ABSTRACT
Spitzer’s article is reminiscent of constructions of homosexuality as an illness, heterosexuality as normal and healthy, and “reparative therapy” as a treatment. Spitzer presents evidence that individuals’ sexual attractions and sexual self identities, as well as sexual behaviors, can change over time, and he interprets this as a change in core sexual orientation resulting from reparative therapy. In the current theoretical climate, it would be easy for critics to reject the findings on methodological grounds, to disagree with the conclusion that core sexual orientation changes occurred, or to dismiss Spitzer’s argument for its complicity with outdated views of homosexuality. It is important, however, to distinguish methodological criticisms from criticism of Spitzer’s underlying moral perspective, and to refrain from using the former to undercut the latter.
