On TODAY newspaper, i read an article entitled “Scientific and medical communities are divided on whether it is a disorder. Is homosexuality truly normal?” dated 09 Feb 2006, Thursday. It is in support of Liberty League (an organization that does reparative therapy). By Thio Su Mien.
I was irate when i read it.
She said that “science has no probative value as scientific truth”. What she meant is: theories cannot be proven (but they can be refuted). It takes several replications before it is considered somewhat credible. But would the public know this? No, she gave the public the impression that science has no value. Specifically- the science of psychology.
Thus, in that statement, she slapped all the psychologists of the psychology department of NUS; as well as the mental health professionals situated in IMH. She also slapped psychologists all over the world- their expertise; their training and their credibility.
However, she does subscribe to research that agrees with her agenda… for later she used Spitzer’s research to back her up that homosexuals can be “changed”, and thus implicitly indicating that they should be. (How convenient for her to use research when she needs it. Kind of two-faced, don’t you think?)
And here’s the second reason why i was exceedingly upset with her. She used Spitzer’s research without considering the commentaries that NUMEROUS other professionals have made regarding Spitzer’s piece. There were so many commentaries showing the major limitations in Spitzer’s paper.
To name a few limitations:
1. There is no reason to believe that the participants told the truth: The participants are all acquired through ex-gay religious ministries and some were referred through their therapists. And the interview is not anonymous! It’s a structured telephone interview. How credible is that? Given the pressure to be “straight” and not to undermine their standing in church, do you think these “ex-gays” would tell the truth?
2. There were biases in Spitzer’s telephone interviews. Questions targetting same-sex behavior used words like “lust” but similar questions for opposite-sex behavior did not use words with negative connotation. I.e. “Frequency of looking with lust or daydreaming about having sex with a person of the same sex” versus “Percentage of masturbation occasions with heterosexual fantasies.” Which one sounds worse? Who wants to admit to “lust”? Why is same-sex attraction necessary lustful anyway?
There were also numerous studies done after 2003 (when Spitzer’s paper was published) about the harms of reparative therapy. In fact, the vast majority of research showed that reparative therapy does harm. But Thio Su Mien did not refer to them at all! In other words, Thio Su Mien presented an extremely biased summary of the field of research. She did not do a meta-analysis (a review of the whole field of research).
What grieves me:
That the layman who does not know any better… will take whatever she say and swallow it whole. None of us are experts in every field and those who are not, are prone to misinformation in the field. Someone who is ignorant of the field (and who has no incentive to read the information first-hand) is like a personal computer: Garbage in; garbage out.
Thoughts shape attitudes and actions of the people. And this is what we are living in- garbage.
In conclusion:
It is apparent at first glance that Thio Su Mien is not a trained psychologist (and yet she has the audacity to comment on the progress of psychology through the ages! I am appalled!). I would believe that she is a manipulative politican… presenting half of the story. Correction: in this case, she is only presenting 10% of it. Maybe less.
It is half-truths that does the most damage.
Thio Su Mien ended off saying that we should be less narcissistic and less selfish. I find the desciption apt for herself… She imposed her principles on everyone relentlessly; discrediting sources that does not concur with her principles and adopting sources that do.
What is it all for? For herself… to further her convictions… to add another supposed “halo” to her head?? Reminds me of the terrorists who believed that by killing others, they would get tens of virgins waiting in heaven for them.
Comments
jin said,
February 9, 2006 at 10:24 pm
when i picked up the Today paper, I was too disgusted / annoyed / appalled / angry to read past the 1st para of the letter. It boggles the mind how some people can be so stupid.
karel said,
February 9, 2006 at 11:08 pm
i was so angry with Today too that i threw the paper into the bin. i vaguely remember Today publishing an article with a relatively neutral stand on homosexuality before but i’ve lost faith in them now.
O2 said,
February 10, 2006 at 2:52 am
I don’t think it’s necessary to get too upset. Thio is quite well-known among the law fraternity for her homophobic views. She’s written several letters, published both in ST and Today, demonstrating her disingenuity and ability to manipulate facts and statistics to support her beliefs. She obviously feels a need to consistently put forth these arguments in a public forum; I am not sure if it’s for the benefit of society, or just her own pressing need to convince herself of the validity of her own misconceptions.
lady queer said,
February 10, 2006 at 1:04 pm
i share the same sentiment as most of you here. shocked and disgusted when i read the article, and what’s worse, they decided to feature a near full page of it right next to the “focus on the family” column that james dobson the christian fundamentalist airs his crap.
today, like the rest of our national papers which are pap’s propaganda, has been quite a disappointment to me ever since I realized that james dobson actually gets a column, a daily one. *puke.
lady queer said,
February 10, 2006 at 1:28 pm
i have submitted your article to tomorrow, hope you don’t mind
strangeknight said,
February 10, 2006 at 3:15 pm
lady queer: that spot next to Dobson’s column was probably the best place for Thio’s letter.
I think Dobson’s column is paid for. There’s always an ad from that counseling group FOTF runs, at the bottom of the column. If that’s the case, Today’s not biased towards the conservative. They need the ad revenue.
Overall, don’t just gripe about Thio online — write a response to Today!
pmg said,
February 10, 2006 at 3:58 pm
Isn’t psychology sort of divided between the more cognitive science part and the more touchy-feely side.
I’m not too sure if being gay is something inherited from birth or genetic in nature. I believe it lies somewhere between nature and nurture, like all other things of course.
lady queer said,
February 10, 2006 at 4:10 pm
yea someone sponsored fotf(focus on your family) sg to have their crap featured on today everyday. tragic i say.
I did attempt to write a letter, but guess what, my own girl told me it’s pointless and to take it with a pinch of salt. i say if everyone out here takes all this homophobia crap with a pinch of salt, we might as well give up all this defending of our rights and all.
foul mood now, sorry for blabbering away here.
ivan said,
February 10, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Thio Su Mien does explicitly say
“On this issue, the scientific and medical communities are divided in opinion. It is incorrect to assert that scientific and medical communities had established that homosexuality was not a disorder.”
And it logically follows that it is also not established that homosexuality IS a disorder.
In that regard, i don’t see Thio Su Mien doing a disservice to the homosexual community – she does acknowledge that there is no conclusive studies either way.
Perhaps what is contentious is her citation of Spitzer w/o presenting the contrary view; however one can hardly fault her for the opposing camp would surely (and have done so prior to her letter) also quote their research w/o the contrary view. Surely when read in tandem, one would come to a clearer picture, with both camps being represented.
Furthermore to quote her selectively with “science has no probative value as scientific truth” instead of the original “Science was politicised and, hence, carried no probative value as scientific truth.” would seem to make her anti-science (which the writer of this article has painted), however the main thrust of her paragraph is that science in that instance cannot be trusted as it has been politicised. To cut out that, would be to distort her words just like one claims she has twisted studies for her own agenda.
Perhaps a better approach would first entail a refutation of her claim that the matter was indeed politicised, instead of openly misquoting her, thus derailing her argument that the studies the previous article cited could not be trusted on face value. Without doing so, she is free to assert that any research coming from either camps are not to be trusted in it’s entirety.
Yuhui said,
February 10, 2006 at 9:29 pm
Please send your article to Today, especially your second reason. As you said, the layman may not know this, and the layman may not read your blog too.
Mier said,
February 10, 2006 at 10:12 pm
Dear all, thank you for your responses. =)
I would like to respond to IVAN:
DEAR IVAN:
you cited:�On this issue, the scientific and medical communities are divided in opinion. It is incorrect to assert that scientific and medical communities had established that homosexuality was not a disorder.�
Correction: It HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED that homosexuality is NOT a disorder (because of the criteria used). SINCE 1937!! Read article on reparative therapy for a brief history. (Click on psychology and research on side bar.)
Thio Su Mien lied through her teeth.
You cannot be a abnormal psychology student and not know the criteria for a disorder. IF you know the criteria for a disorder, you will know that homosexuality is NOT a disorder. I suggest that you read my article “Why homosexuality is not a mental disorder”. (Click on “psychology and research” in side�bar for more information.)
One more thing: the community is NOT divided on whether it is a disorder. Ask any psychology professor from NUS for a ACADEMIC response. Not a “religious”�response. Not all of us subscribe to her school of thought.
Dear ivan, let me tell you i have nothing against Spitzer’s research. He can be cited BUT he should not be cited WITHOUT keeping limitations in mind. Because that misleads the public. And if you know the field at all, you should know that the field is NOT supportive of reparative therapy. Research has generated numerous studies on its harms. And if Thio Su Mien picked the few studies that supports;�but rejects the overwhelming�MANY studies that do not, don’t you know she is particularly skewed? IT IS IRRESPONSIBLE for someone to wield information like that- because of the HARMFUL effects of reparative therapy. It is HARMFUL.
That’s bias to the uttermost. Thio Su Mien made use of psychology research for her whims and fantasies when she has LITTLE knowledge of what research has been saying. That’s abusing knowledge.
Saying that science is political has nothing to do her statement on probative value. It is two irrelevant topics. Thus, i do not see the need to include it in my above statement… BUT, let’s take your stand. Let’s assume that Thio Su Mien is not anti-science. She is merely saying that science is political and thus we cannot take it as truth. (But somehow she believes in science as you seem to imply.) Then my question is: WHY TAKE SPITZER AS TRUTH? Spitzer is doing science isn’t he? Then isn’t his motive political too? In any way that it is reasoned, Thio Su Mien slapped herself in her face. (By the way, i never said that Thio Su Mien is anti-science. I suspect she doesn’t really have an opinion. She just use whatever she needs and disregards whatever she doesn’t.)
In psychology research, the method in which research is conducted is recorded. Thus, we are able to see where the limitations are. And that’s what we are criticizing- Spitzer’s method and his major limitations. And to get this off my chest- just cause things can be changed doesn’t mean things should be. Things can change for WORSE.
Thank you.
Mier
A note to all:
If you want to comment on this article because you feel that it is inaccurate- make sure you know what you are talking about. I can be convinced- but only in open debate with facts/figures and logic.
If you have little knowledge in homosexuality and its link to psychology, read up first before you say anything. BECAUSE we are debating on facts and research over here…�It will be more constructive.
February 11, 2006 at 12:58 am
“you wrote:�On this issue, the scientific and medical communities are divided in opinion. It is incorrect to assert that scientific and medical communities had established that homosexuality was not a disorder.�”
perhaps you read wrongly, i quoted not wrote that.
you wrote “It HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED that homosexuality is NOT a disorder (because of the criteria used). SINCE 1937!! Read article on reparative therapy for a brief history.”
But thio su mien has indeed also addressed this issue by positing that the goal posts have shifted – a point you did not address.
“Saying that science is political has nothing to do her statement on probative value. It is two irrelevant topics. Thus, i do not see the need to include it in my above statement� BUT, let�s take your stand. Let�s assume that Thio Su Mien is not anti-science. She is merely saying that science is political and thus we cannot take it as truth. (But somehow she believes in science as you seem to imply.) Then my question is: WHY TAKE SPITZER AS TRUTH? Spitzer is doing science isn�t he? Then isn�t his motive political too? In any way that it is reasoned, Thio Su Mien slapped herself in her face.”
It has everything to do with it. She asserting that it has no probative value as it has been tainted by politics. And what if i venture to say that she’s just producing the flip side (however absurd it seems to you) which has not been presented prior to her letter.
“If you have little knowledge in homosexuality and its link to psychology, read up first before you say anything. It will be more constructive.”
there is nothing left to debate if you take this tone.
Furthermore i do believe that homosexuality is not a disorder… and i do believe it’s perfectly normal. I’m just questioning the logic you employ. it is not the facts i dispute, but the approach you take in dissecting her views and refuting her claims. It could have been so much better and way more concise.
lastly this ‘if you’re not with you, you’re against us” attitude is counter productive.
best wishes
injenue said,
February 11, 2006 at 2:32 am
i think we should leave homos be. coz they take themselves out of the gene pool anyway. good riddance!
pleinelune said,
February 11, 2006 at 3:23 am
Now why don’t you just tell others that? Leave us alone, and we’ll breed ourselves out of existence. Why spend so much money saving us?
jean said,
February 11, 2006 at 10:38 am
I think Ivan’s just trying to give some constructive feedback and a further dialogue is necessary. Thanks for the feedback Ivan, I agree its a matter of perception and the debate has many facets to it. Thio Su-Mien and daughter, if you do a google has commented ridiculously on many issues such as Aids, no parties for Gays, etc etc. I’m often puzzled by her personal agenda in all this and the negative energy that comes from the pair.
As for injunue, what you are saying is not useful. If you’re homophobic i suggest you not read this site and go somewhere else.
Mier said,
February 11, 2006 at 12:28 pm
Honestly Ivan, Thio Su mien was not merely presenting a “flip side” as you claim.
She said that those who think that homosexuals cannot be converted are in denial.
In saying that, she is saying that Spitzer’s research article is true. Hence, if science has not value if tainted by politics, why should we believe Spitzer? Why believe Spitzer and not the tons of others who are also psychologists? She is contradicting herself.
Whether something is political or not has nothing to do with things. I am not concerned. It is as good as saying that anything that is subjective has no worth as content. But is that a problem? Everything that is written by anyone IS subjective. We judge the content based on the bigger picture. And Thio Su Mien can be political BUT she should not lie. She can pick and choose but she should not present lies.
I am not against you… If you have asked questions like “Is homosexuality really a disorder?”, i would have gladly pointed you to facts. But no, you seem to subscribe somewhat to her reasoning when you don’t know the basic facts- Why are you so keen to defend her? What is there to debate on when the basic issue is not even understood? In a debate, we need to set out a common platform at least?
Once again, i dissect her views? Refute her claims?
She is obviously anti-gay. Do you know her affiliations my dear? Apparently not. Next, she obviously does not know the field. Do you know that? Also, are you aware of what research has been saying with regard to reparative therapy?
This is what i am attacking:
1. Since she said that science is political therefore has little value, why use Spitzer’s science research to support her stance that those who say homosexuals cannot be converted are in denial? Shouldn’t Spitzer’s research be of little value as well?
2. She seems to be saying that homosexuality WAS in DSM… and that it was merely taken out because of campaigns (and therefore homo should continue to be a disorder). She demostrated IGNORANCE of the criteria of abnormal disorders and seem to imply that anything that was once in DSM must be somehow disordered. Coz progress is tainted by politics. (By the way, politics are not always bad. Women got their rights via political means too.)
3. She was irresponsible in not divulging the harmful effects of reparative therapy. For someone of her academic standing, this is an utter disgrace. Come on, if you read the journals at all, and you are able to pick out Spitzer’s article from the journal, you would have knocked into tens of articles that are against reparative therapy! You would have known how harmful it is.
Don’t make excuses for her, Ivan.
Mier said,
February 11, 2006 at 12:31 pm
I want to say this:
I am NOT the one standing up here and saying “I, Mier, declares that Thio Su Mien’s arguments are all wrong!” without basis.
Therefore it is NOT me that refute her claims. It is research work of several other psychologists… it is empirical evidence that refuted her claims.
Thanks.
Mier said,
February 11, 2006 at 12:34 pm
Goals posts have shifted? You want to tell me more about that? Coz Thio Su Mien seemed to say that homosexuality was accepted and now it isn’t… or that people are starting to wonder.
That’s a lie.
Coz as far as i am concerned, the field has not looked back since homosexuality was taken out as a disorder. Read the journals- Noone has done research on whether homosexuality is a disorder anymore… simply because it was long established that it isn’t a disorder.
Goal posts shifting? Honestly, anti-gay�activists have not changed much. But average people, who are open to reasoning and new experiences, who have seen with their own eyes… they have changed somewhat on the whole.
I will tell you what has shifted…. developments round the world are getting more gay-friendly. Shifting towards more rights. That is what has shifted. =)
—————————-
The debate going on here is on facts and figures… on research and its principles. Therefore, anything to support Thio Su Mien has to be based on what research as said. Coz the main thing i am attacking is her representation of research and ethical concerns.
—————————
Ivan, you said that you think homosexuality is not a disorder. I am impressed because you must have come to this conclusion on your own without psychological definitions.
Why don’t you share why you think homosexuality is not a disorder? ;>
honda said,
February 11, 2006 at 6:20 pm
i feel that nobody should condemn anyone else. be they lesbians, gays, homosexuals, transvestites so on, everyone should be given a chance to live. its just their sexual inclination that’s deviant. shouldnt be condemned just because of it. its just too much.
honda said,
February 11, 2006 at 6:20 pm
i feel that nobody should condemn anyone else. be they lesbians, gays, homosexuals, transvestites so on, everyone should be given a chance to live. its just their sexual inclination that’s deviant. shouldnt be condemned just because of it. its just too much.
jean said,
February 11, 2006 at 10:27 pm
Sigh Honda. Do read what Mier wrote. our sexual inclination is NOT deviant. I don’t know where you are coming from but thanks for being nice and no thanks for not reading up because your baseless comment is very offensive.
Mier said,
February 12, 2006 at 5:22 pm
Hello Honda,
what do you mean by deviant? Do you mean deviant as in deviant from the usual norm without the negative connotation… OR do you mean deviant as in divergent from an ACCEPTED universal moral benchmark?
If you saying that homosexuality is not the norm, i agree. Indeed, less than 20% of the population is queer. However, if you are attaching some form of negative judgment, then i would like to know WHY you think so. From whose benchmark(s)? And why should the benchmark(s) be adhered to by everybody?
Yawning Bread said,
February 14, 2006 at 2:53 am
Just a small point about Robert Spitzer’s 2001 study. It’s unlikely that Thio has ever read up on it, because it does not support her point at all. More likely, she was just quoting from anti-gay websites that have completely misunderstood the research. I encourage lesbians to read the write up at http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2006/yax-545.htm. Far from showing that “gays can change”, the study shows how little change is possible, even for bisexuals, let alone exclusively homosexual persons.
It’s important to remember that the study sample consisted of 200 persons who claimed they had changed. The criterion for inclusion in the study was that they had SUCCESSFULLY undergone reparative therapy. Spitzer found, just by asking questions over the phone, without even doing physiological tests, that some 83% admitted in some way or another that they really weren’t all that different from before. The remaning 17% continued to claim they were no longer homosexually inclined. – but the problem is that given the method used (telephone interviews, without anonymity) can we take those answers as true?
Read too Spitzer’s own words explaining that he supports civil partnerships and anti-discrimination laws, and that he objects to reparative therapy.
ivan said,
February 16, 2006 at 3:16 am
wow.. a short break and so many comments to read.
so much to ans to miers.
Most importantly, i believe that homosexuality is not a disorder for reasons that bear not from psychological studies or theories; i’m a big fan of mackinnon and dworkin (though i must say i selectively disagree esp w their civil ordinance act) so that perhaps pts you to my rationale for believing so.
the rest is frankly imho rubbish. i am making excuses for thio, if it isn’t apparent. it would also be apparent that if you feel inclined to disprove my arguments on behalf of thio, that your initial article is not comprehensive enough.
i believe jean gets what i’m trying to do here.
Mier said,
February 16, 2006 at 11:19 am
Hi Ivan,
yep, my article is short and sweet. It was meant to release “steam”. Wasn’t meant to do an indepth analysis of Spitzer. There are enough commentaries that have done that and i am not going to summarize them all for an academic paper here.
Good to know that you are trying to make excuses for thio. I hope you read the article on reparative therapy. Coz it touches on Spitzer’s article and gives a quick review on what research on reparative therapy says in recent years. =)
Yawningbread has also put up useful articles on Spitzer… and i am sure you have read it by now. ;>
Mier (Not mierS) =)
RSS feed for comments to this post