There's been a lot of chatter lately over a 1991 paper by John Holsinger, Bush's nominee for US Surgeon General, titled "Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality." I decided to look do a detailed analysis of the scientific merits of that paper, so last weekend I spent a few hours at our local University library looking up Holsinger's reference material. The results are far worse than I thought.
You can find the detailed analysis in "A Closer Look at Dr. John Holsinger's 'Pathophysiology of Male Homosexuality'." It's rather lengthy, but in it, I go over each of Dr. Holsinger's claims with a fine tooth comb, and show how he misuses each of the references that he cites. It's a pretty sad outcome for a man who aspires to be the nation's chief medical advocate for all Americans.
The report is too lengthy to repeat in full here. So I'll just repost my conclusions. You can read the entire report here:
"The whole point of Holsinger’s paper is to draw a sharp contrast between gay relationships and heterosexual relationships. But to do so, he he culls his evidence largely from papers which describe injuries from nonconsensual intercourse to denigrate consensual relationships, he describes odd sexual practices that are enjoyed by heterosexual couples to denigrate the minority of gay couples who indulge in those same practices, and he misleads his readers by padding his bibliography with more references to papers explicitly describing injuries experienced by heterosexual men and women to imply that they describe gay men instead.
"Whatever pretensions Holsinger may have had to presenting a scientific argument, this paper does not rise to that level. In fact, Holsinger deployed many of the same tactics other anti-gay extremists use in writing common anti-gay tracts. The result is not science, but propaganda.
"The Human Rights Campaign’s Joe Solmonese, in opposing Holsinger’s nomination, points out that, "it is essential that America’s top doctor value sound science over anti-gay ideology." This paper shows no evidence that Holsinger holds to such values. What he wrote was no error, nor is it a simple misreading of the medical literature. In fact, it is simply impossible to write what he wrote by accident or in error.
"Holsinger wrote this paper as part of a church inquiry where the greater considerations for Truth ought to hold sway. This makes Holsinger’s actions all the more disquieting. If he’s willing to commit an act of false witness on behalf of the church — in the service of his God — what assurances can we have that he will act differently on behalf of the nation?"