Gender and sexuality: by no means an easy topic to broach from the other side. In fact, since the American Psychological Association says homosexuality is not a choice, some have even labeled sexuality an “undebatable” topic. While the APA did indeed make this claim, I prefer to go straight to the evidence itself rather than rely on the authority of the APA, the only professional institution to be censured by Congress by a unanimous vote. So on that note, let’s jump straight into the facts, starting with Spitzer.

No, not Eliot Spitzer, Dr. Robert Spitzer of Columbia University. Some may recognize him for his role in removing homosexuality as mental disorder in 1973, and while many have praised his willingness to reject the dogma of the day in the name of science, few know the sequel to his story. 30 years later, Spitzer published a surprising paper based on his research, one which suggested that therapy can change the orientation of an individual. Spitzer still had the same commitment to follow the evidence, but many of his colleagues who vigorously supported him in 1973 had a sudden change of heart. In fact, in the most ironic twist of fate, Spitzer, an atheist, interviewed with Christianity Today in April 2005, elaborating on the consequences of his rigorous and scientific studies. “Many colleagues were outraged,” said Spitzer, later adding, “I feel a little battle fatigue.”

While the Spitzer narrative does offer a compelling counterpoint to the discussion, it does not address the science of LGBT issues specifically at Cornell University. To localize this issue, I looked at the website for Cornell’s program in Lesbian, Bisexual and Gay Studies. From their list of faculty, the vast majority came from departments in areas such as lanuage, literature, and the arts. Another sizeable portion came from the government and history department. Finally, there was one anthropologist and two clinical psychologists. Considering the overwhelming scientific support that should exist, one would think that more than three of the twenty-eight professors would be scientists.

Of these three, I decided to focus in on Prof. Sandra Bem. Bem’s website had some of her articles available to download, and the most recent one, which appeared in the Journal of Sex Research, began with these words: “At the center of all my previous work on gender and sexuality has been the goal of shrinking both the relevance and the reach of the male/female dichotomy by trying, insofar as possible, to make it as minimal a presence in human and psychological life as, say, eye color or foot size.” Does anybody see a problem here? Bem has instead explicitly stated her desire to make the data follow her beliefs, not science. That sounds eerily similar to a criticism of intelligent design. In fact, this paper spent more time discussing the philosophers Butler and Foucault than it did scientifically approaching the topic. I suppose since conservative Christians can not distinguish philosophy from science, Bem figured they would not notice if she mixed the two as well. Jokes aside, though, this mix of science and belief presents a problem, especially since Bem invented one of the most widely used inventories used in gender research, the Bem Sex Role Inventory.

The BSRI became quite popular right after its conception in 1974, but the development of the scale certainly raised a lot of issues. Although this inventory put the term androgynous (meaning both male and female) on the map, as a result of the flaws pointed out by several papers, including a 1979 paper from Pedhazur and Tetenbaum, Bem essentially had to redefine what androgyny meant. However, the new definition had its own set of statistical flaws, and Pedhazur and Tetenbaum quickly jumped on that, too. Additionally, while Bern does claim to base the BSRI on a theory of sex roles, Pedhazur and Tetenbaum pulled a quote from her where she said, “My hypotheses have derived from no formal theory.”

The BSRI has more critics that I have not covered, but I highlighted Pedhazur and Tetenbaum for a particular reason. Their critique, while scathing, took on the issue from a very scientific and methodical perspective, while Bem’s papers have offered cultural critiques, used scientific terms like “social reproduction of male power” and cited philosophers to make a point. This problem highlights a concern relating to scientific research on LGBT issues: the mix of belief and science. Critics have accused intelligent design of doing the same thing, and although sometimes people made this accusation out of irrational distrust (especially since intelligent design has the same implications for Christians as it does for Zoro-Astrians), when the evidence backing the accusation held up, it had a lot of merit. Applied to LGBT issues, it still should hold the same amount of merit. Science does not judge based on the social worth or desirability of the cause; it boils down to an objective evaluation of the facts and evidence. Unfortunately, this standard has not been applied as stringently to LGBT issues.

But this is nothing new. In a 2005 book titled, Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well Intentioned Path to Mental to Harm, authors Rogers Wright and Nicholas Cummings write about how politics, belief, and ideology has infected the APA. And although the inside cover says, “Psychology, psychiatry, and social work have been captured by the ultra-liberal agenda,” neither author is conservative; in fact, both consider themselves socially progressive and have previously been actively involved in the APA. Additionally, several past presidents of the APA, namely Robert Perloff and Jack Wiggins, have thrown their support behind this book. While I do not have time to fully explain the case these authors have made, I can offer one last bit of advice. The next time someone cites gender and sexuality research to prove their claim, questioning the intelligence of those who would dare disagree with science, I would take a closer look at what they say. Go off the authority of the original research itself and its validity rather than off the authority of the person claiming to have science on their side.