​Lilly, K. J., et al. (2024). Fixed or fluid? Sexual identity fluidity in a large national panel study of New Zealand adults. The Journal of Sex Research, 61(9), 1351–1366. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2023.2289517
Summary: Longitudinal data show stability for most but fluidity for some across waves. ​
Common misrepresentation: Proves universal fluidity/choice or mere error. ​
What it actually shows: Heterogeneity allows some to explore fluidity therapeutically, though most remain stable without change. ​

Storms, M. D. (1980). Theories of sexual orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(5), 783–792. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.38.5.783
Summary: Proposes a two-dimensional model of sexual orientation (heterosexual–homosexual and asexual–sexual) that challenges simple one-axis, categorical views.
Common misrepresentation: Used as if it were a definitive map of all sexual orientations today or as proof that categories like “gay” and “straight” are meaningless.
What it actually shows: An influential theoretical model that broadened how researchers conceptualize orientation, without claiming to capture all possible identities or trajectories.

Vrangalova, Z., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (2012). Mostly heterosexual and mostly gay/lesbian: Evidence for new sexual orientation identities. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41(1), 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-9921-y
Summary: Documents that “mostly heterosexual” and “mostly gay/lesbian” self-identifications are common and associated with distinct patterns of attraction and behavior.
Common misrepresentation: Used either to deny that stable gay/lesbian orientations exist or to argue that everyone is essentially bisexual.
What it actually shows: Population-level evidence that many people occupy nuanced, intermediate positions on attraction spectra, complicating strictly binary categorizations.

Dickenson, J., Diamond, L., King, J., Jenson, K., & Anderson, J. (2020). Understanding heterosexual women’s erotic flexibility: The role of attention in sexual evaluations and neural responses to sexual stimuli. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 15(10), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsaa058
Summary: Examines how attentional processes are linked to heterosexual women’s erotic flexibility, including behavioral ratings and neural responses to sexual stimuli.
Common misrepresentation: Claimed to prove that women’s sexual orientation is purely a matter of choice or social influence.
What it actually shows: Evidence that attention and context shape erotic responses in meaningful ways, while not asserting that orientation is infinitely malleable or voluntary.

Mustanski, B., Kuper, L., & Greene, G. (2014). Development of sexual orientation and identity. In D. L. Tolman & L. M. Diamond (Eds.), APA handbook of sexuality and psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 609–610). American Psychological Association.
Summary: Reviews developmental research indicating that sexual attractions and identities typically emerge over time through complex interactions of biological, psychological, and social factors.
Common misrepresentation: Simplified into the claim that orientation is either wholly fixed at birth or entirely socially constructed.
What it actually shows: A nuanced account of development that recognizes both stability and variability and resists oversimplified “born this way” versus “choice” dichotomies.

Pela, C., & Sutton, P. M. (2021). Sexual attraction fluidity and well-being in men: A therapeutic outcome study. Journal of Human Sexuality, 12, 61–86.

https://www.reintegrativetherapy.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/JHS-PelaSutton.pdf
Summary: Documents reductions in same-sex attraction and well-being improvements in 40 men over 2+ years of SAFE therapy. ​
Common misrepresentation: Rejected as lacking controls or proving common/permanent change. ​
What it actually shows: Some clients report fluidity shifts and reduced distress via value-aligned exploration, without guarantees for all. ​

Katz-Wise, S. L., Todd, J., et al. (2025). One-in-ten adolescents and young adults report changes in their sexual orientation identity: Results from a 2-month follow-up. Journal of Adolescent Health.
Summary: Short-interval longitudinal survey of U.S. adolescents and young adults showing 11.4% changed their sexual orientation identity label over two months, with shifts both into and out of LGBTQ+ categories.
Common misrepresentation: Used to imply that all changes are toward LGBTQ+ identities.
What it actually shows: A measurable minority change labels over short periods, and these changes occur in multiple directions, underscoring meaningful fluidity for some youth.

Stewart, A. L., et al. (2024). The longitudinal measurement of sexual orientation and gender identity across adolescence and adulthood. American Journal of Public Health.
Summary: Nationally representative panel study showing that 4.1% of adults and 13.5% of teens changed sexual orientation, and 3.6% of adults and 9.3% of teens changed gender identity over the study period.
Common misrepresentation: Cited to argue that that survey questions are too unreliable to be useful.
What it actually shows: SOGI measures are sufficiently stable for population research yet flexible enough to capture real change over time, especially in youth, and warrant repeated measurement rather than one-time classification.

van der Vegt, L., et al. (2024). Fixed or fluid? Sexual identity fluidity in a large national panel. Journal of Sex Research.
Summary: Seven-year national panel analysis reporting that 14.6% of lesbian/gay and 41.6% of plurisexual participants changed identity at least once, with transitions both toward and away from heterosexuality.
Common misrepresentation: Quoted to suggest that bisexual and other plurisexual identities are “just a phase,” rather than capturing experiences meaningful to the individual.
What it actually shows: Sexual identity is most stable for exclusive heterosexuals and less stable for sexual minorities, but changes are patterned and meaningful rather than random, with plurisexual identities showing the greatest fluidity over time.

Ott, M. Q., et al. (2011). Stability and change in self-reported sexual orientation identity in young people: The Growing Up Today Study. Archives of Sexual Behavior.
Summary: Prospective cohort of adolescents and emerging adults documenting movement among “completely heterosexual,” “mostly heterosexual,” bisexual, and same-sex-oriented categories across several years.
Common misrepresentation: Used to argue that adolescent same-sex attractions and identities are too unstable to take seriously in clinical or educational settings.
What it actually shows: While many youth maintain the same label, a substantial minority shift categories as they mature, illustrating that identity development is a process and that intermediate labels capture meaningful experiences.

Savin-Williams, R. C., et al. (2009). Trajectories of sexual orientation from adolescence to young adulthood. Developmental Psychology.
Summary: Ten-year longitudinal study identifying multiple trajectories in attractions and identity labels, including persistent heterosexual, persistent sexual minority, and groups that adopt then later relinquish minority labels.
Common misrepresentation: Cited to claim that adolescent disclosures should be dismissed.
What it actually shows: Both stability and change occur; a group persists as sexual minorities and another group move into or out of minority identities, reflecting diverse developmental pathways rather than a single “phase.”

Srivastava, A., et al. (2022). Sexual identity fluidity in adolescence: A systematic review. Journal of Research on Adolescence.
Summary: Review of longitudinal studies estimating that 6–30% of adolescents experience sexual identity change, and about two-thirds of sexual minority youth report some identity change over time.
Common misrepresentation: Used to deny that any early-identified LGBTQ+ youth remain so.
What it actually shows: A consistent minority experience identity shifts, while many remain stable; both patterns are empirically supported and need to be anticipated in research and practice.

Drummond, K. D., et al. (2008). A follow-up study of girls with gender identity disorder. Developmental Psychology.
Summary: Follow-up of natal female children diagnosed with gender identity disorder; most no longer met diagnostic criteria at adolescence/young adulthood, though sexual minority outcomes were more common than in the general population.
Common misrepresentation: Presented as definitive evidence that “most trans-identified children are really just future lesbians” and that affirmation is inappropriate.
What it actually shows: In a highly selected clinical cohort under older diagnostic criteria, many did not maintain a transgender identity into later adolescence, but they had elevated rates of non-heterosexual orientations, underscoring complex links between gender variance and sexual orientation.

Steensma, T. D., et al. (2011/2013). Desisting and persisting gender dysphoria after childhood: A qualitative follow-up study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry.
Summary: Qualitative follow-up of 25 youth from a gender clinic, comparing those whose gender dysphoria persisted with those whose dysphoria abated, and exploring experiential factors linked to each path.
Common misrepresentation: Used to claim that clinicians can reliably predict which individual child will desist.
What it actually shows: Some youth persist and some desist, highlighting uncertainty and the need for individualized care.

Turban, J. L., et al. (2021). Factors leading to “detransition” among transgender and gender diverse people in the United States. LGBT Health.
Summary: Survey of transgender and gender diverse adults, 13.1% of whom reported detransition, examining self-reported reasons for doing so.
Common misrepresentation: Cited to claim that detransition is almost always due to social pressure and never reflects reconsideration, or conversely that detransition is overwhelmingly about regret.
What it actually shows: Detransition is multifactorial; external pressures are common, but some participants also describe shifts in identity, health concerns, or psychological factors.

Vandenbussche, E. (2021). Detransition: A survey of 100 detransitioners. Archives of Sexual Behavior.
Summary: Community-based survey of 100 people who had detransitioned, documenting demographics, treatments received, reasons for detransition, and current identity.
Common misrepresentation: Used as if it were a population-based estimate of detransition prevalence, or framed as showing that all detransitioners regret any prior transition.
What it actually shows: Among this self-selected sample, medical and psychosocial concerns, changing understanding of dysphoria, and social factors all feature prominently, and some participants still identify as gender nonconforming.

Clinical Advisory Network on Sex and Gender (CAN-SG). (2024). On detransition. CAN-SG briefing paper.
Summary: Narrative review and expert synthesis of existing detransition literature, case reports, and clinical experience, emphasizing heterogeneity of pathways and outcomes.
Common misrepresentation: Quoted selectively to portray detransition as vanishingly rare.
What it actually shows: Detransition exists, is diverse in cause and meaning, can involve regret or relief, and should be addressed with open, non-punitive clinical follow-up.

Two Prisms. (n.d.). Sex, gender, and identity research archive.

https://www.twoprisms.com/

Summary: Provides annotated scientific literature summaries.

Common misrepresentation: Labeled as ideological.

What it actually shows: Primary-source documentation with methodological notes.

Photo by CHUTTERSNAP on Unsplash

Photo by Brett Jordan on Unsplash

“Conversion therapy” is a term broadly applied to any sort of effort to explore change in same-sex attractions, desires, behavior, and identification, as well as efforts to align one’s gender identity and/or gender expression with biological reality and social norms. It is a misleading and inaccurate term for several reasons.

· It carries connotations of abusive and unethical practices, such as “electroshock” therapy, using shame and other forms of aversive techniques, and coercion as if it is a practice being imposed (or “perpetrated”) on unwitting clients who are being forced or manipulated into receiving treatment.

· The label of “conversion therapy” is used so broadly that it is applied to any form of change-exploring efforts, ranging from professional psychotherapy to religious interventions (such as pastoral care or group ministry) and self-help (such as reading books or personal prayer). Most of these efforts are not psychotherapy at all, thus making the term “conversion therapy” a misnomer.

· The term relies on the idea that social constructs like “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are biologically innate and immutable (unchangeable), or at the very least, essential to one’s identity. Therefore, any efforts to explore the potential for change in one’s sexual feelings and gender self-concept are deemed attempts to change someone categorically from one type of “orientation” or “gender identity” to another, and are considered successful only if categorical levels of change are achieved.

· Furthermore, the use of the word “conversion,” so often used in the context of religious conversion, seems to be exploited by anti-therapy activists to misrepresent change-exploring psychotherapy as a religious practice, and thus not professional psychotherapy (bolstered by the use of phrases like “pray the gay away”). This enables activists to easily conjure up images in the public’s mind of bizarre (and sometimes harmful) religious practices or approaches, influencing people to view psychotherapy for sexuality and gender as pseudoscience and quackery.

· The term “conversion therapy” does not actually describe any particular approach or psychotherapeutic practice (for example, behaviorist approaches that use aversion and counter-conditioning). So, efforts to ban or outlaw “conversion therapy” are essentially banning a client’s goal in therapy, rather than specific harmful or ineffective approaches that may have been used in the past or could be used by certain providers. Critics of change-exploring therapies are not interested in determining best practices for therapeutic approaches in exploring changes in sexuality and gender identification; they are opposed to the goals themselves, no matter the approaches used.

Which terms are more accurate?

Mental health professionals who provide therapy to explore changes in unwanted same-sex attraction, behavior, and identification, or to explore resolution of gender identity discordance, do not refer to themselves as “conversion therapists” (neither do those who use religious ministry, pastoral care, group work, coaching, or self-help approaches). These mental health providers may prefer a range of alternate terms, such as change-allowing therapy, change-oriented therapy, or most commonly, change-exploring therapy. In 2016, the Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity adopted the designation SAFE-T (sexual attraction fluidity exploration in therapy), a term exclusive to psychotherapeutic approaches (as opposed to pastoral or self-help approaches) but inclusive of any application of mainstream psychotherapy to explore change in sexual attractions.

Reparative Therapy is often unfairly used synonymously with “conversion therapy.” However, Reparative Therapy was a specific therapeutic approach developed by the late Joseph Nicolosi, who named it based on the reparative drive theory to explain male homosexual inclinations. It is more accurate to understand Reparative Therapy as a subtype of SAFE-T or change-exploring therapy, rather than as representative of all forms of such therapies.

Please note: the American Psychological Association has used the term SOCE (sexual orientation change efforts), which has been adopted into certain laws. Opponents have broadened SOCE to include efforts to explore change in “gender identity” and “gender expression” by using SOGICE or SOGIECE. Like “conversion therapy,” SOCE, SOGICE, and SOGIECE are labels imposed upon practitioners. Therefore, most therapists do not prefer these labels, though some may use them as a readily recognizable shorthand when publishing research or other articles.

What actually happens in change-exploring therapy?

Change-exploring therapists generally do not hold to the dogma that “sexual orientation” is divided into distinct, biologically determined categories, nor would they hold that a mental conception of one’s “gender identity” is intrinsic to one’s identity. Therefore, it would be inaccurate to assert that these professionals are attempting to “convert” clients from one particular “sexual orientation” to another, nor from one “gender identity” to another. Rather, change-exploring therapists see change in terms of degrees of shifts along a continuum for each domain of client concerns: the sexual (or gender-related) thoughts, feelings (arousal, desire), behavior and relationships, and identification labels.

Change-exploring therapies are not uniform. Therapists willing to help clients with sexuality and gender identity differences bring their existing therapeutic approaches into these cases, using the same techniques they would for issues like anxiety or addiction. Each therapy model has its own focus, understanding of human nature and psychological problems, and interventions. For example:

· Psychodynamic and other depth psychology therapists would be interested in exploring the client’s upbringing, family of origin, and early life experiences to gain insight into current emotions, attractions, and ways of relating between self and others. They tend to use the dynamic in the therapeutic relationship to resolve unconscious conflicts and motivations.

· Trauma-informed therapists may have similar theories as the depth psychologists, but they will be further trained in memory reprocessing interventions to heal the emotional roots of the client’s concerns. They may also employ forms of mindfulness, body work, and cognitive-behavioral skills to train the client in self-regulation of emotional states.

· Psychodrama and other experiential therapists will employ controlled dramatizations of internalized interpersonal dynamics, usually in a group setting, in order to gain insight and heal emotional memories.

· Group therapists, in general, focus on meeting unmet developmental and social needs through deeply engaging relationships (either with individuals who share the same sexuality conflicts or those with other life issues but who demonstrate acceptance in the larger world of the person’s gender).

· Cognitive-behavioral therapists will tend to focus on changing conscious thoughts and behaviors, using counter-conditioning strategies to fortify the client’s resolve to adhere to personal convictions despite any persistent unwanted arousal and attractions.

· Person-centered and narrative therapy strategies honor the client’s agency in choosing the scripts and social constructs that reflect personal values and sense of self.

Change-exploring therapy for sexuality or gender is not intrinsically religious. However, it is more common to find such therapy among religious clinicians. Change-exploring therapists may integrate mainstream therapy with their personal religion, or they may practice psychotherapy without reference to their own or the client’s religious faith and practice.

One commonality all ethical change-exploring therapists share is respect for the client’s right to choose his/her therapeutic goals. This principle (expressed as client autonomy or self-determination) is one supposedly upheld by the ethics codes of all the helping professions. Even in cases in which the client is a minor, ethical change-exploring therapists respect the client’s right to choose his/her own therapy goals and would not impose goals or values upon the client or serve as a proxy for the parents. Or the therapist would consider the family unit itself the client and focus efforts on increasing healthy communication, respect for individual boundaries and parental authority, and emotional need-fulfilment within the family system. (Note: The concerted efforts to ban therapeutic choice are violations of client rights and parental rights. Anti-therapy activists justify the injustice of their bans by claiming that all forms of change-exploring therapies are innately harmful and ineffective.)

But is it coercive or harmful?

No, in ethical change-exploring therapy, the client identifies his/her own areas of concern and goals. The client and therapist collaborate in developing the treatment plan, and the client gives informed consent. The therapist makes no guarantees about the outcome of therapy, explaining the risks and responsibilities of both therapist and client.

Furthermore, testimonies of harm by so-called “conversion therapy survivors” often have reasons for scrutiny. Though the practice in question is generally professional psychotherapy, the stories of harm often occur more in the individual’s non-affirming home or place of worship. Ethical change-exploring therapists are often punished for deeds they did not commit. Certain activists have testified in court or before the legislature with stories that were later proven to be fabricated or at least lacking evidence.[1]

What about “scientific consensus”?

Claims of harm by activists and legislators are not based on methodologically definitive evidence. There is no evidence-based consensus against change-exploring therapies. Most cited studies utilize biased samples, are cross-sectional and thus cannot determine causality (meaning the studies involved all forms of change efforts, so we cannot determine if the reports of harm are associated with psychotherapeutic efforts), are conducted by researchers and organizations ideologically committed to therapy bans, and are conceptually underspecified such that the reliability and generalizability of findings are suspect. Recruitment for studies claiming harm or inefficacy overwhelmingly occurs in spaces specifically for those who identify as LGBTQ+. Such studies typically ignore individuals who are most likely to report positive experiences of change exploration, i.e., those who have experienced same-sex attraction or gender confusion and have never or do not now identify as LGBT+. This is analogous to assessing the benefits and harms of marital therapy by researching only individuals recruited through divorce support groups.

It is important to be aware that, though some studies report evidence of harm or lack of benefit from forms of change-exploring therapy, there are just as many that report the opposite, despite efforts in the journal publishing world to thwart studies that provide evidence of the helpfulness of change-exploring therapies. We encourage readers to peruse this website to better inform themselves of the science.

How does this relate to free speech?

Talk therapy is pure speech protected by the First Amendment, not regulable conduct, per precedents like NIFLA v. Becerra. Banning one viewpoint (exploratory talk therapy) while allowing LGBTQ+ affirmative talk therapy created a federal appeals court split needing U.S. Supreme Court resolution, noted in the Chiles v. Salazar decision, declaring bans on speech-based therapy unconstitutional.

[1] See: https://www.wnd.com/2013/03/transgendered-woman-lies-about-therapy-torture/, The War on Psychotherapy: When Sexual Politics, Gender Ideology, and Mental Health Collide, May 28, 2019, by Christopher Doyle MA/LPC/LCPC, https://ruthinstitute.org/dr-j-show/susan-constantines-evaluation-of-sam-brinton/, and https://nypost.com/2023/02/19/family-claims-sam-brinton-lied-about-abuse-conversion-therapy/

Photo by Leeloo The First

Ruuska, S. M., Tuisku, K., Holttinen, T., & Kaltiala, R. Psychiatric Morbidity Among Adolescents and Young Adults Who Contacted Specialised Gender Identity Services in Finland in 1996–2019: A Register Study. Acta Paediatrica. https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.70533

Summary: This Finnish register study tracked 2,083 adolescents/young adults (<23 years) referred to gender identity services (1996-2019) against 16,643 matched controls. Gender-referred youth had markedly higher psychiatric morbidity before referral (45.7% vs. 15.0%) and ≥2 years after (61.7% vs. 14.6%), with needs often intensifying post-medical gender reassignment—from 9.8% to 60.7% (feminizing) and 21.6% to 54.5% (masculinizing). Post-2010 referrals showed doubled pre-referral morbidity; adjusted risks were 3-5 times higher than controls regardless of reassignment.

Common Misrepresentation: Some claim the study proves gender-affirming care “causes” psychiatric harm or worsening, overstating causality.

Actual Findings: Psychiatric needs were chronically elevated and did not subside with time or reassignment; they persisted equally across referred groups after adjustments. Later cohorts had worse baseline morbidity, underscoring the need for thorough assessment over assuming interventions resolve underlying issues. Registers ensure high reliability.

Grossman, M. (2023). Lost in trans nation. Regnery.

Summary: Documents deviations from standard medical ethics in gender care.

Common misrepresentation: Framed as anti-trans rhetoric.

What it actually shows: A clinician’s evidence-based critique of treatment protocols.

The Economist. (2023). Evidence to support medicalized gender transition in adolescents is worryingly weak. The Economist.

Summary: Reviews systematic evidence gaps in pediatric transition care.

Common misrepresentation: Ignored as journalistic opinion.

What it actually shows: Alignment with emerging European medical caution.

Stats for Gender. (n.d.). Evidence-based statistics on gender dysphoria and transition.

https://statsforgender.org/

Summary: Aggregates peer-reviewed findings across multiple domains.

Common misrepresentation: Claimed to cherry-pick data.

What it actually shows: Transparent sourcing with links to original studies.

Two Prisms. (n.d.). Sex, gender, and identity research archive.

https://www.twoprisms.com/

Summary: Provides annotated scientific literature summaries.

Common misrepresentation: Labeled as ideological.

What it actually shows: Primary-source documentation with methodological notes.

Photo by Markus Winkler on Unsplash

Bondy, G. (n.d.). Subjective experiences in sexual orientation change efforts: A mixed-method analysis. Journal of Human Sexuality.
Summary: Uses mixed methods to report how participants themselves describe their experiences, perceived benefits, and perceived harms in sexual orientation change efforts.
Common misrepresentation: Selectively cited either only for positive narratives or only for negative experiences to support predetermined positions.
What it actually shows: A range of client-reported experiences, highlighting heterogeneity in both outcomes and perceived impacts.

Pela, C., & Sutton, P. M. (2021). Sexual attraction fluidity and well-being in men: A therapeutic outcome study. Journal of Human Sexuality, 12, 61–86.
Summary: Documents reductions in same-sex attraction and well-being improvements in 40 men over 2+ years of SAFE therapy. ​
Common misrepresentation: Rejected as lacking controls or proving common/permanent change. ​
What it actually shows: Some clients report fluidity shifts and reduced distress via value-aligned exploration, without guarantees for all. ​

Schumm, W. R., & Crawford, D. W. (n.d.). Sexual orientation differences between children of same-sex parents and children of heterosexual parents: A brief report using a meta-analysis. Journal of Human Sexuality.
Summary: Provides a brief meta-analytic report on sexual orientation outcomes among children of same-sex versus heterosexual parents.
Common misrepresentation: Used as proof that same-sex parenting is inherently harmful or deterministically produces non-heterosexual outcomes.
What it actually shows: Meta-analytic patterns that suggest some differences in orientation distributions, subject to methodological limits and interpretive caution.

Schumm, W. R., & Crawford, D. W. (n.d.). Differences between acceptance of sexual diversity and nonheterosexual sexual orientation among children of same-sex parents. Journal of Human Sexuality.
Summary: Examines whether children of same-sex parents differ from peers in their acceptance of sexual diversity and in nonheterosexual identification.
Common misrepresentation: Interpreted as showing that acceptance causes nonheterosexual orientation or that acceptance should therefore be restricted.
What it actually shows: Associations between parenting context, attitudes, and identity patterns, without proving causal direction or prescribing value judgments.

Golden, S. L. (n.d.). The relationship between father involvement and father-role confidence for fathers of gay sons. Journal of Human Sexuality.
Summary: Investigates how involvement and confidence in the father role relate among fathers of gay sons.
Common misrepresentation: Used to blame fathers for a son’s sexual orientation or to suggest that certain parenting “fixes” could prevent homosexuality.
What it actually shows: Relational and psychological dynamics of fathers adapting to and engaging with a son’s gay identity, not causal determinants of orientation.

Journal of Human Sexuality. Prepublication copy. Rosik, C. H. My conversation with a typical opponent of professional therapies that include change. Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity.

file:///Users/debrabaty/Downloads/Conversation%20with%20Ty%20Optic%202016-2.pdf

Summary: Presents a hypothetical, dialogue-style exchange between the author and a “Typical Opponent” of change-including therapies, systematically addressing many of the most common objections to such work. The article emphasizes client self-determination and critiques efforts to legally restrict professional speech in the treatment of unwanted same-sex attractions and behaviors.

Common misrepresentation: Often portrayed as if it were empirical outcome research proving that change-oriented therapies are broadly safe and effective or as a blanket dismissal of all reports of harm as fabricated or irrelevant.

What it actually shows: A conceptual and rhetorical exploration of arguments surrounding professional therapies that include change, focused on exposing perceived misrepresentations of the scientific record and stereotypes of clinicians who practice them. It underscores the author’s view that protecting clients’ rights to pursue care aligned with their moral, religious, and cultural convictions requires more accurate engagement with the evidence and with what licensed therapists actually do in ordinary talk therapy.

Rosik, C. H. (Year). My conversation with a typical opponent of professional therapies that include change. Journal of Human Sexuality, 7, 74–99.

https://www.journalofhumansexuality.com

Summary: Uses a dialogue with a “typical opponent” to organize and respond to many standard objections to professional therapies that include the possibility of change in unwanted same-sex attractions or behaviors, drawing heavily on existing empirical and ethical debates. ​

Common misinterpretations: Cited as if it were outcome research proving that change-oriented therapies are broadly safe and effective for all, or as if it categorically dismisses every report of harm as fabricated, purely political, or clinically irrelevant. ​

What it actually shows: A conceptual and rhetorical defense of client-directed, change-allowing therapy that critiques overgeneralized harm narratives and legal restrictions, while arguing that protecting clients’ freedom to pursue faith- and value-consistent goals requires more accurate engagement with the scientific and clinical record. ​

Journal of Human Sexuality

The following is a list of 107 published, scientific references of direct observations from researchers and clinicians, supporting the three claims that male same sex attraction (SSA) is associated with the “classical pattern” - distant father/binding mother/man-with-SSA-is-attracted-to-features-in-other-men-that-he-wants-for-himself phenomena. These references span one century of scientific documentation.

References

Allen, C. (1958). Homosexuality: Its nature, causation and treatment. Staples Press.

Allen, F. H. (1940). Homosexuality in relation to the problem of human difference. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 10(1), 129–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.1940.tb05667.x

Apperson, L. B., & McAdoo, W. G. (1968). Parental factors in the childhood of homosexuals. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 73(3), 201–206. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025859

Bak, R. C. (1953). Fetishism. The Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 1(2), 285–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/000306515300100205

Bakwin, H. (1968). Deviant gender-role behavior in children: Relation to homosexuality. Pediatrics, 41(3), 620–629.

Barnhouse, R. (1977). Homosexuality: A symbolic confusion. Seabury Press.

Bell, A. P., Weinberg, M. S., & Hammersmith, S. K. (1981). Sexual preference: Its development in men and women. Indiana University Press.

Bender, L., & Paster, S. (1941). Homosexual trends in children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 11(4), 730–743. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.1941.tb05864.x

Bene, E. (1965). On the genesis of male homosexuality: An attempt at clarifying the role of parents. British Journal of Psychiatry, 111(478), 803–813. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.111.478.803

Bibring, G. (1940). Über eine orale komponente bei männlicher inversion [Concerning an oral component in male inversion]. Internationale Zeitschrift für Psychoanalyse und Imago, 25(2), 124–130.

Bieber, I., Dain, H., Dince, P., Drellich, M., Grand, H., Gundlach, R., Kremer, M. R., Wilber, C., & Bieber, T. (1962). Homosexuality: A psychoanalytic study of male homosexuals. Basic Books.

Bieber, I. (1965). Clinical aspects of male homosexuality. In J. Marmor (Ed.), Sexual inversion (pp. 248–267). Basic Books.

Bieber, I. (1967). Sexual deviations. II: Homosexuality. In A. M. Freedman & H. I. Kaplan (Eds.), Comprehensive textbook of psychiatry (pp. 963–976). The Williams & Wilkins Company.

Bieber, T. (1967). On treating male homosexuals. Archives of General Psychiatry, 16(1), 60–63. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1967.01730190062008

Blackman, J. S. (2002). Shift from homosexual to heterosexual orientation during the termination phase of analysis. In C. W. Socarides & A. Freedman (Eds.), Objects of desire: The sexual deviations (pp. 41–70). International Universities Press.

Boehm, F. (1933). Beiträge zur psychologie der homosexualität IV: Über zwei typen von männlichen homosexuallen [Contributions to the psychology of homosexuality IV: Concerning two types of male homosexuals]. Internationale Zeitschrift für Psychoanalyse, 19(4), 499–506.

Brill, A. A. (1913). The conception of homosexuality. Journal of the American Medical Association, 61(5), 335–340. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1913.04350050017008

Brown, D. G. (1957). The development of sex-role inversion and homosexuality. Journal of Pediatrics, 50(5), 613–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3476(57)80228-5

Brown, D. G. (1963). Homosexuality and family dynamics. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 27, 227–232.

Bychowski, G. (1945). The ego of homosexuals. The International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 26(3–4), 114–127.

Bychowski, G. (1954). The structure of homosexual acting out. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 23, 48–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/21674086.1954.11925934

Bychowski, G. (1961). The ego and the object of the homosexual. The International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 42, 255–259.

Chang, J., & Block, J. (1960). A study of identification in male homosexuals. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24(4), 307–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046046

Chasseguet-Smirgel, J. (1974). Perversion, idealization, and sublimation. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 55, 349–357.

Dickes, R. (1991). Observations on the treatment of homosexual patients. In G. W. Socarides & V. D. Volkan (Eds.), The homosexualities and the therapeutic process (pp. 9–27). International Universities Press.

Edwards, H. E. (1963). The relationship between reported early life experiences with parents and adult homosexuality [Doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee].

Ehrenwald, J. (1960). The symbiotic matrix of paranoid delusions and the homosexual alternative. American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 20, 49–59.

Eidelberg, L. (1956). Analysis of a case of a male homosexual. In S. Lorand & M. Balint (Eds.), Perversions, psychodynamics and therapy (pp. 279–289). Random House.

Evans, R. B. (1969). Childhood parental relationships of homosexual men. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33(2), 129–135. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027186

Fenichel, O. (1945). The psychoanalytic theory of neurosis. W.W. Norton & Co.

Ferenczi, S. (1914). The nosology of female homosexuality (homoerotism). In Contributions to psychoanalysis (pp. 296–318). Brunner. (Reprinted 1950)

Ferenczi, S. (1916). Contributions to psycho-analysis (E. Jones, Trans.). Richard G. Badger. https://archive.org/details/cu31924012227850

Freedman, A. (1991). Identification processes in the therapy of male oedipal homosexuality. In C. W. Socarides & V. D. Volkan (Eds.), The homosexualities and the therapeutic process (pp. 159–190). International Universities Press.

Freud, A. (1949). Some clinical remarks concerning the treatment of male homosexuality. The International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 30, 195.

Freud, S. (1947). Leonardo da Vinci: A study in psychosexuality (A. A. Brill, Trans.). Random House. (Original work published 1910)

Freud, S. (1957). Some neurotic mechanisms in jealousy, paranoia and homosexuality. In J. Strachey (Ed.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 18, pp. 223–232). Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1922)

Friedman, R. C., & Stern, L. O. (1980). Juvenile aggressivity and sissiness in homosexual and heterosexual males. Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis and Dynamic Psychiatry, 8(3), 427–440. https://doi.org/10.1521/jaap.1.1980.8.3.427

Gershman, H. (1964). The meaning of homosexual trends in therapy: A round table discussion. American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 24(1), 60–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01873309

Gershman, H. (1970). The role of core gender identity in the genesis of perversions. American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 30(1), 58–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01873871

Glasser, M. (1986). Identification and its vicissitudes as observed in the perversions. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 67(1), 9–17.

Glover, E. (1949). Psycho-analysis: A handbook for medical practitioners and students of comparative psychology (2nd ed.). Staples Press.

Golden, S. L. (2018). Fathers of gay sons: The relationship between father-role confidence and father involvement [Doctoral dissertation, Capella University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

Golden, S. L. (2021). The relationship between father involvement and father-role confidence for fathers of gay sons. The Journal of Human Sexuality, 12, 147–167.

Gottlieb, D. (1977). The gay tapes. Stein and Day Scarborough House.

Green, R. (1987). The “sissy boy syndrome” and the development of homosexuality. Yale University Press.

Greenson, R. (1976). The technique and practice of psychoanalysis. International Universities Press.

Grellert, E. A., Newcomb, M. D., & Bentler, P. M. (1982). Childhood play activities of male and female heterosexuals and homosexuals. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 11(6), 451–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01542472

Hadden, S. B. (1968). Group psychotherapy for sexual maladjustments. American Journal of Psychiatry, 125(3), 327–332. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.125.3.327

Hamilton, D. (1939). Some aspects of homosexuality in relation to total personality development. The Psychiatric Quarterly, 13, 229–244.

Henry, G. W. (1937). Psychogenic factors in overt homosexuality. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 93(4), 889–908. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.93.4.889

Hirschfeld, M. (2000). The homosexuality of men and women (M. A. Lombardi-Nash, Trans.). Prometheus Books. (Original work published 1914).

Hooker, E. (1957). The adjustment of the male overt homosexual. Journal of Projective Techniques, 21, 18–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/08853126.1957.10380742

Jacobi, J. (1969). A case of homosexuality. The Journal of Analytical Psychology, 14(1), 48–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-5922.1969.00048.x

Jones, S. L. (2007, October 27). Can homosexuals change? Is the attempt harmful? A longitudinal study of religiously mediated change in sexual orientation: Implications for NARTH [Conference presentation]. National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality Conference, Irving, TX, United States.

Kaplan, E. A. (1967). Homosexuality: A search for the ego-ideal. Archives of General Psychiatry, 16(3), 355–358. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1967.01730210095014

Kardiner, A. (1954). Sex and morality. The Bobbs-Merrill Company.

Kaye, H. E. (1974). Male survival: Masculinity without myth. Grosset & Dunlap.

Kaye, H. E. (1975). Discussion of “the effect of group therapy on compulsive homosexuality in men and women.” The American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 35, 313–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01249465

Klein, M. (1960). The psychoanalysis of children (A. Strachey, Trans.). Grove Press. (Original work published 1932)

Klein, M. (1975). A contribution to the psychogenesis of tics. In R. Money-Kyrle (Ed.), The writings of Melanie Klein: Vol. 1: Love, guilt and reparation and other works, 1921-1945. The Free Press. (Original work published 1925)

Kolb, L., & Johnson, A. (1955). Etiology and therapy of overt homosexuality. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 24(4), 506–515.

Kronemeyer, R. (1980). Overcoming homosexuality. Macmillan.

Lagache, D. (1950). Homosexuality and jealousy. The International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 31, 24–31.

Lamberd, W. G. (1969). The treatment of homosexuality as a monosymptomatic phobia. American Journal of Psychiatry, 126(4), 512–518. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.126.4.512

Litman, R. E. (1961). Psychotherapy of a homosexual man in a heterosexual group. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 11(4), 440–448.

Mallen, C. A. (1983). Sex role stereotypes, gender identity and parental relationships in male homosexuals and heterosexuals. Journal of Homosexuality, 9(1), 55–74. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v09n01_05

Mesnikoff, A. M., Rainer, J. D., Kolb, L. C., & Carr, A. C. (1963). Inframilial determinants of divergent sexual behavior in twins. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 119(8), 732–738. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.119.8.732

Milic, J. H., & Crowne, D. P. (1986). Recalled parent-child relations and need for approval of homosexual and heterosexual men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15(3), 239–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01542415

Miller, M. L. (1956). Nostalgia: A psycho-analytic study of Marcel Proust. Houghton Mifflin Company.

Mowrer, O. H. (1953). Neurosis and psychotherapy as interpersonal processes: A synopsis. In O. H. Mowrer (Ed.), Psychotherapy theory and research (pp. 69–94). Ronald Press.

Nicolosi, J. (1991). Reparative therapy of male homosexuality: A new clinical approach. Jason Aronson.

Nunberg, H. (1938). Homosexuality, magic and aggression. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 19, 1–16.

O’Connor, P. J. (1964). Aetiological factors in homosexuality as seen in Royal Air Force psychiatric practice. British Journal of Psychiatry, 110(466), 381–391. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.110.466.381

Ovesey, L. (1965). Pseudohomosexuality and homosexuality in men: Psychodynamics as a guide to treatment. In J. Marmor (Ed.), Sexual inversion: The multiple roots of homosexuality (pp. 211–233). Basic Books.

Parker, N. (1964). Homosexuality in twins: A report on three discordant pairs. British Journal of Psychiatry, 110, 489–495. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.110.467.489

Phelan, J. E. (1996). Recollections of their fathers by homosexual and heterosexual men. Psychological Reports, 79(3), 1027–1034. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1996.79.3.1027

Poe, J. S. (1952). The successful treatment of a 40-year-old passive homosexual based on an adaptational view of sexual behavior. Psychoanalytic Review, 39(1), 23–33.

Sachs, H. (1978). On the genesis of perversions (H. F. Bernays, Trans.). In C. W. Socarides (Ed.) Homosexuality (Appendix B, pp. 531–546). Jason Aronson. (Original work published 1923)

Saghir, M. T., & Robins, E. (1973). Male and female homosexuality: A comprehensive investigation. Williams & Wilkins.

Satinover, J. (1995, July 29). The complex interaction of genes and environment: A model for homosexuality [Conference presentation]. National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality Conference, United States.

Schilder, P. (1929). On homosexuality: A lecture. Psychoanalytic Review, 16(4), 377–389.

Seutter, R. A., & Rovers, M. (2004). Emotionally absent fathers: Furthering the understanding of homosexuality. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 32(1), 43–49.

Shearer, M. (1966). Homosexuality and the pediatrician: Early recognition and preventative counseling. Clinical Pediatrics, 5(8), 514–518. https://doi.org/10.1177/000992286600500815

Siegelman, M. (1974). Parental background of male homosexuals and heterosexuals. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 3(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01541038

Singer, M., & Fischer, R. (1967). Group psychotherapy of male homosexuals by a male and female co-therapy team. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 17(1), 44–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207284.1967.11642987

Snortum, J., Marshall, J., Gillespie, J., Mosberg, L., & McLaughlin, J. (1969). Family dynamics and homosexuality. Psychological Reports, 24, 763–770. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1969.24.3.763

Socarides, C. W. (1968). The overt homosexual. Basic Books.

Socarides, C. W., & Freedman, A. (Eds.). (2002). Objects of desire: The sexual deviations. International Universities Press.

Stekel, W. (1946). The homosexual neurosis (J. S. V. Teslaar, Trans.). Emerson Books. (Original work published 1921)

Stephan, W. G. (1973). Parental relationships and early social experiences of activist male homosexuals and male heterosexuals. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 82(3), 506–513. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035367

Stoller, R. (1978). Boyhood gender aberrations: Treatment issues. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 26(3), 541–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/000306517802600304

Storr, A. (1964). Sexual deviation (2nd ed.). Penguin Books.

Strecker, E. A. (1946). Their mothers’ sons: The psychiatrist examines an American problem. J. B. Lippincott.

Sullivan, H. S. (1972). Personal psychopathology: Early formulations. W. W. Norton.

Tabin, J. J. (1985). On the way to the self: Ego and early oedipal development. Columbia University Press.

Terman, L. M., & Miles, C. C. (1936). Sex and personality: Studies in masculinity and femininity. McGraw-Hill.

Thompson, N., Schwartz, D., McCandless, B., & Edwards, D. (1973). Parent-child relationships and sexual identity in male and female homosexuals and heterosexuals. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 41, 120–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035612

Tripp, C. (1987). The homosexual matrix (Rev. ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Tyson, P. (1982). A developmental line of gender identity, gender role, and choice of love object. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 30(1), 61–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/000306518203000103

Ullman, P. S. (1960). Parental participation in childrearing as evaluated by male social deviates. The Pacific Sociological Review, 3(2), 89–95. https://doi.org/10.2307/1388205

Van den Aardweg, G. (1985). Homosexuality and hope: A psychologist talks about treatment and change. Servant Books.

Van den Aardweg, G. (1986). On the origins and treatment of homosexuality: A psychoanalytic reinterpretation. Praeger.

Wallace, L. (1969). Psychotherapy of a male homosexual. Psychoanalytic Review, 56(3), 346–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/21674086.1969.11926487

West, D. J. (1955). The other man: A study of the social, legal, and clinical aspects of homosexuality. Whiteside.

Westwood, G. (1960). A minority: A report on the life of the male homosexual in Great Britain. Longmans, Green and Co.

Whitener, R. W., & Nikelly, A. (1964). Sexual deviation in college students. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 34(3), 486–492. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.1964.tb02217.x

Wortis, J. (1940). Intersexuality and effeminacy in the male homosexual. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 10(3), 567–570. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.1940.tb05723.x

Photo by Luemen Rutkowski on Unsplash

Guidelines for the Practice of Sexual Attraction Fluidity Exploration in Therapy

Journal of Human Sexuality. (2025). Volume 16 [Special issue on Chiles v. Salazar and therapy freedom].

https://www.journalofhumansexuality.com/_files/ugd/ec16e9_cfd1666f92a5421bb6863e619698bc37.pdf

Summary: Peer‑reviewed volume focusing on sexuality and gender from a Judeo‑Christian, natural‑law framework, with particular attention to voluntary care for unwanted same‑sex attraction and gender distress and to legal constraints on such talk‑therapy (including Chiles v. Salazar).

Common misrepresentation: Portrayed as a general “conversion therapy” advocacy tract or dismissed as non‑scholarly ideology rather than as a specialized journal addressing a narrow clinical and ethical niche.

What it actually shows: A scholarly, ATCSI‑sponsored journal that publishes empirical studies, clinical reports, and conceptual analyses aimed at supporting clients who seek to align their sexual feelings or gender identity with their faith and biological sex, while defending the freedom of therapists to offer such conventional talk‑based care.

Behnke, S. (2004). Informed consent and APA’s new ethics code... Monitor on Psychology, 35(6), 80.
Summary: Informed consent enhances autonomy in care. ​
Common misrepresentation: Mere paperwork. ​
What it actually shows: Ethical process for clients pursuing fluidity exploration, absent change assurances. ​

Behnke, S. (2004). Informed consent and APA’s new ethics code: Enhancing client autonomy, improving client care. Monitor on Psychology, 35(6), 80.
Summary: Explores how APA ethics-code changes underscore informed consent as a process for enhancing client autonomy and improving clinical care.
Common misrepresentation: Treated as if informed consent is merely bureaucratic paperwork or a legal shield for clinicians.
What it actually shows: That informed consent is an ethical, relational practice aimed at transparency, shared decision-making, and respect for client values and goals.

Rosik, C. H. (2025). “For Such a Time as This: An Interview With Kaley Chiles.” Journal of Human Sexuality, 16. Journal of Human Sexuality.

https://www.journalofhumansexuality.com
Summary: Presents Kaley Chiles’s personal account of her work as a Christian therapist, her clients who voluntarily seek help to align sexual or gender experiences with faith, and the personal costs of her legal stand.
Common misrepresentation: Reduced to propaganda for coercive “conversion therapy” or depicted as targeting unwilling clients.
What it actually shows: A first-person narrative emphasizing client self-selection, conscience, and ordinary talk-therapy rather than coercive or aversive techniques.

Hamilton, A. E. (2025). Brief of Dr. Alexandra E. Hamilton as amicus curiae in support of petitioner. Supreme Court of the United States, No. 24-539 (Chiles v. Salazar). https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-539/363059/20250613091513843_Chiles%20merits.pdf

Summary: Contends that sexual orientation and gender identity are neither uniformly defined nor fixed, and that Colorado’s law ignores documented fluidity and individual variability.
Common misrepresentation: Framed as denying LGBTQ identities or arguing that no stable identities exist.
What it actually shows: An emphasis on complexity and fluidity, used to argue against rigid legal categories that constrain individualized, value-consistent care.

Chiles v. Salazar, No. 24-539 (2025). Brief for petitioner on the merits. Supreme Court of the United States. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-539/362492/20250606115635027_24-359%20Brief%20of%20Petitioner.pdf
Summary: Sets out the core constitutional arguments that Colorado’s restrictions impermissibly target and punish certain counseling speech based on viewpoint in a voluntary therapeutic context.
Common misrepresentation: Portrayed as seeking permission for abuse or discrimination.
What it actually shows: A case-focused legal challenge centered on professional speech, client choice, and the limits of state power over consensual talk-therapy.

Sullins, D. P. (2022). Sexual orientation change efforts do not increase suicide. Archives of Sexual Behavior. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-022-02466-2*
Summary: Responds to criticisms and alleged misrepresentations of his empirical work on suicidality and sexual orientation change efforts, reanalyzing data and interpretation.
Common misrepresentation: Presented as an attempt to downplay suicide risk or to justify coercive therapy models.
What it actually shows: A methodological and interpretive clarification intended to correct how his findings were summarized in legal and policy briefs.

Pela, C. (2025, March). Scientific integrity and public health demand that I correct the record regarding serious misrepresentations of my research [PDF]. Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity. https://www.therapeuticchoice.com/_files/ugd/ec16e9_9a554e1a181440c99521e79a8092155a.pdf ​

Summary: Argues that key critics have seriously misstated the design, limits, and findings of his therapeutic outcome research, and contends that such misrepresentations distort public health and legal debates about exploratory and change-allowing therapy. ​

Common misinterpretations: Portrayed as an attempt to walk back or secretly rewrite his original findings, or as a blanket claim that his work proves sexual orientation can be reliably changed for everyone without risk. ​

What it actually shows: A methodological and ethical clarification in which the author defends the integrity and scope of his research, insisting on accurate reporting of methods and results while explicitly rejecting exaggerated claims about universal, risk-free change. ​

Image by pch.vector on Freepik

Bartels, R. M., et al. (2018). The effect of bilateral eye-movements versus no eye-movements on sexual fantasies. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 59, 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2018.01.001
Summary: In a non-clinical sample, bilateral eye movements while holding sexual fantasies in mind were associated with reduced reported vividness, emotionality, and arousal compared with no eye movements.
Common misrepresentation: Treated as evidence that EMDR or eye-movement tasks can reliably change sexual orientation or eliminate unwanted sexual interests in the long term.

What it actually shows: Technique for exploring reduced intrusive imagery, potentially aiding fluidity. ​

Jebelli, F., Maaroufi, M., Maracy, M. F., & Molaeinezhad, M. (2018). Effectiveness of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) on the sexual function of Iranian women with lifelong vaginismus. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 33(3), 325–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2017.1323075
Summary: Reports that an EMDR-based intervention was associated with improvements in sexual function among women diagnosed with lifelong vaginismus in the studied setting.
Common misrepresentation: Generalized as proof that EMDR is a universal cure for sexual difficulties across all populations and etiologies.
What it actually shows: Evidence that EMDR may help some women with vaginismus in a particular cultural and clinical context, indicating promise for certain sexual-function problems but not universal applicability.

Cornine, C. K. (2013). EMDR, sexual confusion, and God-image: A case study. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 32(1), 83–89.
Summary: Presents a single clinical case where EMDR was used within a therapy process addressing sexual confusion and client beliefs about God.
Common misrepresentation: Cited as if one case report establishes general efficacy or prescriptive best practices for all clients with sexual or religious concerns.
What it actually shows: Illustrative, narrative-level clinical material that may inspire hypotheses or reflective practice, but not generalizable outcome data.

De Silva, P. (2001). Impact of trauma on sexual functioning and sexual relationships. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 16(3), 269–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681990123900
Summary: Reviews evidence and clinical observations showing that trauma can significantly affect sexual functioning and intimate relationships in various ways.
Common misrepresentation: Taken to mean that trauma is the primary or sole cause of all non-heterosexual orientations or atypical sexual interests.
What it actually shows: That trauma is one important factor that can shape sexual functioning and relational patterns for some individuals, without reducing all sexual diversity to trauma histories.

Parent, M. C., & Ferriter, K. P. (2018). The co-occurrence of asexuality and self-reported post-traumatic stress disorder diagnosis and sexual trauma within the past 12 months among U.S. college students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47(4), 1277–1282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1197-7
Summary: Examines associations between self-identified asexuality, PTSD diagnosis, and recent sexual trauma in a sample of U.S. college students.
Common misrepresentation: Used to claim that asexuality is simply a trauma symptom and therefore not a valid sexual identity.
What it actually shows: Correlational patterns in a specific population over a defined timeframe, which do not establish causation or invalidate asexual identity.

Nicolosi, J. J., Jr., & Szanduła, J. (2024). Memory reconsolidation for unwanted sexually arousing memories: A randomized, placebo-controlled study. Integratus, 2(4), 287–305. https://doi.org/10.1521/intg.2024.2.4.287
Summary: Tests a memory-reconsolidation-based approach to reducing unwanted sexually arousing memories using a randomized, placebo-controlled design.
Common misrepresentation: Interpreted as showing that memory reconsolidation techniques can broadly erase sexual orientation or fully convert sexual identity.
What it actually shows: Preliminary evidence that a specific protocol can alter subjective responses to particular unwanted sexual memories, suggesting potential for targeted symptom work rather than wholesale orientation change.

Image by freepik

​Lilly, K. J., et al. (2024). Fixed or fluid? Sexual identity fluidity in a large national panel study of New Zealand adults. The Journal of Sex Research, 61(9), 1351–1366. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2023.2289517
Summary: Longitudinal data show stability for most but fluidity for some across waves. ​
Common misrepresentation: Proves universal fluidity/choice or mere error. ​
What it actually shows: Heterogeneity allows some to explore fluidity therapeutically, though most remain stable without change. ​

Storms, M. D. (1980). Theories of sexual orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(5), 783–792. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.38.5.783
Summary: Proposes a two-dimensional model of sexual orientation (heterosexual–homosexual and asexual–sexual) that challenges simple one-axis, categorical views.
Common misrepresentation: Used as if it were a definitive map of all sexual orientations today or as proof that categories like “gay” and “straight” are meaningless.
What it actually shows: An influential theoretical model that broadened how researchers conceptualize orientation, without claiming to capture all possible identities or trajectories.

Vrangalova, Z., & Savin-Williams, R. C. (2012). Mostly heterosexual and mostly gay/lesbian: Evidence for new sexual orientation identities. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41(1), 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-9921-y
Summary: Documents that “mostly heterosexual” and “mostly gay/lesbian” self-identifications are common and associated with distinct patterns of attraction and behavior.
Common misrepresentation: Used either to deny that stable gay/lesbian orientations exist or to argue that everyone is essentially bisexual.
What it actually shows: Population-level evidence that many people occupy nuanced, intermediate positions on attraction spectra, complicating strictly binary categorizations.

Dickenson, J., Diamond, L., King, J., Jenson, K., & Anderson, J. (2020). Understanding heterosexual women’s erotic flexibility: The role of attention in sexual evaluations and neural responses to sexual stimuli. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 15(10), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsaa058
Summary: Examines how attentional processes are linked to heterosexual women’s erotic flexibility, including behavioral ratings and neural responses to sexual stimuli.
Common misrepresentation: Claimed to prove that women’s sexual orientation is purely a matter of choice or social influence.
What it actually shows: Evidence that attention and context shape erotic responses in meaningful ways, while not asserting that orientation is infinitely malleable or voluntary.

Mustanski, B., Kuper, L., & Greene, G. (2014). Development of sexual orientation and identity. In D. L. Tolman & L. M. Diamond (Eds.), APA handbook of sexuality and psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 609–610). American Psychological Association.
Summary: Reviews developmental research indicating that sexual attractions and identities typically emerge over time through complex interactions of biological, psychological, and social factors.
Common misrepresentation: Simplified into the claim that orientation is either wholly fixed at birth or entirely socially constructed.
What it actually shows: A nuanced account of development that recognizes both stability and variability and resists oversimplified “born this way” versus “choice” dichotomies.

Pela, C., & Sutton, P. M. (2021). Sexual attraction fluidity and well-being in men: A therapeutic outcome study. Journal of Human Sexuality, 12, 61–86.

https://www.reintegrativetherapy.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/JHS-PelaSutton.pdf
Summary: Documents reductions in same-sex attraction and well-being improvements in 40 men over 2+ years of SAFE therapy. ​
Common misrepresentation: Rejected as lacking controls or proving common/permanent change. ​
What it actually shows: Some clients report fluidity shifts and reduced distress via value-aligned exploration, without guarantees for all. ​

Two Prisms. (n.d.). Sex, gender, and identity research archive.

https://www.twoprisms.com/

Summary: Provides annotated scientific literature summaries.

Common misrepresentation: Labeled as ideological.

What it actually shows: Primary-source documentation with methodological notes.

Photo by CHUTTERSNAP on Unsplash

Pela, C., & Sutton, P. M. (2021). Sexual attraction fluidity and well-being in men: A therapeutic outcome study. Journal of Human Sexuality, 12, 61–86. https://www.reintegrativetherapy.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/JHS-PelaSutton.pdf
Summary: Documents reductions in same-sex attraction and well-being improvements in 40 men over 2+ years of SAFE therapy. ​
Common misrepresentation: Rejected as lacking controls or proving common/permanent change. ​
What it actually shows: Some clients report fluidity shifts and reduced distress via value-aligned exploration, without guarantees for all. ​

Nicolosi, J. J., Jr., & Szandula, J. (2024). Memory reconsolidation for unwanted sexually arousing memories: A randomized, placebo-controlled study. Integratus, 2(4), 287–305. https://doi.org/10.1521/intg.2024.2.4.287
Summary: RCT shows memory reconsolidation reduces arousal to unwanted same-sex stimuli comparably to heterosexual ones. ​
Common misrepresentation: Claimed to prove full orientation change ignoring dropouts. ​
What it actually shows: Potential to explore reducing specific unwanted arousals, supporting fluidity investigation without broad change promises. ​

Sullins, D. P., & Rosik, C. H. (2025). Perceived effectiveness and risk of sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE): Perspectives of a US sample of 125 male clients. Journal of Open Inquiry in the Behavioral Sciences, 4(4). https://doi.org/10.58408/issn.2992-9253.2025.04.04.0001
Summary: Retrospective survey of 125 men reporting that SOCE was associated with moderate reductions in unwanted same‑sex sexuality and more frequent marked psychosocial benefits than harms, though results rely on self‑report and a convenience sample.
Common misrepresentation: Cited as definitive proof that SOCE is broadly safe and effective for all clients, or that orientation can be reliably “changed” on demand.
What it actually shows: One self‑selected male sample in which many participants perceived some reduction in unwanted same‑sex sexuality and net psychosocial improvement, supporting the possibility of beneficial exploratory or change‑allowing therapy for some, without demonstrating universal efficacy or safety.

Rosik, C. H. (2023). A wake‑up call for the field of sexual orientation change efforts research: Comment on Sullins (2022). Archives of Sexual Behavior, 52, 869–873. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-022-02481-7
Summary: Methodological and interpretive critique arguing that much SOCE‑harm research inadequately handles timing, sampling, and confounds, and that Sullins’s reanalysis of suicidality data deserves a more balanced reception.
Common misrepresentation: Portrayed as denying any risk from SOCE or dismissing all reports of harm as fabricated or irrelevant.
What it actually shows: A call for more rigorous and even‑handed SOCE research that neither assumes harm nor safety in advance, while highlighting evidence compatible with some clients exploring fluidity in therapy under careful methodological scrutiny.

Rosik, C. H., Lefevor, G. T., & Beckstead, A. L. (2023). Sexual minorities responding to sexual orientation distress: Examining 33 methods and the effects of sexual identity labeling and theological viewpoint. Spirituality in Clinical Practice, 10(3), 245–260. https://doi.org/10.1037/scp0000295
Summary: Survey of sexual minorities showing that people use a wide range of 33 strategies—including same sex affirming, neutral, and change‑allowing approaches—to cope with sexual‑orientation distress, and that outcomes vary with sexual identity labels and theological views.
Common misrepresentation: Simplified as proving that change-oriented methods are either uniquely harmful or uniquely successful, ignoring the broader mix of strategies and contextual moderators.
What it actually shows: Evidence that clients’ coping strategies and choices around sexual‑orientation distress are diverse and shaped by worldview, supporting value‑consistent exploratory work (including but not limited to change‑allowing therapy) without asserting that any single pathway is universally best.

Rosik et al (2023) Tables of Helpfulness and Harmfulness of 33 Methods Addressing Sexual Orientation Distress

FROM: Rosik, C. H., Lefevor, G. T., & Beckstead, A. L. (2023). Sexual minorities responding to sexual orientation distress: Examining 33 methods and the effects of sexual identity labeling and theological viewpoint. Spirituality in Clinical Practice, 10(3), 245–260. https://doi.org/10.1037/scp0000295

Supplemental materials: https://doi.org/10.1037/scp0000295.supp

Mayer, L. S., & McHugh, P. R. (2016). Sexuality and gender: Findings from the biological, psychological, and social sciences. The New Atlantis, (50), 7–143.
Summary: Reviews interdisciplinary research finding many public claims exceed available evidence. ​
Common misrepresentation: Dismissed as fringe or unscientific. ​
What it actually shows: Evidence review supporting nuanced exploration of sexual fluidity possibilities in therapy, without proof that change occurs for all. ​

Diamond, L. M., & Rosky, C. J. (2016). Scrutinizing immutability: Research on sexual orientation and U.S. legal advocacy for sexual minorities. Journal of Sex Research, 53(4–5), 363–391.
Summary: Demonstrates immutability arguments in law outrun scientific consensus, with nuanced evidence on stability and change. ​
Common misrepresentation: Taken to deny civil rights for sexual minorities. ​
What it actually shows: Scientific basis for therapeutic exploration of potential fluidity, acknowledging stability predominates without universal change guarantees. ​

Photo by Vitaly Gariev on Unsplash

References are organized according to the headings listed below:

• Major Scientific Reviews & Consensus Claims
  Broad reviews that assess what current evidence does and does not support about sexuality, gender, and immutability. ​

• Biology, Genetics & Neuroplasticity
  Research and commentary on genetic, biological, and neuroplastic contributions to sexuality and gender-related traits, including critiques of simple “hardwired” narratives. ​

• Peer-Reviewed Therapy & Therapeutic Outcomes
  Empirical outcome studies and commentaries on sexual orientation change efforts and related exploratory therapies, focusing on efficacy, risks, and client-reported experience. ​

• Gender Identity & Medicalization Critiques
  Resources evaluating pediatric gender medicine, evidentiary standards, and emerging international caution around medicalized transition in youth. ​

• Sexual Fluidity & Identity Development
  Theoretical and empirical work on the development of sexual orientation and identity, highlighting both stability and fluidity over time. ​

• Trauma, EMDR, Memory & Sexual Functioning
  Studies and case reports on trauma, working-memory/EMDR mechanisms, and their potential influence on sexual functioning, fantasy, and distress. ​

• Ethics, Informed Consent & Professional Speech
  Ethics and legal resources addressing informed consent, client autonomy, and debates over professional speech regulations, including Chiles v. Salazar and related briefs. ​

• Client Experience & Family Context (Journal of Human Sexuality)
  Journal of Human Sexuality articles on client experiences in exploratory/change-allowing therapy, family dynamics, and outcomes among children of same-sex parents. ​

• Legal, Human Rights & Policy
  Constitutional, human-rights, and regulatory resources on therapeutic choice, professional speech, and counseling bans. ​

  

  Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash

Collins, F. S. (2007, Spring). Homosexuality is not hardwired, concludes Francis S. Collins, head of the Human Genome Project. NARTH Journal, 15(1), 3. https://archive.iftcc.org/homosexuality-is-not-hardwired-concludes-francis-s-collins-head-of-the-human-genome-project-15-1-spring-2007-1pp-3/
Summary: Explains no “gay gene” exists; orientation arises from complex gene-environment interactions. ​
Common misrepresentation: Dismissed as outdated ignoring newer genetic studies. ​
What it actually shows: Genetic complexity opens possibilities for exploring fluidity via therapy or environment, though no deterministic proof of change. ​

Genetics

Ganna, A., et al. (2019). Large-scale GWAS reveals insights into the genetic architecture of same-sex sexual behavior. Science, 365(6456), eaat7693.

Summary: Finds that genetics account for only a small fraction of variance in same-sex sexual behavior.

Common misrepresentation: Reported as discovering biological determination.

What it actually shows: No predictive or deterministic genetic model exists.

Nature Editorial Staff. (2019). No “gay gene”: Study looks at genetic basis of sexuality. Nature. Summary: Explains why genetic findings undermine simple biological narratives.

Common misrepresentation: Overshadowed by headlines implying biological fixity.

What it actually shows: Sexuality emerges from complex, non-deterministic factors.

Neuroplasticity

Whitehead, N. E. (n.d.). Brain plasticity backs up orientation change. MyGenes. https://mygenes.co.nz/plasticity.html[mygenes.co]​

Summary: Applies established neuroscience principles to attraction and behavior change.

Common misrepresentation: Claimed to promise guaranteed change.

What it actually shows: Theoretical plausibility, not universal outcomes.

Doidge, N. (2010). The brain that changes itself. Penguin.

Summary: Demonstrates how the brain adapts in response to experience.

Common misrepresentation: Ignored in sexuality discussions.

What it actually shows: Fixed-trait assumptions conflict with established neuroscience.

Below are draft entries that match the format and tone of your existing pages (citation line, then 1‑sentence Summary / Common misrepresentation / What it actually shows).

You can place the first three under Page 4 — Peer‑Reviewed SOCE & Therapeutic Outcomes and the last under Page 9 — Client Experience & Family Context (Journal of Human Sexuality).[ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws]​

Otto v. City of Boca Raton, 981 F.3d 854 (11th Cir. 2020).
Summary: The Eleventh Circuit held that local bans on sexual-orientation change counseling for minors were unconstitutional content- and viewpoint-based restrictions on therapist speech under the First Amendment. ​
Common misrepresentation: Treated either as endorsing abusive “conversion therapy” or as automatically invalidating all therapy bans in every state and context. ​
What it actually shows: An appellate decision classifying talk-based exploration of sexual fluidity as protected speech, enabling therapeutic discussions. ​

Manhattan Institute et al. (2025, June 13). Brief of Manhattan Institute, Islam and Religious Freedom Action Team, Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty, & Dr. Dovid Schwartz as amici curiae supporting petitioner. Supreme Court of the United States (No. 24-539). https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-539/363059/20250613091513843_Chiles%20merits.pdf
Summary: Argues that Colorado’s conversion-therapy ban lacks religious neutrality by privileging gender-affirming theologies over traditional sex-based distinctions. ​
Common misrepresentation: Dismissed as denying gender dysphoria legitimacy or promoting discrimination against trans individuals. ​
What it actually shows: A free exercise claim defending religious clients’ access to therapy exploring alignment of attractions with values. ​

Rosik, C. H. (2017). Sexual orientation change efforts, professional psychology, and the law: A brief history and analysis of a therapeutic prohibition. Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law, 32(1), 47–76. https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/jpl/vol32/iss1/3 ​

Summary: Traces how professional organizations, courts, and legislators have come to restrict sexual orientation change efforts, arguing that many justifications rest on selective use of evidence and problematic assumptions about professional speech. ​Common misinterpretations: Treated as if it endorsed all forms of “conversion therapy,” including coercive or aversive methods, or as if it claimed every SOCE restriction in any jurisdiction is automatically unconstitutional. ​

What it actually shows: A legal-analytic critique suggesting that bans on voluntary, talk-based, change-allowing therapy risk becoming viewpoint-based speech prohibitions, and calling for more nuanced, evidence-grounded regulation that distinguishes abusive practices from consensual exploratory work. ​

Liberty Counsel. (2025). Amicus brief for Chiles v. Salazar. Supreme Court of the United States.
Summary: Argues that bans on exploratory and change-allowing therapy violate constitutional protections for speech, conscience, and professional autonomy. ​
Common misrepresentation: Framed as defending coercive or abusive practices. ​
What it actually shows: A legal argument supporting clients’ rights to explore sexual fluidity through voluntary, informed therapy without state-imposed viewpoint restrictions, though no outcomes or changes are guaranteed. ​

Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash

Photo by Vitaly Gariev on Unsplash