ABSTRACT

Despite overwhelming opposition by the most respected scientific and professional mental health organizations (e.g., American Academy of Pediatrics, 1983; American Psychiatric Association, 1999, 2000; American Psychological Association, 1998a, pp. 934–935; National Association of Social Work, 1997), there appears to be increasing momentum behind attempts to sanction the credibility of sexual reorientation therapies (e.g., Nicolosi, 1991; Throckmorton, 2002; Yarhouse and Burkett, 2002). For the most part, these efforts are directed by a small number of vocal individuals associated with conservative political and religious movements (e.g., Exodus International, the Family Research Council, and the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality). One provocative aspect of Spitzer’s article is that he has not been associated with these organizations, and instead was a central figure in the removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (see Bayer, 1981). Thus, his research has fostered extensive fanfare among those who promote sexual reorientation therapies (e.g., Nicolosi, 2001). In this [chapter], I provide a critique of Spitzer’s work, articulating a number of scientific and conceptual flaws that result in serious concerns about the validity of his conclusions.