Current mood:	sleepy
Entry tags:	forum straits times robert spitzer homos

A Letter to the ST Forum
I've not been writing for ages because I'm in the middle of an LJ-to-Wordpress migration, but the recent ST Forum debate on the (eventual) decriminalisation of homosexuality has bugged me enough to reply to a particular Dr. Alan Chin.

Of course, it just coincidentally happens to divert all attention off the issue of the rise in ministers' pay, but I'm sure that's an accident.

You can also read the letter to which I'm responding  at miak 's post.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Figures speak for themselves: Practising gays have higher risk of HIV
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 01:40:05 +0800
From: Jin Hian Lee
To: stforum@sph.com.sg

To the Editor,

I am writing in response to Dr. Alan Chin Yew Liang's letter titled "Figures speak for themselves: Practising gays have higher risk of HIV".

I thank Dr. Chin for keeping the discussion on an emotional topic grounded in rational discourse, and such an effort deserves a considered response.

First, with regard to Dr. Chin's point about the higher relative incidence of AIDS in homosexual people - the risk of contracting AIDS amongst people who "practice" homosexual sex is not a justification for continued criminalisation, but by safer-sex education and outreach programmes. This is exactly society's approach towards addressing the risk of contracting STDs amongst people who actively "practice" heterosexual sex or that of lung cancer amongst people who smoke.

Dr. Chin goes on to address the question of whether or not a person can change their sexual orientation, and quotes a study by Dr. Robert Spitzer to draw the conclusion that "even if one person can change, then
homosexuality is not an immutable trait."

Unfortunately, Dr. Chin's conclusion is a skyscraper erected upon a foundation of straw. Dr. Spitzer's study does not support the Dr. Chin's claim that homosexuality is not immutable, because the sample population was not random but specially hand-picked for a special purpose.

Sadly, this is a mistake that is made so often by non-specialists that Dr. Spitzer himself was compelled to respond. On May 21st 2001, the Wall Street Journal published a commentary by Dr. Spitzer about his own study where he said (verbatim):

"In reality, change should be seen as complex and on a continuum. Some homosexuals appear able to change self-identity and behavior, but not arousal and fantasies; others can change only self-identity; and only a very few, I suspect, can substantially change all four."

"I suspect the vast majority of gay people would be unable to alter by much a firmly established homosexual orientation."

"I did not conclude that all gays should try to change, or even that they would be better off if they did."

In other words, just because one person amongst millions might possibly be able to change their intrinsic sexual orientation and attractions after years of therapy, it does not therefore mean that everyone else is able to (or should even try, given the potential destructive consequences of failure). After all, can you imagine what it would take to make a red-blooded straight man stop being attracted to a Playboy centrefold?

Lastly, I will turn again to Dr. Spitzer's commentary to address the issue of equal treatment (not protection, mind you!) for homosexual people:

"My study concluded with an important caveat: that it should not be used to justify a denial of civil rights to homosexuals, or as support for coercive treatment."

"Gay rights are a completely separate issue, and defensible for ethical reasons."

I could not have said it any better myself.