So the thesis, procedure and conclusions were presented in 2001? You like to look up the definitions of simple words, here's another to add to your list: "semantics."
And, the point remains unchallenged that at the same time the study was already completed, Spitzer was adamant that "Of course sexual orientation is not a matter of choice."
Now, I don't expect much critical thought from you, seeing as you parrot the opinion of one man not even acquainted w/ Spitzer, nor do I expect a genuine debate.
You still failed to even respond to my point, so I'll just copy and paste:
Plus, my article has quotes from the author of the study and yours is some guy speaking for him. The man has Parkinson's disease and is worried about his legacy, he doesn't want to be on the wrong side of history and science.
Are you aware of the details of Dr. Spitzer's study? I'll give you a moment to familiarize yourself with them. There is no scientific value to it at all, it is weak in both concept and procedure and never actually concludes what you are claiming. He didn't attempt follow ups with his subjects nor did he account for self-deception (which is apparently normal procedure in these kinds of questionnaire studies.)
His study didn't prove anything to begin with, it was terrible science and he is ashamed of his professional misconduct. At the end of the day, he was probably paid handsomely by the Conversion Therapy industry for his betrayal.
You can't say the evidence still stands when the evidence is flimsy.
Good day, young lad. Continue to educate yourself, because education is the key.
