 |
| Family Research Council fake analyst Peter Sprigg |
But FRC pegs him as an expert in LGBTQ issues and as such, he has published many papers and studies on the community. Never mind that they are generally piss-poor and misleading. Sprigg just came out with another one in the same vein on the heels of the disastrous ruling I talked about yesterday regarding 'ex-gay' therapy and minors. He summarizes it as such:
Sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE), referred to by critics as "conversion therapy," have been criticized by LGBT activists for decades. Nevertheless, individuals with unwanted same-sex attractions (SSA) continue to seek help in reducing homosexual conduct and SSA. In 2012, California became the first state to prohibit SOCE for minors by licensed mental health providers, and a number of states and localities have since imposed similar restrictions.Critics use two arguments against SOCE -- that such therapy is ineffective, and that it is harmful. This paper addresses the latter argument, evaluating the scientific evidence of SOCE harms. A recent book noted 79 studies of SOCE. I found that 18 of the 79 studies (23 percent) do not contain any assertion or even discussion of the possibility of "harm" to individual clients resulting from SOCE. Another 28, or 35 percent, do assert or suggest that SOCE may be harmful, but feature no study subjects.Only a minority of the sources (33, or 42 percent) include studies or case reports on individuals who have undertaken SOCE. Only six studies (reported on in 11 of the sources) involved sample sizes of 50 or more SOCE clients.
If you want to analyze Sprigg's nonsense, feel free. I chose not to for two reasons. The first is that Sprigg contradicts the premise of his paper in his own summary:
While these 79 studies do provide anecdotal evidence that some SOCE clients report the experience was harmful, they do not provide scientific proof that SOCE is more harmful than other forms of therapy, more harmful than other courses of action for those with SSA, or more likely to be harmful than helpful for the average client. If alleged "critical health risks" of SOCE cannot be found in these 79 studies, then it is safe to conclude that they cannot be found anywhere.
The claim that the evidence is "anecdotal" seems to be Sprigg's addition, i.e. the religious right tactics I pointed out yesterday - cherry-picking scientific data and minimizing other scientific data which contradicts their desired conclusions.
The second reason why I refused to analyze Sprigg's silly paper is because the book he claimed to have received the studies from was published by an ex-gay activist. That raises a serious question of credibility.
So in other words, Sprigg claims to have analyzed 79 studies used in a book by an ex-gay activist and from this analyzation, he further claims that "ex-gay" therapy isn't more harmful than any other type of therapy. That is except for, as he put it, "anecdotal evidence." But Sprigg fails to provide a definition of what he considers "anecdotal evidence."
That would be a good question to ask him. Another good question would be why did he choose that book while ignoring statement after statement after statement from legitimate medical groups and experts about the harm of "ex-gay" therapy?
Or how about the statement from several former "ex-gay" leaders who came together to condemn the practice and say it doesn't work?
Or how about the testimony of people who survived "ex-gay" therapy?
Or are the answers to these questions that obvious?
