The Charisma and Deception of Reparative Therapies: When Medical Science Beds Religion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, I examine the history and resurgence of interest in sexual reorientation or reparative therapies. I begin with a critique of the contemporary "ex-gay" movement, interrogating Exodus as the prototype of a politico-religious transformational ministry that works to "cure" homosexuals, and examine how Exodus utilizes ex-gay testimony to deceive harried homosexuals looking for escape from the effects of internalized and cultural homophobia. Next, I investigate how reparative therapies function as orthodox treatments that charismatically meld conservative religious perspectives with medical science to produce a pseudoscience promising to treat homosexuality effectively. In this regard, I assess the ongoing debate regarding gay-affirming versus reparative therapies by first looking at the history of medicalizing homosexuality and then surveying the debate spurred by Robert L. Spitzer's research. I conclude with a consideration of research needed to measure whether efficacious change in sexual orientation is possible.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.128 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".