nuremberg Code of ethics to denounce the study as not only flawed but morally wrong," reporting "We fear the repercussions of this study, including an increase in suffering, prejudice, and discrimination."³²
4. "Gay leaders accused him of betrayal."³²

This happened even though "Dr. Spitzer in no way implied in the study that being gay was a choice, or that it was possible for anyone who wanted to change to do so in therapy."³²

Spitzer's study was criticized because:

It was based on what people remembered feeling years before — an often fuzzy record. It included some ex-gay advocates, who were politically active. And it did not test any particular therapy; only half of the participants engaged with a therapist at all, while the others worked with pastoral counselors, or in independent Bible study.³²

But these caveats are common in other published psychological surveys, which often include responses from pro-gay advocates.

In 2012, At 79 years old and suffering from worsening Parkinson's symptoms, Spitzer apologized to the gay community for publishing the study,³² saying he had no way of knowing whether his "subject’s reports of change were credible and not self-deception or outright lying,"³⁴  although countless other self-reporting studies are published with the same limitation.⁶  Pro-sexual orientation change groups "continue to cite Spitzer’s study, saying he was subjected to intense political pressure as soon as he released the original study. They also say there is no scientific basis to retract the study."⁷  The journal did not retract Spitzer's research.

Elan Karten study of SOCE

Dr. Elan Y. Karten is an ultra-Orthodox Jewish clinical psychologist in Jerusalem who has written extensively on the topic of sexual orientation change efforts:

For my doctoral dissertation, I looked at the psychological and religious characteristics of dissatisfied same-sex-attracted men who pursue sexual reorientation interventions... I studied 117 adult men who had participated in some form of conversion intervention at least six months prior to participation in the study...

Results indicated that overall there were significant reduction in homosexual feelings and behavior and an increase in heterosexual feelings and behavior.

But I couldn’t get my research published.  The American Psychological Association (APA) wouldn’t touch it, and neither would any respectable journal because to do so would lead to censure and even ostracization by one’s peers in the psychological community. The APA disparages reparative therapy with their cry of ‘no scientific evidence proving the effectiveness of therapy,’ but I point my finger back at them.

Do they even want to know about it? Would they even publish hard data if it bit them in the face? Ultimately the Journal of Men’s Studies published my article in 2010, but even so, it’s hard to trust the mainstream research.⁷

Anonymous Mental Health Professional and SOCE

An anonymous mental health professional interviewed by the Jerusalem post reported in 2013:

I saw many cases in which there were relationship and dependency issues, not sexual issues... Once the women resolved these issues, many or most of them went on to enjoy healthy marriages and satisfying heterosexual sex lives...  But when I tried to bring this point up for discussion, I was shouted down, in complete contrast to the norms of both academic debate and the social work discipline. It was the only time I ever saw someone forcibly silenced.⁷

Kenneth Zucker's Gender Clinic

Kenneth Zucker is a big name in gender studies.  For decades he led the Child Youth and Family Gender Identity Clinic in Toronto, one of the world's most well-known clinics for children and teens with gender dysphoria.  He led the group that wrote the DSM-5's gender dysphoria entry, currently serves as chief editor of the Archives of Sexual Behavior Journal, and is one of the most frequently cited names on gender identity and dysphoria.³⁵ 

Zucker assisted many people transition, even kids, but often took a more cautious approach with his younger patients.  He first had parents encourage kids toward their gender at conception,³⁵ since research shows that childhood gender dysphoria usually resolves on its own.^{36 35}

Transgender activists were upset with Zucker's approach, believing that he should always immediately affirm a child's gender identity.  They labeled his techniques "conversion therapy,"³⁵ a pejorative, blanket term describing any type of attempt to help someone with unwanted same-sex feelings or gender dysphoria.  And "conversion therapy" as a concept is anathema to LGBT activists.  An online petition calling for Zucker's elimination gathered over 2000 signatures.³⁷ In 2015 he was fired and his clinic shutdown.³⁸

In 2017, Zucker was scheduled to speak at a panel for the pro-transgender organization WPATH in Los Angeles.  Transgender protesters interrupted, reading a statement saying the "entire institution of WPATH" was "violently exclusionary" because it "remains grounded in 'cis-normativity and trans exclusion.'"  Zucker was then removed from the list of speakers.³⁸

Lisa Littman and ROGD Teens

In 2018, Lisa Littman conducted a study on what she called "rapid onset gender dysphoria" or ROGD.  Littman is no conservative, describing herself as liberal and pro-LGBT,³⁹ and even claiming "some [kids] may ultimately benefit from transition."⁴⁰  She gathered participants from three left-leaning, pro-LGB websites that caution against transitioning children with gender dysphoria via medicine and surgery,^{41 40 42 43} but also from an 8000 member private Facebook group that encourages child transitioning.⁴⁰  Her survey only included parents who indicated that their child's gender dysphoria began rapidly and after puberty.⁴⁰  256 such parents completed the survey.  Littman found:

Clusters of gender dysphoria outbreaks occurring in pre-existing friend groups with multiple or even all members of a friend group becoming gender dysphoric and transgender-identified in a pattern that seems statistically unlikely based on previous research... This suggests a localized increase to more than 70 times the expected prevalence rate.⁴⁰

Overall, 66.8% of gender dysphoric kids belonged to a friends group where others had already taken a transgender identity.⁴⁰  This finding severely upset transgender groups because it suggests gender dysphoria is at least sometimes a social contagion, rather than having an innate, biological cause.^{8 25}

Due to rising controversy Brown University (Littman’s employer at the time) "retracted its press release about the study."³⁹ They did publish a statement supporting Littman's academic freedom "to conduct her research and publish her work."⁴⁴  But their statement also raised alarm:

The School of Public Health has heard from Brown community members expressing concerns that the conclusions of the study could be used to discredit efforts to support transgender youth and invalidate the perspectives of members of the transgender community.⁴⁴

Littman later lost a consulting job due to local clinicians demanding she be fired.²⁵

The American Civil Liberties Union said Littman's study:

...laundered what had previously been the rantings of online conspiracy theorists and gave it the resemblance of serious scientific study... It is astonishing that such a blatantly bad-faith effort has been taken so seriously.³⁹

In an open letter to Psychology Today, 44 transgender health professionals stated that Littman's study was "widely contested as methodologically flawed and unethical, proceeding from an overt ideological bias."⁴⁵

In response to Littman's research, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the Society of Behavioral Medicine, and dozens of other professional and academic organizations collectively signed a statement denying the existence of rapid onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) because there are "no sound empirical studies of ROGD."  The statement said that even the very concept of ROGD has "significant potential for creating harm."⁴⁶

Unsurprisingly, her research was likewise denounced by the Human Rights Campaign⁴⁷ and the Southern Poverty Law Center.⁴⁸

As noted, Littman's respondents were heavily skewed toward favoring legal recognition of same-sex marriage,⁴⁰ and came from online communities that were pro-homosexual and politically left.  Nevertheless, Littman's critics dismissed her research, claiming she recruited from "explicitly anti-trans or trans-skeptical websites and forums,"³⁹ as three out of four of these communities cautioned against giving hormones, hormone blockers, and surgical amputation to gender dysphoric teenagers, and only one approved.  Littman's paper was forthright and gave excessive details about her recruitment methods, the benefits, the limitations, and noted it's common to use targeted recruiting for research into new phenomenon where the prevalence is unknown.⁴⁰  Critics gave no response to Littman's main thesis of social contagion or the supporting data that gender dysphoria cases were highly clustered among friend groups.

Littman said many clinicians emailed her saying they've also started seeing rapid onset gender dysphoria, with "patient presentations are very different than what they have seen in the past" and thanking her for documenting it.⁸

Suzanna Diaz and J. Michael Bailey and ROGD Teens

In March 2023, Diaz and Bailey reproduced Littman's work on a larger scale.  They conducted a survey of 1,655 parents, recruited from visitors to ParentsofROGDKids.com, a website for parents concerned about their child's rapid onset of gender dysphoria which takes a more conservative approach than Littman's recruiting sources.  The site states "identifying as the opposite gender is NOT normal" and warns about the dangers of the "affirmative approach" and of transitioning, but still suggesting medical intervention as "a last resort."⁴⁹

However, about 93% of surveyed parents were on the political left.⁵⁰  The parents saw various mental illnesses commonly preceded the gender dysphoria by a few years,⁵⁰ and mental health often declined after socially transitioning.  Most controversially, 55.4% of parents said others in their child's friend group became transgender around the same time.  This supports Littman's suggestion of social contagion.⁵⁰

A month later, LGBT researchers attacked the journal where Diaz and Baily published.  They wrote an open letter with 100 signatures, threatening to no longer submit or act as peer reviewers for the Springer journal Archives of Sexual Behavior until editor in chief Kenneth Zucker was replaced with someone with a more pro-LGBT record.²⁵

However, a counter-letter with over 2000 signatures appeared, including well known figures such as psychologist Jonathan Haidt and Stanford health professor Jay Bhattacharya.²⁵

Springer then retracted the paper because the participants "have not provided consent to publish to have their data included in this article."²⁵

Consent for the publication of anonymized data on a public website, it [Springer] alleged, does not equate to consent for that data’s publication in a scholarly peer-reviewed article. But consenting to have one’s data published on a website managed by unskilled volunteers is a much bigger risk than having one’s information managed and published by an academic publisher staffed with dedicated professionals trained in thorough data analyses and human subject protections.²⁵

How is it possible to interpret respondents' consent to their data being published online in such a way that they'd not also be ok with their data being published online in a research journal?

Bailey, one of the study's authors, pointed out many other papers Springer had published where respondents did not provide permission for scholarly, or often any research use,²⁵ with perhaps thousands of other papers not meeting these standards.²⁵

Finally, note that lead author Suzanna Diaz's name is a pseudonym.  Researchers don't normally publish under a pseudonym, but might if they fear discrimination or their own safety.

Ryan T. Anderson's Book

Anderson is a conservative Catholic philosopher well known for being involved in the debate on LGBT issues since the early 2000's, including arguing against the legalization of same-sex marriage.

In 2018 he published the bestselling book When Harry Became Sally, arguing that hormonal and surgical treatments for gender dysphoria cause great harm.  In 2021 Amazon (the largest book retailer in the US⁵¹) removed it from their store, because they "have chosen not to sell books that frame LGBTQ+ identity as a mental illness."⁵¹  While Anderson never says in his book that sexual identities are mental illnesses, he does cite some authors who do, as well as many who don't. 

Surely Anderson must hate the gender dysphoric?  Anderson states in the book's introduction:

I repeatedly acknowledge that gender dysphoria is a serious condition, that people who experience a gender identity conflict should be treated with respect and compassion, and that we need to find more humane and effective ways to help people who find themselves in that situation.⁵²

James Caspain, Transgender Surgery, and the University of Bath.

In 2014, psychologist James Caspian had a conversation with world-leading genital reconstructive surgeon Miroslav Djordjevic, who described being "approached by transgender people from countries all over the Western world, united by an acute sense of regret, who wish to reverse their gender reassignment."⁵³ 

In 2017 Caspain submitted a proposal to Bath Spa university to research detransitioning, but was:

...referred to the university ethics committee, which rejected it over fears of criticism that might be directed towards the university. Not least on social media from the powerful transgender lobby.⁵³

In 2019, Caspian took his case to the Royal Courts of Justice (for England and Wales) "but a judge did not permit him to continue with his bid for judicial review."⁵⁴

By 2021, Caspian has had "a decade of experience specialising in therapy for trans people"⁵⁴ and said "50 people who wanted to reverse their transition had contacted him expressing their regret."⁵⁴  He is now taking his case to the European Court of Human Rights.⁵⁴

Major Untruths

This section documents major untruths that persist in the psychological literature, with activists repressing their correction.

"Millions of U.S. kids grew up with same-sex parents"

For almost four decades, gay studies researchers severely over estimated the number of families with homosexual parents.  The goal was to argue that such a family structure was more commonplace than it really was and therefore same-sex marriage should be legal.¹⁶

1. A 1976 paper published in Buffalo Law Review stated, "recent estimates suggest there are well over 1.5 million lesbian mothers in this country."⁵⁵
2. A 1979 legal paper also cited 1.5 million lesbian mothers.⁵⁶
3. A 1979 article in Psychiatric News estimated 5 to 7 million lesbian mothers.⁵⁷
4. A 1980 legal paper estimated 1.5 million to 5 million children being raised by lesbian mothers in the US.⁵⁸
5. A 1983 legal paper likewise estimated 5 to 7 million children being raised by lesbian mothers.⁵⁹
6. In 1984, USA Today said there were as many as 14 million children being raised by LGBT parents in the USA.⁶⁰
7. A 1987 book by Frederick Bozett, considered at the time to be the leading expert on gay fathers, estimated "roughly 7.5 million children in this country have either a lesbian mother or gay father."⁶¹
8. In 1979, the Editors of the Harvard Law Review 1989 cited “three million gay men and lesbians in the United States” as parents and “between eight and ten million children.”⁶²
9. In 1992, Charlotte J. Patterson estimated 6 to 14 million children raised by gay and lesbian parents in the United States, publishing in the prestigious journal Child Development.⁶³ Patterson is considered "the world’s expert on psychological research on children and youths raised by lesbian and gay parents."⁶⁴ Patterson repeated this estimate in her 1995 book.⁶⁵
10. A 2000 pamphlet from the National Adoption Information Clearinghouse (NAIC) stated, "as of 1990, an estimated 6 to 14 million children have a gay or lesbian parent. And, between 8 and 10 million children are being raised in gay and lesbian households... Based on these increasing numbers, can gay and lesbian individuals be realistically and automatically excluded from consideration as potential adoptive parents?"⁶⁶
11. In 2001, LGBT researchers Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz wrote, "Since 1984, most researchers have statically reproduced numbers, of uncertain origin, depicting a range of from 1 to 5 million lesbian mothers, from 1 to 3 million gay fathers, and from 6 to 14 million children of gay or lesbian parents in the United States." Although they preferred "a range of 1 to 9 million, which implies that somewhere between 1 percent and 12 percent of all (78 million) children ages 19 and under in the United States."⁶⁷
12. A 2002 paper stated there are "approximately ten million children being raised by same-sex parents in the United States," citing an estimate from the American Bar Association.⁶⁸
13. A 2005 paper estimated that same-sex parents had adopted 14 million children.⁶⁹ If we also include non-adopted children, that would put the total number at perhaps double.
14. In 2006, the ACLU stated there are "between one and nine million children being raised by gay parents."⁷⁰
15. A 2006 legal paper stated, "there are between one and nine million gay parents. This number does not include the millions of children raised by one gay parent."⁷¹
16. A 2007 paper says "There are 6-14 million parents in the U.S. who are gay or lesbian."⁷²
17. A 2012 paper stated "the Census Bureau estimates that up to 14 million children under the age of 18 are being raised by lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) families,"⁷³ even though the Census Bureau has no such data.
18. A 2015 philosophy Ph.D dissertation says, "In the USA, there are between 800,000 and 7 million lesbian and gay (LG) parents raising between 1 and 9 million children."⁷⁴
19. Another 2016 paper states, "broad estimates regarding the number of gay and lesbian families indicate the range of children being raised by gay or lesbian parents could be as high as 14 million," citing Patterson's 1995 book mentioned above.⁷⁵
20. In 2017 Angela Ruffini published that "There are at least one million children of same-sex couples in the United States."⁷⁶

The list above is only a sample.  Walter Schumm and his associates catalogued 90 law journal articles and 71 social science/medical journal articles between 1976 and 2015 that estimated the number of kids being raised by same-sex parents at greater than one million.  While only four law articles and 13 social science/medical articles had estimates below one million.²⁷  Schumm noted that the high estimates peaked in the 2000's, "possibly to meet the needs of legal teams arguing in favour of same-sex marriage."¹⁶

These estimates are remarkable given that the total number of US children was less than 63 million in 1984, and since that time has never exceeded 75 million.¹⁶  At the higher end, these researchers were claiming up to 14/63 = 22% of all kids in the United States were being raised by same-sex parents in the '80s and '90s.  Remarkably most of the above papers are published in peer-reviewed social and legal journals that specialize in family studies.  Were the editors and reviewers asleep for forty years?

A much better estimate of number of children living in stable homes with two same sex parents is probably around 200,000 to 400,000,^{16 77} with perhaps 2 to 3.7 million children under 18 having a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender parent.⁷⁷  This means some of the above estimates are 35 to 70 times too high.

If medical, social, and legal journals published such obviously wrong data, and continued to do so over four decades, can they be trusted on facts that are more subtle and hard to check?

"No difference in same-sex families"

Many researchers have made the bizarre, over-the-top claim that there's no difference in wellbeing, at all, for children with same-sex versus opposite-sex parents.  This defies common sense, because numerous other factors (income, education level, religiosity, single mom, single dad, etc.) have great impact on children.  This suggests political motivation rather than honest research. 

For example the American Psychological Association stated in 2005:

Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.¹⁴ 

Likewise the governing body of the American Psychological Association voted unanimously in agreement that:

Research has shown that the adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation.⁷⁸

Shay Bilchik, President of the Child Welfare League of America, stated: 

Not a single reputable study has found that children raised by gay or lesbian parents have been harmed because of their parents’ sexual orientation in any way.⁷⁰

Researchers Leslie Cooper and Paul Cates, writing for the ACLU, stated: 

Not a single study found any adverse effect on children’s development associated with the parents’ sexual orientation... These findings are therefore considered highly reliable by experts in the field. Indeed, they have led to the consensus among the major professional organizations with expertise in children’s health and welfare that children of gay parents are just as healthy and well-adjusted as other children, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, and the Child Welfare League of America.⁷⁰

Among social scientists, whether parental sexual orientation has an impact on children’s adjustment is no longer an open question or a subject of debate. Because a well-developed body of research has answered that question, it is well-settled that children raised by gay parents are just as healthy and well-adjusted as their peers. Indeed, there is consensus among all of the major professional organisations in the social science fields... that being raised by lesbian or gay parents does not adversely affect children’s development in any way.⁷⁰

A 1992 review paper stated:

To date, however, there is no evidence that the development of children with lesbian or gay parents is compromised in any significant respect relative to that among children of heterosexual parents in otherwise compatible circumstances.⁶³

And a 2020 meta analysis of 33 studies claimed:

scholars have achieved a rare degree of consensus that unmarried lesbian parents are raising children who develop at least as well as their counterparts with married heterosexual parents.⁷⁹

But there really is a difference

Contrary to the above statements, Walter Schumm conducted a massive literature review of nearly 400 studies specifically on the topic of children with same-sex parents.  He found:

There are now dozens of studies that appear to refute the "no difference" hypothesis with only a few that do not essentially (in terms of effect sizes, if not statistical significance) refute it.¹⁶

It is not correct scientifically to take a group of highly educated, wealthy, mentally healthy same-sex parents and compare their children to the children of uneducated, poor, mentally ill heterosexual parents and think you have set up a fair comparison.  Yet this sort of comparison has been popular in the scientific literature.¹⁶

I am disappointed that many U.S. courts were misled into accepting as valid research, research that was biased, incomplete, and focused on significance levels rather than effects sizes. Numerous studies whose results would have been inconvenient for the ‘no difference’ hypothesis were overlooked or ignored. Research on same-sex parenting has often been cited because it came to the politically correct conclusions, not because it was of the highest quality. ¹⁶

And also (as mentioned above):

It is remarkable that one could find 90% of over 70 literature reviews having drawn incorrect conclusions about some aspects of same-sex parenting.¹⁶

Likewise Loren Marks responded to the APA's 2005 statement above, noting:

[T]he 2005 APA Brief on "Lesbian and Gay Parenting" has been repeatedly invoked in the current same-sex marriage debate...

26 of 59 APA studies on same-sex parenting had no heterosexual comparison groups.  In comparison studies, single mothers were often used as the hetero comparison group.  No comparison study had the statistical power required to detect a small effect size...

Differences have recurred in connection with myriad issues of societal-level concern including: (a) health, mortality, and suicide risks, (b) drug and alcohol abuse, (c) criminality and incarceration, (d) intergenerational poverty, (e) education and/or labor force contribution, (f) early sexual activity and early childbearing, and (g) divorce rates as adults.¹⁴

Mark Regnerus likewise reported on biased sampling:

Concern has arisen, however, about the methodological quality of many studies focusing on same-sex parents. In particular, most are based on non-random, non-representative data often employing small samples that do not allow for generalization to the larger population of gay and lesbian families.¹⁵

Study participants were often recruited from gay rights organizations:

Further, as Nock (2001) entreated, consider the convenience sample recruited from within organizations devoted to seeking rights for gays and lesbians, like the NLLFS [National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study] sampling strategy.  Suppose, for example, that the respondents have higher levels of education than comparable lesbians who do not frequent such events or bookstores, or who live elsewhere... To compound the problem, results from nonprobability samples—from which meaningful statistics cannot be generated—are regularly compared with population-level samples of heterosexual parents, which no doubt are comprised of a blend of higher and lower quality parents.

...Until now, this has been a primary way in which scholars have collected and evaluated data on same-sex parents.¹⁵

Rosenfeld's 2014 "No Difference" study

One often-cited example of the "no difference" thesis is Michael Rosenfeld report in the Journal of Marriage and Family, where he used national survey data to compare married heterosexual couples to homosexual couples who were either legally married or considered themselves to be in a marriage-like relationship.  Rosenfeld reported:

The break-up rate for same-sex couples was comparable to (and not statistically distinguishable from) the break-up rate for heterosexual couples.⁸⁰

But limitations abound:

1. The survey he used had only a 13% response rate.⁸⁰ The U.S. Census gets a response rate of about 75% by mail and most researchers aim for a 50% response rate or better.^{16 81}
2. The survey had an unusually high response rate from same-sex couples, which made up 16% of the total respondents,⁸⁰ even though same-sex couples only make up about 1%⁸² of all couples in 2014. Why are same-sex couples responding 16 times more often than opposite-sex couples? Is it only stable same-sex couples responding at that rate, or all same-sex couples? We don't know.
3. Rosenfeld didn't mention that "hundreds of his 2,538 'heterosexual' couples were in fact mixed-orientation couples in which at least one partner was gay, bisexual, or lesbian." This would certainly decrease stability in that group when compared to homosexual couples.¹¹
4. 96 couples who had a partner die over the first four years of the study were still reported as stable.¹⁶
5. The sample size was too small to measure the stability of same-sex parents, as only four of the married same-sex couples had kids, and one of those (25%) broke up during the four year study, compared to only 8% of the heterosexual couples.¹⁶

Rosenfeld's Accolades

Despite these limitations, the American Psychological Association cited this study in the famous 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court trial that made same sex marriage legal in the United States, claiming:

Break-up rates were not significantly different between heterosexual and same-sex couples in marriages or marriage-like relationships.⁸³

As of December 2023, The Wiley Online Library reports Rosenberg's research has been cited by 93 other papers⁸⁰ which often don't mention the severe limitations of the research.  Some examples:

1. "Rosenfeld (2014) finds that in terms of stability, same-sex and different-sex married couples are statistically indistinguishable once union status is controlled for."⁸⁴
2. "The relative stability of same-sex and different-sex partnerships is an important issue... Rosenfeld (2014) found no difference in the United States."⁸⁵

"Sexual Orientation Change Efforts Don't Work and are Harmful"

The American Medical Association said in 2022 that there's consensus that sexual orientation and gender identity can't be changed:

Underlying these [sexual orientation change therapy] techniques is the assumption that any non-heterosexual, non-cisgender identities are mental disorders, and that sexual orientation and gender identity can and should be changed.  This assumption is not based on medical and scientific evidence... All leading professional medical and mental health associations reject “conversion therapy” as a legitimate medical treatment.⁸⁶

Likewise, The American Psychoanalytic Association said in 2012:

Psychoanalytic technique does not encompass purposeful attempts to "convert," "repair," change or shift an individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. Such directed efforts are against fundamental principles of psychoanalytic treatment and often result in substantial psychological pain by reinforcing damaging internalized attitudes.⁸⁸

The Human Rights Campaign, an LGBT activist group, maintains a page⁸⁹ with similar statements of ineffectiveness and psychological harm from many large medical groups, including the above plus:

• American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• American Academy of Pediatrics
• American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy
• American College of Physicians
• American Counseling Association
• American Psychiatric Association
• American Psychological Association
• American School Counselor Association
• American School Health Association
• National Association of Social Workers
• Pan American Health Organization: Regional Office of the World Health Organization.

Although only some of the above statements also include gender identity change efforts.

As of February 2024, the Wikipedia article on "Conversion Therapy" describes it as fraud, child abuse, and torture:

There is a scientific consensus that conversion therapy is ineffective at changing a person's sexual orientation or gender identity and that it frequently causes significant long-term psychological harm... When performed today, conversion therapy may constitute fraud and when performed on minors, a form of child abuse; it has been described by experts as torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, and contrary to human rights.⁹⁰

There's consensus, apparently.  In 2020, Jack Turban, an assistant professor of child and adolescent psychiatry conducted a large study that he claimed showed sexual orientation change efforts are linked to "dramatically higher odds of a range of poor mental health outcomes."⁹¹

Sexual Orientation Change

But none of that's true.  Sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts are often beneficial and effective for those who desire change.  Many studies showing failure and harm recruit directly from pro-LGBT communities,¹⁷ which by nature exclude anyone who benefited from therapy.  Otherwise they'd no longer identify with LGBT communities.  Such researchers may as well have surveyed the local BBQ restaurant customers about how well vegetarianism is working for them.

Many surveys have found significant change in sexual orientation, when patients are motivated to change and the therapy is well designed:

1. In 1962, Irving Bieber and 9 colleagues started with 72 exclusively homosexual men. After therapy, 14 (19%) were exclusively heterosexual and 14 (19%) were bisexual in behavior, although they didn't measure attraction.³³
2. In 1978, Charles Socarides reported that 20 of his 45 patients (44%) came to have "full heterosexual functioning," although this term wasn't defined.³³
3. Former APA president Nicholas Cummings (discussed above) reported having a "relatively high" rate of success in changing the orientation of motivated San Francisco clients in the the '60s and '70s.⁹²
4. In 2003, Robert Spitzer (mentioned above) only interviewed men and women who reported at least a 10% change in sexual orientation after SOCE therapy. But many experienced drastic change: "46% of the males and 42% of the females reported exclusively same sex attraction" before therapy, and after therapy, "17% of the males and... 54% of the females, reported exclusively opposite sex attraction."³³
5. Karten and Wade 2010 surveyed participants found through SOCE therapists and ex-gay ministries. They saw homosexual feelings/behavior decrease from 18.93 to 12.21⁹³ on a scale from 5 to 30⁹³ and heterosexual feelings/behavior increase from 8.45 to 13.13⁹³ on a scale from 5 to 25.⁹³ Along with improvements in their self-esteem, social functioning, depression, self-harm, and suicidality.⁹³
6. Jones and Yarhouse 2011 found 98 men and women who had sought out SOCE through Christian ex-gay ministries and followed them for six+ years. 23% of participants self-assessed themselves as successfully no longer gay, while 30% found success in chastity.⁹⁴
7. Santero, Whitehead, and Ballesteros 2018 repeated the methodology of Jones and Yarhouse 2011 with a different group and found 68% of participants reported having "some to much" reduction in same-sex attraction/behavior along with increases for opposite-sex attraction/behavior.⁹⁵ Suspiciously, their paper was later retracted due to a debate about their use of a statistical test that doesn't affect their results.²²
8. In 2021, Paul Sullins analyzed the same data as Santero et al. 2018 and found similar results: "45% to 69% of SOCE participants achieved at least partial remission of unwanted same-sex sexuality; full remission was achieved by 14% for sexual attraction and identification, and 26% for sexual behavior."⁹⁶
9. In 2020, John Blosnich et al. published a study saying that SOCE patients who failed to change orientation had "nearly twice the odds of lifetime suicidal ideation."⁹⁷ But Blosnich didn't test whether suicidality happened before or after SOCE. In 2022, Paul Sullins analyzed Blosnich's data and found suicidality usually occurred before SOCE. In patients where SOCE failed to change orientation, they were still "about five times less likely to currently attempt suicide" than people of similar demographics and stress experiences who had never had SOCE.¹⁷

Gender Identity Change

1. Sexual behavior scientist James Cantor reviewed 11 published studies on gender dysphoria desistence rates in kids, published between 1972 to 2013. He concluded, "roughly 60–90% of trans kids turn out no longer to be trans by adulthood."³⁶
2. Two of the studies in Cantor's list above involved patients from Dr. Zucker's famous Toronto clinic who had received treatment for gender dysphoria (Drummond et al 2008 and Singh 2012). Among those, only 12% of girls and 13.3% of boys grew up to take a transgender identity.⁹⁸
3. However, children who are encouraged to persist in gender dysphoria typically do. In a 2011 Dutch study, all 70 kids who began puberty blocking drugs began cross-sex hormones an average of 1.88 years later.⁹⁹ Some think this happens because the minds of children are especially malleable.^{100 101}

Studies of sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts will be covered in greater detail in upcoming articles.

Sam Brinton's Fabricated "Conversion Therapy" Torture

In 2018 Sam Brinton (yes, that Sam Brinton¹⁰²) wrote an op-ed for The New York Times describing the horrors of conversion therapy that he had apparently experienced:

For over two years, I sat on a couch and endured emotionally painful sessions with a counselor. I was told that my faith community rejected my sexuality; that I was the abomination we had heard about in Sunday school; that I was the only gay person in the world; that it was inevitable I would get H.I.V. and AIDS.

But it didn’t stop with these hurtful talk-therapy sessions. The therapist ordered me bound to a table to have ice, heat and electricity applied to my body. I was forced to watch clips on a television of gay men holding hands, hugging and having sex. I was supposed to associate those images with the pain I was feeling to once and for all turn into a straight boy. In the end it didn’t work.²⁸

Brinton then goes on to say "Nearly 700,000 adults in the country have received conversion therapy at some point," and pleads for it to be banned in every state.²⁸  In a bait-and-switch, U.S. states are enacting legislation to ban licensed therapists from giving talk therapy for children and teens with unwanted same-sex attraction who desire to change.

Brinton went on to be appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office of Nuclear Energy by the Biden administration, but was then replaced after being arrested for multiple incidences of wearing women's clothing stolen from luggage at airports.  He lied to police, claiming "it was an accident."¹⁰²

In 2022, pro-LGBT journalist Wayne Besen questioned Brinton's "conversion therapy" story, noting:

1. The timeline of Brinton's story "periodically changes depending on the media interview," as well as the state.
2. Brinton refused to answer questions to help identify the center or the therapist responsible, being "the only survivor spokesperson who could not recall the name of their therapist."
3. Brinton's mother denies it ever happened.
4. Brinton at first said it was "religious therapist and not a doctor" but later said it was a "psychotherapist" after he began campaigning to ban licensed "conversion therapy."²⁹

Among other inconsistencies.  As of March 2024, Brinton's horrific account is still accessible in The New York Times, as well as NBC News, The Guardian, Time Magazine, USA Today, The Huffington Post, and many other major news outlets.

As of 2022, Brinton says his campaign, #50Bills50States, through the Trevor Project has "passed more than 20 laws ending "conversion therapy," protecting future generations from ever having to go through what I went through."¹⁰³  This is despite the fact that modern sexual orientation change efforts have nothing in common with what Brinton described, and any of its practitioners would be horrified by what he describes.  One has to wonder how much these lies have contributed to the widespread negative perception of sexual orientation change efforts.

"No studies show harm of gender transition"

In 2023, Stephen R. Hammes, president of the Endocrine Society wrote in The Wall Street Journal:

More than 2,000 studies published since 1975 form a clear picture:  gender-affirming care improves the well-being of transgender and gender-diverse people and reduces the risk of suicide.³¹

Back in 2017, Cornell University likewise said a systematic review of all recent studies showed no harm:

We conducted a systematic literature review of all peer-reviewed articles published in English between 1991 and June 2017 that assess the effect of gender transition on transgender well-being. We identified 55 studies that consist of primary research on this topic, of which 51 (93%) found that gender transition improves the overall well-being of transgender people, while 4 (7%) report mixed or null findings. We found no studies concluding that gender transition causes overall harm.¹⁰⁴

For unknown reasons they excluded a larger and randomly sampled 2011 Swedish study that found those who had undergone transgender surgeries had:

1. 2.8x higher mortality rate
2. 19.1x higher rates of death from suicide
3. 4.9x higher suicide attempts
4. 2.8x higher rates of psychiatric inpatient care.¹⁰⁵

The negative outcomes began to really emerge at 10 years post-surgery and beyond.¹⁰⁶ Many will say LGBT suicide rates are higher only because people discriminate against them.  But this study was in Sweden, one of the most LGBT-affirming countries in the world. 

Oddly, Cornell University cites several other papers by the same authors, but why not this one?  It's certainly not an obscure study, as it was cited by the United States Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in 2016.¹⁰⁶

Likewise, Hammes claim was disputed in a follow-up WSJ op-ed by 21 medical professionals in 9 countries:

Dr. Hammes’s claim that gender transition reduces suicides is contradicted by every systematic review, including the review published by the Endocrine Society... There is no reliable evidence to suggest that hormonal transition is an effective suicide-prevention measure.¹²

Conclusion

This article could have been much longer.  It will likely still grow as time allows.  But the current extent of bias is enough to make anyone trust favorable LGBT studies research about as much as we trust favorable asbestos,³ sugar,¹ or tobacco² industry documents.

Articles about the medical science surrounding homosexuality and transgenderism are forthcoming, including a detailed look at many of the studies discussed here, and their critics.

Sources