APA revises ‘gay gene’ theory
Written by: Chris Stump | May 21st, 2009The APA (American Psychiatric Association) has recently changed their stance on homosexuality. This article was posted on :
The attempt to prove that homosexuality is determined biologically has been dealt a knockout punch. An American Psychological Association publication includes an admission that there’s no homosexual “gene” — meaning it’s not likely that homosexuals are born that way.
For decades, the APA has not considered homosexuality a psychological disorder, while other professionals in the field consider it to be a “gender-identity” problem. But the new statement, which appears in a brochure called “Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality,” states the following:
“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles….”
That contrasts with the APA’s statement in 1998: “There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.”
With this admission that their former stance was wrong, will the APA respond differently to the stories of many people who have found freedom from a homosexual identity? Hopefully this will be an open door for dialogue and respectful conversation on this topic. The APA’s stance, whether it be embracing the gay gene theory or offering the possibility of change from a homosexual identity, has no bearing on my own beliefs. No institution can discredit the fact that God has done a significant change in me. He is the bearer of change in my life. But, this is a great step in perhaps reducing the discrediting and judgmental attitudes many in the psychiatric world have against organizations such as Exodus.
It’s good to see the APA admitting the truth of our experiences.
9 Responses to “APA revises ‘gay gene’ theory”
Leave a Reply
You must be to post a comment.
May 22nd, 2009 at 6:42 am
woohoo!
June 20th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Taken directly from the American Psychological Association’s main webpage on sexual orientation, which is set up in a Q&A format:
"What about therapy intended to change sexual orientation from gay to straight?
All major national mental health organizations have officially expressed concerns about therapies promoted to modify sexual orientation. To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective. Furthermore, it seems likely that the promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes and contributes to a negative climate for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. This appears to be especially likely for lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals who grow up in more conservative religious settings.
Helpful responses of a therapist treating an individual who is troubled about her or his samesex attractions include helping that person actively cope with social prejudices against homosexuality, successfully resolve issues associated with and resulting from internal conflicts, and actively lead a happy and satisfying life. Mental health professional organizations call on their members to respect a person’s (client’s) right to selfdetermination; be sensitive to the client’s race, culture, ethnicity, age, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, socioeconomic status, language, and disability status when working with that client; and eliminate biases based on these factors."
June 22nd, 2009 at 4:23 pm
thank you for your response.
You’re right, the APA’s website does say that. Thank you for pointing that out. But this can be taken with a grain of salt because issues regarding sexuality are typically handled by a group with a very specific goal in mind. There have been reports of mental health professionals who have sought to be on committees dealing with sexual orientation but have been turned away because of their belief that homosexuality is either detrimental to the client or that it can be changed. But lets briefly review some of the claims made:
1) there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective:
There have been various studies in the past hundred years that would suggest that sexual orientation can be changed with highly motivated clients. The first which comes to mind is the famous Spitzer study (2001) which concluded that sexual orientation can change. Mind you he did not set out to prove how orientation can change or whether change is possible for everyone, rather he sought out whether claims of change can be authentic. It should also be noted that Spitzer was one of the clinicians to remove homosexuality from the DSM in 1973.
Another study is the recently published study by Lisa Diamond, who reports in Sexual Fluidity: Understanding the Nature of Women’s Love and Desire that many of her subjects in the study experienced fluidity in their sexuality and some who identified as lesbian or bisexual found themselves in relationships with men. (Anne Heche anyone?)
Most compelling for me are the anectodes in the medical record which detail spontaneous change of sexual orientation. in 1976 J.L. Fluker writing in the British Journal of Venerial Diseases recounts that a man he was treating for an STD (not for homosexuality) found himself happily married to a woman and no longer experiencing any homosexual tendancies. Also R.A. Shecter writing in the 1992 edition of the International Forum on Psychoanalysis writes about a man she was treating with psycho-analysis who spontaneously left his male lover and was seeing a woman. Suprised, the man is recorded as asking “Can someone like me suddenly be a heterosexual?” or british comedian Jackie Clune who’s article My Crime Against The Lesbian State was published in England’s The Guardian. In it she details her 12 year lesbian experience and her spontaneous reorientation.
2) Helpful responses of a therapist treating an individual who is troubled about her or his samesex attractions include helping that person actively cope with social prejudices against homosexuality, successfully resolve issues associated with and resulting from internal conflicts, and actively lead a happy and satisfying life. Mental health professional organizations call on their members to respect a person’s (client’s) right to selfdetermination; be sensitive to the client’s race, culture, ethnicity, age, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, socioeconomic status, language, and disability status when working with that client; and eliminate biases based on these factors:
This one is important as it is one of the basic ethics in the mental health community. By that I mean the belief in the clients right to self determination. The above statement that people with unwanted same sex attraction should be helped to just accept it and deal with social stigma is actually contradictory to the principle of a client’s self determination. To tell someone who doesn’t want to be gay that they must accept it and live a lifestyle they want no part in is not empowering. Rather the clinician should see what the goal of the client is in therapy and help them reach that goal.
Some people may need help to deal with social stigma related to homosexuality. Some may not actually struggle with their sexuality so much as with the bigotry around them. In this case, it may be helpful to pursue that course of action. But to tell a person of faith their beliefs are wrong, that then need to accept homosexuality and live a gay lifestyle is called incongruence. It means the client is living in a manner that is incongruent with his world view or set of values.
By the way, I like your name. This site isn’t about demonizing anyone whether gay or straight. Its about being able to love the individual. We love our gay friends, and more than anything understand what it means to be gay/lesbian in this world since many of us come from the same back grounds. however, some of us didn’t want to be gay anymore, and wanted something more. Some of us were told we needed to just accept homosexuality and give up all hopes of anything else. Some of us have been ridiculed for saying we have experienced change. and so it is in this vacume that organizations like Exodus and this website directed particularly at youth was created. We want to encourage those who struggle with unwanted same gender attractions and let them know there is hope. That is why we promote news stories like these, which conclude that there is no “gay gene” because many have been mislead to believe that they were born gay and that there is nothing they can do about it… but the truth is, people aren’t born gay and freedom is possible, if you want it.
June 30th, 2009 at 12:29 am
The simple reason for (excuse me for the stereotypical names) gay, bi, or lesbian people is sin. That’s the reason we’re tempted with what we are. It’s Satan’s way of trying to get us to give in to the weight this world is putting on us.
Proverbs 3:5,6 – "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me."
Never give in. Call on Christ to work with you and to stand by your side. The times when you give in, just get up and keep going; don’t stay down. Ask for God’s forgiveness and keep fighting the good fight.
August 6th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
I disagree with your interpretation of the APA study.
Though one may certainly say that homosexuality is not determined genetically, that’s entirely different from saying that "homosexuals are not born that way," as the quoted article alleges.
For instance, I like vanilla ice cream more than chocolate ice cream. I’ve always been that way, forever, since I was a toddler, but there is no "I enjoy vanilla more than chocolate" gene. In other words, the fact that I prefer vanilla over chocolate is not caused by my particular genetics. However, it is a part of me in a real, inexplicable way.
Furthermore, your case relies on the idea that heterosexuality is genetically "normal," and that homosexuality is aberrant. That’s not necessarily true. Just as we have not found a "homosexuality gene," we have also not discovered a "heterosexuality gene."
In other words, an immense number of seemingly insignificant factors can contribute to the sexual preference of an individual. Also, the APA study that was quoted above concerns itself mostly with the fact that programs to "turn gay people straight" do more harm than good. Read the report for yourself.
September 9th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
I pretty much concur with Nitta, except for the heterosexuality is
genetically normal part. It has to be normal. If homosexuality was
normal, then how would we reproduce…it’s an abnormality. That
being said, just because someone isn’t born gay does not mean they
can change. You can be born with blonde hair, but it can change to
brown over time…you can’t really change it back naturally. Why
does Nitta’s response go unanswered? You had to read it when seeing
if it was acceptable, so why did she not receive a reply? Like she
said, APA strongly denounces programs like exodus. Do you honestly
think that the APA wants people to live in misery??…Like I said
in part of my other reply (which you forgot to reply to) people are
blind, have cancer, and are crippled. Some are born that way,
others are not. Just because they’re not “born that way” does not
mean they can change their abnormalities…so why is homosexuality
any different? You don’t have to deceive yourself into thinking
you’re straight to try and fit people’s beliefs. God knows your
heart and whether you’re lying or not..
September 10th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Nitta,
I love vanilla ice cream too! actually, not a big fan of chocolate at all. Your argument that because there is no genetic causation, it does not cease to be a real part of someone is a very good argument. You use the example of ice cream, which I like very much. lets use this example to make the illustration clearer.
as you mentioned, you like vanilla. we can both agree that there is no “I like vanilla more than chocolate” gene, but can we agree that you had to be exposed to vanilla before you liked it? what if all of a sudden, over the course of time, you started to associate vanilla with something negative, would you still enjoy vanilla? what if you developed an allergy to vanilla bean, and every time you ate it, you broke out in a rash… would you still like vanilla then?
we as humans do things for reasons. My favorite color is green, it reminds me of grass. I loved playing in the yard durring recess as a little boy, I still associate the color green with the smell of fresh cut grass. my favorite flavor of ice cream is vanilla, I remember thinking it was snow (because I lived in MIami and had never seen snow before… and some kid told me vanilla ice cream was snow). we do things for reasons. of course, sexuality is much more complicated than what color you like or what flavor ice cream you prefer.
to say there is a developmental reason why people prefer members of the same sex rather than the oppisite sex is not a dismissal of the person. Same gender attractions are as you say a very real part of the person. That does not mean that people are without a doubt “stuck” in any given sexuality. I cannot stress enough that the message of “change is possible” is a message of empowerment. It is a message that we all have a right to live and be who we want to be. We are not victims of a genetic roll of the dice as some would argue, but are completely in control of our own lives.
as for you, Looking4help411,
your argument seems to mixing up apples and oranges. Being blind is typically a problem with the optic nerve, being crippled could be a variety of nerve or muscle issues and cancer is well… cancer the change in hair color too has to do with melanin. We often tend to compare two different things simply because they provide a case for our argument on one single point… but they fall apart elsewhere. analogies are important.
a better comparison to be made is not between homosexuality and cancer (as if homosexuality is a disease!) but rather between homosexuality and any other complex behavioral trait. Homosexuality is not at all like being crippled (which can be the result of falling off a ladder) but is a complex trait that is developed through our environment and our interaction with it.
the mistake we make is to think that because we advocate the idea that change is possible, we therefor advocate that change is mandatory. as I’ve said over and over again, change is possible for those who want it. if you do not want it, then dont go for it. but for me at least, it goes to the fundamental belief that I have a right to live the life I want, not be trapped in a life I am unhappy with.
September 10th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Nitta thanks for your comment. Many people have held on to the notion that homosexuality is genetic to disprove the idea that someone can’t change. However, what this report states is that many factors contribute to someone’s orientation. For me, lack of attention and affection from my father, unhealthy involvement with my mother, and lack of friendships with other males contributed to my homosexual feelings. But, through the years of working through hurts and woundings of my past, I have experienced an “orientation shift”, if you will. By building friendships with healthy males, I was able to become affirmed in the masculinity I wasn’t affirmed in in early childhood.
Your example of liking vanilla ice cream more than chocolate doesn’t really disprove the idea of people walking away from homosexuality. For instance, using the comparison to food as you did, I used to absolutely hate Chinese food. Any of it made me nauseous. But over the years my tastes have changed, and now I love Chinese food. So if you are using your tastes for different flavors, then that seems to support the idea of someone shifting in their characteristics, likes and dislikes over time. Comparing your like in vanilla ice cream over chocolate ice cream is not an accurate or fair comparison to homosexuality vs. heterosexuality. I don’t think certain conditions or contributing factors in your childhood made you or any of us susceptible to liking one flavor of ice cream over another. But, what the APA report states is that many factors including hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences are factors. These do not have an impact on whether you like vanilla or chocolate ice cream. Many people grow up having low self-esteem…that doesn’t mean they can’t change it. It’s by working through those social, cultural, developmental factors that one can find confidence in themselves. So comparing ice cream to homosexuality is not quite fair. Because they are two totally different things.
We are not championing the cause of heterosexuality in this article either. We hope to be able to dialogue more in regards to homosexuality and seeing walls torn down over this divisive issue. By pushing to the side the idea of a gay gene, this offers more opportunity for the APA to look at thousands of people, myself included, who are happily living beyond a gay identity.
September 1st, 2010 at 10:52 am
Can I regress a little bit? I am curious what do Catholic priests
say about this. Especially when the developmental factor is laid on
the table. I have no problem getting how these other ingredients–
social, cultural, and hormonal–play in the making of a homosexual
person. However, developmental? I grow up in a country where
priests are every where. And based on my biases 80% of them are
obviously ‘gay’. And, if developmental has to do with ones
relationship to his father, does that mean that most priests are
once in their lives been subject to ill treatment by their father?
I am just curious.