Rejecting the Refutation That Never Was: Reply to Meyer’s (2010) Comments on Savin-Williams, Cohen, Joyner, and Rieger (2010)

Abstract

Commenting on Savin-Williams, Cohen, Joyner, and Rieger (2010), Meyer (2010) dismissed their analytic approach as erroneous and submitted a lengthy defense of his minority-stress hypothesis. We reject Meyer’s refutation on several accounts, the primary one being that the study was not designed or presented as a‘‘test’’of his position. Despite considerable limitations with the minority-stress hypothesis—chief among them is insufficient, empirically validated research demonstrating the direct causal mechanism by which societal stigma is translated into negative mental health effects—we referenced it because of its intuitive, heuristic appeal and assumed truth that frequently results in its evocation as an explanation for mental health discrepancies among sexual orientation groups. It is regrettable that Meyer interpreted our call for scientific curiosity as a frontal attack on his hypothesized mechanism. In the spirit of scholarly inquiry, we believe it is justifiable—when based on empirical research—to offer alternative explanations to perceived truths when explaining complex behaviors. In this light, we interpreted the data from a possibly biologically mediated perspective rather than from the sociological-based minority-stress position.