Conversation with Chandler Burr and Daryl Bem--Part 2

[continuation of a conversation with Chandler Burr and Daryl Bem] 

Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 01:10:07 -0500  
To: policy@Bridges-Across.Org (Policy List at Bridges-Across)  
From: Maggie Heineman <maggie@CritPath.Org>  
Subject: Chandler & Daryl & Maggie & Steve & Dean & Richard 
X-WebSite: http://www.bridges-across.org/ba/policy_info.htm 

[by this time Chandler had added Hamer, and the editor of the Advocate to the distribution. The conversation was winding down, so I stirred the pot.] 

From: Maggie Heineman <maggie@CritPath.Org> 

At 01:30 PM 7/23/97 -0400, Daryl J. Bem wrote: 
I agree. On issue after issue, polling data show that about 20% of Americans end up on one extreme end of the debate (e.g., prochoice) and another 20% on the other (e.g., prolife), with the remaining 60% in between, forming a silent majority that rarely participates in the public debate. It is this 60% who are the most susceptible to persuasion based on data and reason--and, even more, on changing social norms. 

 Gee, this thread seems in danger of coming to an amicable close. :-) 

I was interested in what Chandler said about Daryl being politically motivated to put forth the ebe theory. I hadn't thought of the possibility that I am drawn to it for political reasons. I've always detested the line that I often hear in pflag support groups: "of course it's not a choice, who would choose to be gay?" 

Certainly bisexuals exercise a great deal of choice. Since there are Advocate people here, let me commend you on the June 24 cover story "Beyond Bi" and in particular the closing sentence which used the word "truth." I am quite troubled by any suggestion that a particular explanation should be embraced for political reasons. Hello, is this propaganda or science? 

The "Beyond Bi" article was interesting because fludity does go beyond our ordinary understanding of bisexuality (although not beyond the Klein Scale publication by the East Coast Bisexual Network). 

As you know, Chandler, I have friends who are ex-gay. Having recently returned from the Exodus conference in Wilmore I now have met many who have experienced fluidity. (Advocate folks, I'm Maggie Heineman who attended the PFOX conference in March-- I was quoted in the June 6 issue in your story about PFOX.) 

The typical response to ex-gays is either "you were always bisexual" or "you are in denial." Such arguments are circular because they have already defined orientation as fixed. Personally I think that the multi-variant model described in Chapter 7 of Schmidt's _Straight and Narrow_ makes a lot of sense, and individuals vary in how these factors have influenced them. Being a "struggler" with weight control I can relate to the Schmidt model personally. A little genetics, too many fat cells in infancy, cultural influences, the access to food, a choice concerning behavior, major yoyo-ing issues, decisions about what is important to me and would I be happier or better off as a thin person, and the possibility that long-term behavioral changes will influence the desire to overeat. 

I have talked to many people who have made the choice to leave homosexual behavior and identity behind and one theme is that after many years of having only homosexual attractions, they were "surprised" by heterosexual attraction when it occured. I find the "ex-gay" experiences fascinating and I'm surprised by the degree of fluidity which occurs among men. It surprises me not at all among women. 

I have not yet received my copy of Nicolosi's new study, I've called for it. Have any of you read it? The summary is at http://www.narth.com/docs/study.html and the phone number is on that site. The study is by far the largest survey ever done on people coming out of homosexuality (860 "strugglers" and over 200 therapists). 

Exgays do not say that it is a choice. They say that they were not born gay and that they did not choose it, but that developmental factors established their same-gender-attractions at an early age. They will also agree that those with other innate tendencies (aggressive rather than sensitive) would respond differently to the childhood situations which they believe impacted their lives. (criminals seem to have a high incidence of abuse in their chidlhoods just as the ex-gays do). 

I haven't seen the Nicolosi data yet, but I think that we are foolish if we refuse to look at the data because of the source. The men and women who participated in the survey were strongly motivated to leave homosexuality, but that doesn't mean that they are liars. Just they opposite, I have found that if you ask ex-gays about the process of change, the nature of that change, their fantasies etc. they are quite open and honest about their life experiences. 

My .sig has the url for the bridges-across website. You will see in the journeys section that Gene Chase, the webmaster for Exodus, participates in the dialogue. The cofounder, with me, of the website is Steve Calverley who is also a volunteer in an exodus ministry. 

Maggie 

 [and at about the same time] 

From: Chanburr@aol.com  

Daryl-- You wrote: I do think that the presence of likable gay/lesbian people in the mass media and personal contacts with friends and relatives who come out are still the major persuaders. 

I *completely agree!! 1,000%! And we're on the same track with the other stuff. I do believe that the biology will lead in *most Americans (not all) not to the Catholic position but to actual-- sometimes grudging, sometimes relieved (!)-- acceptance. 

Chandler 

From: Chanburr@aol.com  

Maggie--  

As you can see, Daryl and I have basically come to that dreaded amicable close.  

And I can go one further. While it is quite clear to me that the solid empirical data demonstrate that sexual orientation is essentially fixed in men and mostly fixed in women (details in my book, Chapters 1 and first half of 7), I would NOT be surprised at Nicolosi's finding that homosexuals can become heterosexual IF-- crucial if-- their homosexuality is a result of childhood sexual abuse. (Indeed there are many aspects of sexuality that are mutated by such abuse.) But understand what this means: It means these people are not and were not homosexuals. They were heterosexuals who sustained physchic trauma that altered their perceptions and emotions, their psyche, just as physical trauma at a young age (including during gestation) can have a dramatic development on cell tissue and alter the physique. So for them, it is only biologically natural that, given help, their natural heterosexual orientations would manifest themselves.  

But this is my question: Is Nicolosi talking about people who suffered sexual abuse, oris he talking about homosexuals like me who did not and who have never had the slightest doubt or wavering as to their homosexual orientation?  

Chandler Burr  

Maggie Heineman writes:  
Gee, this thread seems in danger of coming to an amicable close. :-)  

 Maggie, I really plan on sitting down with Daryl come September, and am really too busy to keep the thread open before that. When I get the paper copy of Daryl's paper, I'm going to lay it alongside Moberly's ("reparative therapy") theory. I suspect that there are more similarities than either Moberly or Bem would think until that comparison is more tightly drawn, even though they come out very differently as to conclusions.  

 He's invited; I'm going to bring such a comparison with me when I get to it.  

 --Gene  

From: Maggie Heineman <maggie@CritPath.Org> 
 
At 11:03 AM 7/25/97 -0400, Chanburr@aol.com wrote:  
Maggie--  As you can see, Daryl and I have basically come to that dreaded amicable close.  And I can go one further. While it is quite clear to me that the solid empirical data demonstrate that sexual orientation is essentially fixed in men and mostly fixed in women (details in my book, Chapters 1 and first half of 7), I would NOT be surprised at Nicolosi's finding that homosexuals can become heterosexual IF-- crucial if-- their homosexuality is a result of childhood sexual abuse. (Indeed there are many aspects of sexuality that are mutated by such abuse.)  

Maggie: makes sense to me.  

Chandler: But understand what this means: It means these people are not and were not homosexuals. They were heterosexuals who sustained physchic trauma that altered their perceptions and emotions, their psyche, just as physical trauma at a young age (including during gestation) can have a dramatic development on cell tissue and alter the physique. So for them, it is only biologically natural that, given help, their natural heterosexual orientations would manifest themselves.   

Maggie: This is why I like Schmidt's multi-variant model. I think that there are various kinds of homosexuality. 

Chandler: But this is my question: Is Nicolosi talking about people who suffered sexual abuse, oris he talking about homosexuals like me who did not and who have never had the slightest doubt or wavering as to their homosexual orientation?  Chandler Burr  

 Maggie: Of course the way to find out what Nicolosi is talking about is to read the report, evaluate the questionnaire, see the data-- which I certainly intend to do. I am hoping that Nicolosi decides to upload the whole darn thing, then the whole world can look at it. 

Steve Calverley and Gene Chase, who are copied, are two of the people who responded to the Nicolosi survey. If you read Steve's story, you'll see that from childhood until his early thirties he had only same-gender-attraction, and in fact failed at attempts to establish relationships with women when he was 19-20. Following a mystical experience he decided to give up same-gender behavior and later on was surprised when he was sexually attracted to his wife.. Gene Chase and Rob Goetz tell similar stories of being surprised by opposite sex attraction when it occured. I suspect that the Nicolosi study will have many more of these stories about men being surprised by opposite sex attraction (the mc at the exodus conference told one such story which brought down the house) and there will be a range of responses to the questions about continued same-sex attraction and fantasy. 

The exodus people (similar to the Klein scale) talk about four aspects of sexuality: attraction, fantasy, identity, and behavior. Steve says he had them all "bigtime" for many years. So one might say that Steve was a latent heterosexual for a lot of years, unbeknownst to him. 

Steve's story is at http://www.npiec.on.ca/~scalverl/post_gay.htm  

Steve tried using the term "post-gay" hoping that it would be less offensive to gays than the term "ex-gay." It isn't. 

Like Gene, I've noticed that the commalities between ebe and moberley .. something very deep happens in early childhood.. the longing for the samesex parent in moberley becomes "samesex is exotic" in bem. but bem's theory explains sexuality, hetero and homo. whereas moberley considers heterosexuality what god intended --and therefore only presents a theory for homosexuality. 

exodus people are not threatened by the possibility that it's all nature (it's then a cross to bear which adds to spiritual growth) but I find that our side is very threated by the idea that people can change-- that's why I appreciated the Advocate article. 

maggie 

 [Steve is co-author of Are People "Born Gay?" A look at the most cited biological research studies http://www.execulink.com/~newdirec/2_biol.htm ] 

From: Maggie Heineman <maggie@CritPath.Org> 
Subject: 14 Twin studies 

Hi Daryl and Chandler, 

 Since Daryl has agreed to have his email on Chandler's site, I asked Steve Calverley if he had any objection to using it on our bridges-across site. Steve agreed and he has a couple of questions for Chandler. 

Steve: I have a couple of questions of Chandler Burr and Dean Hamer though that I'd be very interested in seeing the answers to. I don't know if that can become part of the science section too.  Forward these if you decide to. Thanks.  To Chandler Burr - The references in _A Separate Creation_ to Pillard's work do not include the data of the 9.2% biological (non twin) brothers. This is a significant piece of Pillard's work as even a reader with no real knowledge of genetics would recognize that when the adoptive brothers are at a 10.5% concordance, something is wrong with this "it's genetic" picture. Also, what is less likely to be observed is that the non identical twins and the other biological brothers have the same chances of sharing the same genes and should come out (statistically) the same. But they don't. (22% vs. 9.2% - and all these stats are from memory - which may not be faultless. :-) )  In the journal Science it was observed that this suggested an environmental trait, not a genetic one.  So, my question is - why was this data not included, or if it is in the book elsewhere, why was it not included where the comparison of all the data - the identical twins, the non identical twins, the adoptive brothers, and the other biological brothers, - could be observed together?   To Dean Hamer - I ask this without prejudice, and with complete respect for your person. Could you tell us the result of the OSI investigation into alleged "selective reporting of data" as reported in the Chicago Tribune and the Montreal Gazette?  I understand you were ill and unable to attend the debate with George Ebers of the University of Western Ontario (who tried to replicate the Xq28 study and found "no correlation"). Would you be interested in rescheduling if it could be arranged?  Also, do you have plans to study a group of heterosexual identical twins and compare the results?  Do you think that what may be being searched for, may be in fact a gene that influences a resulting personality type that is more inclined to internalize it's environment in a manner that will result in a homosexual orientational outcome? (I suppose I'm thinking of some of your "sissy boy" comments in _Science of Desire_).  Lastly, in Science of Desire, you stated that you expect the genetic influence to be "some" in 5 to 30% of homosexual men. I would understand that to mean you don't expect it to be of any significant influence in 70 to 95% of homosexual men. I also have heard, however, that in the Colorado testimony you've indicated *very high* percentages - is it in the high 90's? How do you reconsile these statements? Are you essentially saying that _*everything* to do with a human being is biological_? (Which of course is true but gives a highly different impression to some than others.)  I have read your research and book with great interest and have been following it with these questions in mind never thinking I may have the opportunity to ask them of you. I want to thank you in advance for cosidering them.   

Sincerely,  Steve  

 From: "Hamer, Dean" <HAMERD@dc37a.nci.nih.gov To: Chanburr@aol.com, d.bem@cornell.edu, Maggie Heineman   <maggie@CritPath.Org Cc: chase@messiah.edu, pillard@acs1.bu.edu Subject: RE: Twin studies Date: Mon, 28 Jul 1997 11:01:00 -0400  
 

Steve: To Dean Hamer - I ask this without prejudice, and with complete respect for your person. Could you tell us the result of the OSI investigation into alleged "selective reporting of data" as reported in the Chicago Tribune and the Montreal Gazette?  

Hamer: See Science Vol 275, 28 Feb, 1997, p 1251, "No Misconduct in Gay Gene Study."

Steve: I understand you were ill and unable to attend the debate with George Ebers of the University of Western Ontario (who tried to replicate the Xq28 study and found "no correlation"). Would you be interested in rescheduling if it could be arranged?  

Hamer: I wasn't ill. Actually, I wasn't even invited to the session until shortly before the meeting, by which time I had already accepted another speaking engagement. I was surprised that the organizers placed my name on the program even though I had not accepted their invitation . Meanwhile, Ebers has dropped this project. His lab has not published anything in the scientific literature.  

Steve: Also, do you have plans to study a group of heterosexual identical twins and compare the results?  

Hamer: We don't study twins. if you mean heterosexual siblings, see our nature genetics article. 
 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 

 Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 20:43:42 -0400 To: maggie@critpath.org From: Chanburr@aol.com (by way of Maggie Heineman <maggie@bridges-across.org) Subject: Re: Twin studies 

Steve-- 

This question is asked all the time, and although you should address it to Dr. Richard Pillard (pillard@acs1.bu.edu), I can give you the answer I think he'll give you, which is that the non-twin sibling rate in that one study was simply anomalous and is contradicted by the rest of the clinical data, which finds the rate approximately the same as that of fraternal twins. Richard, please let me know if I got this wrong. 

Chandler 

 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 

 From: Steve Calverley <scalverl@freenet.npiec.on.ca Subject: Re: Twin studies 

 From: Chanburr@aol.com  Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 09:40:04 -0400 (EDT)  To: maggie@critpath.org  cc: pillard@acs1.bu.edu, hamerd@dc37a.nci.nih.gov, chase@messiah.edu  Subject: Re: Twin studies    Steve--    This question is asked all the time, and although you should address it to  Dr. Richard PIllard (pillard@acs1.bu.edu), I can give you the answer I think  he'll give you, which is that the non-twin sibling rate in that one study was  simply anomalous and is contradicted by the rest of the clinical data, 

Hi Chandler, 

Okay, but then why not refer to whatever the "rest of the clinical data" is if Pillard's study contains anomalies. It just doesn't seem like careful science journalism to refer to a person's work, quote stats from his study, but leave out 25% of the data types when they don't fit. 

By the way, when Science News reported it they wrote it with some apparent bias too and included some of the ill fitting data in a separate paragraph. At least they included it though. :-) (Science, reported it all together.) 

which  finds the rate approximately the same as that of fraternal twins. Richard,  please let me know if I got this wrong. 

So do I understand you correctly to say "I left out one quarter of the data types from my reference quoting the researcher's study as they didn't fit with other studies I could have refered to but that I chose not to in this instance"? 

(That doesn't make logical sense to me. Perhaps you could explain it differently though.) 

Steve 

 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 

To: Maggie Heineman <maggie@CritPath.Org, Chanburr@aol.com From: "Daryl J. Bem" <d.bem@cornell.edu Subject: Re: Twin studies Cc: maggie@CritPath.Org, chase@messiah.edu 

Chandler & Maggie: 

The 1989 Psych Reports article turned out to be one by Enulf, Innala, & Whitam I had already read and referenced in my political postscript. It only shows a correlation between belief in biological roots of homosexuality and pro-gay attitudes, leaving the causation question unanswered. However, there is some equivocal evidence from a later article. Here is the reference and abstract: 

 Piskur, J., & Degelman, D. (1992). Effect of reading a summary of research about biological bases of homosexual orientation on attitudes toward homosexuals. Psychological Reports, 71, 1219-1225. 

 Investigated the effect of exposure to information regarding the development of homosexual orientation on attitudes toward homosexuals. 50 male and 55 female college students were exposed to 1 of 3 treatment conditions. Ss in the experimental group read a summary article of current research emphasizing a biological component of homosexual orientation. Ss in 1 control group read a summary article of research focusing on the absence of hormonal differences between homosexual and heterosexual men. Ss in another control group were not exposed to either article. All Ss completed a questionnaire on attitudes toward homosexuals. There was a significant interaction between treatment condition and sex of the S, such that women in the experimental group scored lower on negative attitudes toward homosexuals after exposure to the information about a biological component of homosexuality. 

There may still be a later article. 

Daryl 

Daryl J Bem (d.bem@cornell.edu) Department of Psychology - Uris Hall Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853 Office: (607) 255-6352 Fax: (607) 255-8433 

http://www.psych.cornell.edu/dbem 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 
 
  

From: Chanburr@aol.com  
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 09:03:38 -0400 (EDT)  
To: scalverl@freenet.npiec.on.ca cc: maggie@critpath.org, pillard@acs1.bu.edu, hamerd@dc37a.nci.nih.gov, Chase@mcis.messiah.edu  
Subject: Subject: Re: Twin studies  

Richard--  

Over to you. (Please cc me!)  

Chandler  

I cannot find the message from Richard Pillard.  maggie 2/10/97 
 
 

Date: Mon, 4 Aug 1997 21:18:07 -0400 (EDT)  
From: Steve Calverley <scalverl@freenet.npiec.on.ca  
To: "Richard C. Pillard, M.D." <pillard@bu.edu cc: chanburr@aol.com, maggie@critpath.org  
Subject: Re: Twin studies  

On Mon, 4 Aug 1997, Richard C. Pillard, M.D. wrote: 

Hello Steve Calverley:   Thanks for the kind comments. Re the twin/adoptee studies: we should start  by agreeing on a baseline frequency for homosexual orientation.  

[snip] 

Hello Richard,  

Thank you for the detailed, and very interesting response. I want to take some time to reread it and think it through a number of times.  

Although I start from a different premise, I find your explanations and approach to the subject so very worth careful consideration and certainly representative of very important research. (Godspeed :-) )  

I am so excited about the quality of what I've been reading that I wanted to write back promptly to remind you of, and encourage your interest in, the Bridges Across the Divide science discussion/list planned. Maggie Heineman, my partner in the B-A project will be able to let you know exactly when that begins to happen.  

This is exactly the type of quality, reasoned, "sideA" (as we say in "b-a speak") material we need to present. I know Chandler is on copy here, and I hope that he too will be interested in presenting his perspective in that forum.  

Again, many thanks.  

Sincere regards,  

Steve