To begin with, there was the fact that the sample was anything but random. It was very carefully selected to provide results that were as "normal" as possible. The subjects were informed of the purpose of the study, again to provide results that were as "normal" as possible. And the response of madg is, "So what?"
Then, despite the fact that the subjects knew that they should be on their best, most "normal" behavior, they read homosexual images into the TAT and MAPS tests. The heterosexual control group did not do anything like this, suggesting that the homosexual group was sexually obsessed. And the response of madg is, "So what?"
This will do to begin with, I think.
Kinsey was a scientist, Hooker was a scientist, and Landess is NOT a scientist. See the difference?
Kinsey and Hooker conducted research that was deeply flawed methodologically. Kinsey was not a trained mental health professional. And it doesn't take a scientist to see and report flaws in the scientific method. Anyone who paid attention in a freshman level biology course can do that. I can only presume that Landess paid attention in his freshman biology class.
Oh, it most certainly discredits him. Right from the start we KNOW that he’s propagandizing… something I went on to demonstrate anyway. What was NOT “discredited” was Evelyn Hooker’s study… certainly not by this literature professor working for the FRC.
Evelyn Hooker's study is discredited. As you are so fond of saying, she is a "notorious prevaricator" and a "disgraced researcher." She was biased in favor of a particular outcome and her selection of the sample, coupled with informing the subjects of the purpose of the study, clearly reveals that bias.
If you can find something wrong with the work published by Landess, then go ahead. But the simple fact that he worked for FRC does not discredit him.
(And what “extremely biased sources” have I used? Genuine scientists instead of Creative Writers?)
Gregory Herek is extremely biased. His bias drips from every pore at his UC Davis website. The Queer Resources Directory and other gay rights websites are also extremely biased.
There are very, very few “eureka” moments. Mostly, it’s a steady building of data that eventually leads to inescapable conclusions and consensus… such as the fact that homosexuality is NOT a pathology. How long it took them to reach that conclusion is irrelevent.
Timing is everything. Sixteen years after Hooker published her deeply flawed study, the APA treated it like newly-discovered gospel. This happened during and after the APA convention in San Francisco in 1973, when gay rights activists by the hundreds stormed the convention, threw chairs, stormed the stage and grabbed microphones, tore down posters, assaulted convention delegates, and in general made the convention one ugly incident after another.
This is fully documented in Bayer's Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis, which I've cited repeatedly. Like Bell & Weinberg, Bayer clearly and unequivocally states his sympathy with the gay rights movement in the foreword of his book. Like Bell & Weinberg, Bayer then rips the guts out of the gay rights activists' arguments with the facts in the text of his book.
Prior to the convention, gay rights activists asked a prominent psychiatrist for a statement of support. He wrote them back, politely declining. The gay rights activists then used his polite letter to print up his stationery, type the desired statement of support on it, forge his signature, and mail it out to every name on the APA mailing list that the gay rights activists had purchased. So in addition to the techniques of extortion, deception was used to gain support from APA members.
Under those circumstances, the APA was like a man who signed a contract with a gun held to his head.