Talk:Conversion therapy/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

RfC

'Conversion therapy' has become used over the past two decades to describe treatments for homosexuality in a religious context also described as 'reorientation' or 'reparative' therapy.

Is it appropriate to use this term to describe the approaches used by therapists who described their work using different terms before the coinage of these terms? Such as Krafft-Ebing or Bergler (etc.) here:

Mish (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That isn't neutral. The first sentence is a baseless assertion.

It is factually wrong to say that 'conversion therapy' refers only to religious attempts at changing homosexuality, and that's perfectly obvious from both of the sources (American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association) used to define conversion therapy in the lead. The American Psychological Association source refers to, "therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy)". Nothing there to indicate that it must be religious. The American Psychiatric Association source refers to, "psychiatric treatment, such as "reparative" or conversion therapy, which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that a patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation". There again, nothing to say it must be religious.

Here's a quote from the American Psychiatric Source, "In recent years, noted practitioners of "reparative" therapy have openly integrated older psychoanalytic theories that pathologize homosexuality with traditional religious beliefs condemning homosexuality (16,17,18). The earliest scientific criticisms of the early theories and religious beliefs informing "reparative" or conversion therapies came primarily from sexology researchers (19-27). Later, criticisms emerged from psychoanalytic sources as well (28-39). There has also been an increasing body of religious thought arguing against traditional, biblical interpretations that condemn homosexuality and which underlie religious types of "reparative" therapy (40-46).'

The first sentence seems to refer only to some practitioners, not all of them, and the last sentence makes it perfectly clear that religious types of reparative therapy are only one kind, and that others may not be religious. If what you were saying were actually correct, both APAs would say so clearly, but they don't. Your entire position is based on a strained and unacceptable interpretation of one sentence from one source. Born Gay (talk) 06:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's go through the Spitzer study and peer commentaries together, shall we?

So, looking at Drescher & Zucker's book Ex-Gay Research: Analyzing the Spitzer Study and its Relation to Science, Religion, Politics, and Culture (2006).

Ch.1

Zucker says that prior to the changes in approach to homosexuality 30 years earlier, 'the literature was replete with various treatment approaches designed to alter a person's same-sex sexual orientation'. When the approach changed, only a small number continue to regard homosexuality as pathological. He says that in the 1990's a 'movement of dissenters' arose, led by Socarides (who had never agreed with homosexuality being taken out of DSM-III), claiming that people could change if they wanted. Socarides and Nicholosi and the dissidents 'have described a technique known as "reparative therapy" to treat both gay men and lesbians' (he cites books written in 1991 and 1994); NARTH was formed in 1992.

So, note Zucker says that there were a variety of approaches, before the 1970's, and does not call these 'conversion therapy', instead he calls 'reparative therapy' a technique in its own right.

Ch.2

Drescher explains how the view that homosexuality was pathological was replaced by the view that it was normal human variation, but that there were always political undercurrents that resisted this idea. He explains how some elements in society have continued to reject acceptance of homosexuality 'sexual conversion therapists and so called ex-gays have attacked psychiatry [...] for their normalizing claims.' They have also argued homosexuality is a mental disorder. He goes on to say 'religious and social conservatives aggressively market conversion therapies as both a miracle cure and an alternative to being gay.' The science of whether change is possible has become subordinated to the politics of whether change is desirable. This casts homosexuality as behaviour symptomatic of mental illness, moral weakness, or spiritual sickness. From this understanding, not only is not treating homosexuality morally wrong, but so too is supporting aspirations of normalcy, such as normality of identity, family life, social stability, etc.

So, note that Drescher is clear that there was always a two-fold resistance to acceptance of homosexuality, and this has become focused on 'conversion therapies' since; the resistance has come from social conservatives and from conservative religious groups, who cast homosexuality as either mental or moral illness.

Ch.3

The APA states that in its 1998 statement it opposed any psychiatric treatment, citing 'reparative' or 'conversion' therapies which assumes homosexuality is a mental disorder or that homosexuals should change. It describes lack of evidence, and states that reparative or conversion therapies are at odds with the scientific position of the APA. That practitioners of reparative therapy have 'integrated older psychoanalytic theories that pathologize homosexuality with traditional beliefs condemning homosexuality.' The earliest critiques of theory and religious beliefs that informed 'reparative' or 'conversion' therapies were develpoed by sexologists, and then psychoanalysts. There has also been religious critique of the religious approach. The APA makes three recommendations, the first notes that effort to repathologize homosexuality comes not from rigorous scientific or psychiatric research, but through religious and political forces opposed to the civil rights of gay men and lesbians. It recommends a scientific response to claims made by political or religious groups that homosexuality is and illness and is curable. The second points out that the concept of 'repair' is based on developmental theories that are scientifically dubious.; there is as much evidence that these therapies harm rather than cure, and that until there is better evidence people refrain from using this type of approach. The third acknoweldges the difficulties in assessing outcomes and establishing evidence.

Ch.4

Spitzer says there are only a small number of mental health professionals involved in helping people change sexual orientation, this he identifies as 'reparative therapy', he also identifies 'ex-gay' ministries who support gay men and lesbians who seek to change their sexual orientation, citing Exodus International as an example. In the paper he uses the term 'reparative therapy' to refer to help from 'a mental health professional or ex-gay ministry for the purpose of changing sexual orientation'. He then questions the APA statement about there being no evidence, citing literature from 1977 relating to the possibility of changing sexual orientation, as well as a systematic review from 2001 that identified 84 relevant sources, a third of which noted a qualitative outcome. He cites Bieber from 1962 and Socarides from 1978. Throughout his review of the literature on historcial evidence for change, Spitzer always describes the sources as being about change, yet having just defined 'reparative' and 'conversion' therapies, does not refer to any of these using these terms - and he does not refer to anybody like Krafft-Ebing or Bergler (etc.) at all (and so far I have yet to find a reference to any of these people in this context anywhere).

Ch.5

Bancroft notes that the subjects of Spitzer's study primarily sought to change their sexual orientation because of their religious beliefs. He also notes that it is not clear what these treatments involved. He highlights the ethical problem of the imposition of moral values in the guise of medical treatment for psychological issues. He argues that a treatment model based on the immorality of somebody's sexual orientation is not 'therapy' at all.

Ch.6

Beckstead does not spell out the religious aspect to this approach, be he does give clear references to NARTH in the context of people's motivation for change.

So far what I have established is that there is a small minority of practioners involved in this form of treatment, that the motivation is from religious and social/political conservatives. The literature cited explains how professionals going back to the 1960's have detailed the possibility of change, but does not specifically cite this as 'reparative' or 'conversion' therapy, using these descriptions for those who have used the descriptions since 1990, and does not refer to the earlier sources in the article at all. When I have more time, I will work through the rest of the peer reviews in the book, although I will skip the methodological reviews as these aren't particularly relevant to this particular aspect of Spitzer & the APA.

What I am prepared to agree to is that reparative and conversion therapy is not exclusive to religiously motivated people, but that it is seen as having either a religious or ideological (social conservative) motivation. Perhaps the USA differs from here in that respect, because there is negligible political opposition to homosexuality here, it is mainly religious (but even then ex-gay ministries have not caught on here either, as far as I am aware). Mish (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Chapter 1: That's irrelevant. One person not using the term "conversion therapy" in one chapter of a book does not change how the two APAs define the term. "Reparative therapy" being a technique or not in its own right is not at issue here.

Yes, but when that person helped write sections of DSM (III-R, IV & IV-TR) for the APA, then his views are relevant, especially in a book on the subject of conversion therapy.

Regarding Chapter 2: That's also irrelevant. Drescher is not attempting to define "conversion therapy" here, so again, this does not support the claims you were making.

Dismiss all you like, but Drescher chairs the APA's Committee on Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Issues, so was instrumental in writing the APA statement, so his views are relevant in a book about conversion therapy

Regarding Chapter 3: What's the point of this? As I said, it's clear from the APA statement that reparative therapy/conversion therapy isn't by definition a religious approach.

Not so, it is cited for two reasons, because it is in the book, and because it clearly states the religious aspect to this therapy - I have simply expanded the refernces it makes to 'prove' what i cited before was not isolated - it is at the heart of how they define it.

Regarding Chapter 4: Spitzer's definition of conversion/reparative therapy (which actually isn't a real definition; it's just how he decided to use the term for that paper) is his definition, and has nothing to do with how the APAs use the term. He has been roundly, and quite rightly, criticised for using the term this way.

Spizer chaired the APA taskforce which revised DSM-III as DSM-III-R, worked on DSM-IV; he was made an award by the APA for his contributions. He also published the study which is central to most of the discussions about conversion therapy, and which is the subject of the book I am citing.

I have no idea what you think Chapters 5 and 6 prove, and have no response. They don't seem relevant either. You have not shown that the motivation of people who attempt to change sexual orientation is always religious or based on political conservatism, and in any case this issue has nothing to do with the definition of conversion therapy itself.

Well, I haven't finished yet - but the point is I don't have to prove anything - you do. That is because you are making these novel claims about conversion therapy, that its use predates 1990 and that it did not develop in the context of religous and social conservative values. yet so far you have not provided a single source that suggests anything else, whereas I have provided plenty of sources to the contrary.

It may be interesting that many people who try to do this are religious, but that's hardly a good reason for insisting that conversion therapy as such is religious. You are wasting your time trying to use Ex-Gay Research in this way. Your post contains masses and masses of unnecessary and pointless detail, most of which isn't worth addressing, since the issue is perfectly simple: conversion therapy can involve either religious or non-religious approaches. If you've now conceded this, I have no idea what it is you're trying to show. Born Gay (talk) 09:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

What I am trying to explain is that you are the first person I have come across who actually says this. You cannot criticise me for citing a source that shows you are wrong as being 'isolated', and when I then show you more sources criticise me for giving too much detail. I think that this has to become an RfC, and if you are not prepared to agree to any wording then I will have to go ahead without your agreement. It is not right that you should use this article to distort history in this way. Krafft-Ebing and Bergler etc. were not involved in conversion therapy, and you do not have a single source that says they were. So why persist in saying that they were? Mish (talk) 10:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

In future, it would be a great idea if you could not mix your comments with my comments in this way. I find that it makes discussion completely impossible. I am not going to respond to most of your comments, because they are irrelevant. In-depth discussions of the chapters of this particular book is pointless. None of this stuff shows that "conversion therapy" never applies to older approaches. Please refer to the American Psychiatric Association statement, which clearly shows that conversion therapy/reparative therapy does include older approaches, going back to Freud (clear from sources 10 through 15 in that document). You've never responded to that point, and everything you say above, at such tedious length, is simply a distraction from the basic issue. Born Gay (talk) 10:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I was working through your points one at a time - I understand you now say you don't like me doing this. Here they are again, in sequence:

Regarding Chapter 1:

Yes, but when that person helped write sections of DSM (III-R, IV & IV-TR) for the APA, then his views are relevant, especially in a book on the subject of conversion therapy.

Regarding Chapter 2:

Dismiss all you like, but Drescher chairs the APA's Committee on Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Issues, so was instrumental in writing the APA statement, so his views are relevant in a book about conversion therapy

Regarding Chapter 3:

Not so, it is cited for two reasons, because it is in the book, and because it clearly states the religious aspect to this therapy - I have simply expanded the refernces it makes to 'prove' what i cited before was not isolated - it is at the heart of how they define it.

Regarding Chapter 4:

Spizer chaired the APA taskforce which revised DSM-III as DSM-III-R, worked on DSM-IV; he was made an award by the APA for his contributions. He also published the study which is central to most of the discussions about conversion therapy, and which is the subject of the book I am citing.

Chapters 5 and 6

Well, I haven't finished yet - but the point is I don't have to prove anything - you do. That is because you are making these novel claims about conversion therapy, that its use predates 1990 and that it did not develop in the context of religous and social conservative values. yet so far you have not provided a single source that suggests anything else, whereas I have provided plenty of sources to the contrary.

What I am trying to explain is that you are the first person I have come across who actually says this. You cannot criticise me for citing a source that shows you are wrong as being 'isolated', and when I then show you more sources criticise me for giving too much detail. I think that this has to become an RfC, and if you are not prepared to agree to any wording then I will have to go ahead without your agreement. It is not right that you should use this article to distort history in this way. Krafft-Ebing and Bergler etc. were not involved in conversion therapy, and you do not have a single source that says they were. So why persist in saying that they were? Mish (talk) 10:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, so moving on, leaving the Spizer study and peer review to one side for now, let's look at what the APA do refer to in this section - a paper from 1940, a couple from the 1960's, and more recent ones, plus Freud, in a paragraph about theories used to 'rationalise' 'reparative therapy' (i.e. historic theories now used to justify reparative therapy). The only reference to any author in the references you have cited in the history section as doing 'conversion therapy' that I have contested is Freud - Krafft-Ebing, not Bergler, etc. are not listed. So, I will concentrate on Freud and see if it is possible to establish what they are referring to - but that is not a straightforward task, because they do not give a specific reference. Mish (talk) 11:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've had a quick look at the Freud reference, and as far as I can see what he does is discusses the difficulty of establishing the congenital and antenatal influencesin the development of what he calls 'inversion'. Nowhere does he discuss treating homosexuality, although he does give a psychoanalytic explanation for inversion in relation to the Oedipal Complex. This seems to confirm that he is referred to as inspriring the theory that is used to justify later conversion therapies. He doesn't discuss the treatment of inversion specifically, although is a short section about prevention - this involves ensuring girls and boys have a certain type of relationship with their parents that ensure they do not develop neuroses that result in inversion, and not sending boys to all-boys boarding schools. So, from what I can see, he explores possible causes, finds he cannot dismiss biological causes, but tries to explain same-sex sexual attraction as a result of childhood factors, and suggests ways of raising children that would avoid this - but nothing that describes a form of treatment similar to reparative or conversion therapy. This seems to add weight to the statement at the beginning of the praragraph about his theories being used in the later development of 'conversion' or 'reparative' therapy, not that he engaged in 'conversion therapy'. I used the source cited in the APA statement 'Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality'. This is why I said that it was synthetic to ascribe conversion therapy to these people, because that can only be done on a misreading of that source - the APA statement. I will agree that this paragraph in the APA statement is not worded very well, and could be read ambiguously. But like Spizer, the APA are not perfect. Going back to the original source, it is fairly clear that nothing in the work of Freud referred to looks like 'conversion therapy', only that the theories contained there may well have influenced its development - something I would wholeheartedly agree with. Unless I have missed something buried in the text somewhere - if I have, tell me what. Mish (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Lee Beckstead says that for his article, 'sexual reorientation therapy' is used as an umbrella to cover all attempted changes of sexual orientation, while 'conversion' therapy and 'reparative' therapy are used synonymously to signify treatments that are religious in nature and utilise gender-dentity based etiology. (Sexual conversion therapy: ethical, clinical, and research perspectives; Ariel Shidlo & Jack Drescher, Haworth Press, 2002, p.88). Jeffrey Ford (p.69) 'Reparative therapy' has become a generic term for almost any approach to healing homosexuality'. The relationship between religion and conversion therapy is dicussed throughout the book, for example 'Religion and Sexual Orientation Therapy' p.155 (Shroeder & Shidlo). Mish (talk) 15:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Haldeman's 1991 paper locates the origin of modern conversion therapy to 1982, and out of 11 pages 4 pages are devoted to religious approaches. Mish (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The American Psychological Association is clear that converison therapy is a general term for attempts at changing sexual orientation. It does not say that it must be religious, or that it doesn't apply to things before 1990. Nothing you say changes that fact. The American Psychiatric Association definition of conversion/reparative therapy (psychiatric treatment...which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that a patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation) also does not define it the way you say it should be.

The sentence in the American Psychiatric Association statement, 'The theories of "reparative" therapists define homosexuality as either a developmental arrest, a severe form of psychopathology, or some combination of both (10-15)' indicates perfectly clearly that the term does apply to pre-1990 efforts, since sources 10-15 all refer to people who wrote before 1990. You say that this is about "historic theories now used to justify reparative therapy". Wrong. The APA calls them reparative therapy (a term which it uses interchangeably with converison therapy). That's all there is to it. What Freud was discussing in the source the APA uses isn't relevant; their judgment that he was a conversion/reparative therapist is. Your personal view that conversion therapy should be defined differently carries no weight, and your observation that the APA statement is not worded very well simply dodges the fact that it plainly doesn't say what you want it to. You're free to think that the APA has gotten it wrong, but Wikipedia bases things on reliable sources; it doesn't argue with them, as you are trying to do. Nothing in Ex-Gay Research states that the term conversion therapy does not apply to pre-1990 change efforts, and you make no real argument that it does. Born Gay (talk) 23:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Beckstead: yes, he defines it differently, but so what? This doesn't cancel out what the two APAs say. It's bizarre that you would cite Ford, since what he says ("'Reparative therapy' has become a generic term for almost any approach to healing homosexuality'") contradicts you. Born Gay (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure - and so does what I have put in the UK section, to some extent. That is the point. If I were to omit this, it would be inaccurate, wouldn't it? The sources are contradictory, because there is some confusion over what is/isn't reparative/conversion therapy - and how afr you can apply it backwards. This is what you have to make sense of. Because I am right - but so are you. What I am going to suggest is that we make a compromise here, and work together on this. The sources are clear that reparative therapy (or whatever they want to call it) does include religious therapeutic approaches - and that these can be distinguished from psychotherapeutic and psychoanalytic approaches because one is about healing in a moral and religious sense, the other about healing in a psychological sense. Here what we have to do is not dismiss whatever we don't like, but incorporate it. All I am saying is that the way the article stands at the moment you would hardly know that there is this religious and moral aspect to conversion therapy - and as I have shown you, most writers (including the APA) are up front about that, and for a few that is the basis of their criticism of it. On the one hand it is criticised because it treats homosexuality as if it were a mental illness, and on the other it treats homosexuality as if it were a moral illness - or simply because it is seen as a sin. That is the motivations of those engaged in treating. Then there are those who seek help - some because they cannot deal with the stigma, the loss of family and friends, the burden of what they see as sin, degenerate behaviour, moral or mental illness. Whether they are right in believing these things doesn't matter - what matters is that this is all fairly well documented, and we need to provide the whole picture - not simply one side of it. We are supposed to do this throughout Wikipedia - these are the principles. I'm happy to help you with this, and would prefer not to have it be a battle - because it can actually be quite straightforward, doesn't have to be a problem, and can be quite enjoyable. Mish (talk) 01:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that this page be deleted, or merged to talk:Conversion therapy. I don't understand the point of having a separate page, or of discussing these issues on two different pages at once. Born Gay (talk) 02:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It was set up to discuss the RfC, but we couldn't agree on the wording. It isn't hurting, and I would prefer it be preserved as an archiv of this conversation. I have no objection to it being merged, but as I see no point continuing with the RfC at this time, conversation here is unnecessary now. Mish (talk) 06:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead

I'd like to ask Benjiboi to explain his recent edit to the lead. I realize that it has numerous problems and needs improvement, but I'm frankly not sure that the recent change was an improvement. The second sentence now reads, "Issues with most aspects of conversion therapy has become highly politicized in the United States, Germany and numerous other countries." I find this wording rather vague - which issues with exactly what aspects have been politicized? Wouldn't it be better to name them? It's also unusual, since it implies that some issues with aspects of conversion therapy have not been politicized. Again, which ones? What are the sources that support this? I'm not questioning your good faith, but it looks slightly too much like original research. I'm also not sure whether it's an advantage to shift the bit about politics to the second sentence. Born Gay (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, that should be "have", not "has." Born Gay (talk) 00:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The grammar issues aside this is a highly controversial subject that is chiefly propagated in the religious sphere. That should not be buried in the lede. And NARTH is among the few, only?, well-known non-religiously tied groups advocating conversion therapy. Let's be clear and upfront here. The majority of our readers only read the lede. We should present a NPOV summary of the subject which is clear, easily digestible and lures the reader into wanting to read more. The lede has indeed improved but still has a way to go. -- Banjeboi 14:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi, I'm a little surprised to see you saying that NARTH is a "non-religiously tied" group. They apparently are not an officially religious organization, but they definitely do have strong connections with religious groups and individuals. In any event, you can't just change the article to say that NARTH is a "secular organization" (which would be true only in a narrow sense of that expression) without reliable sources to back that up. It's not in accord with Verifiability, and neither is the original research definition of conversion therapy you added: "a variety of therapy techniques purported to change sexual orientation of gay, lesbian and bisexual people away from a homosexual orientation." I have removed that, and changed the definition back to what the source actually says ("therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation").

Also, the location you (once again, and without consensus) shifted the sentence about politicization to makes no sense. Logically, it belongs in the paragraph that begins 'The American Psychiatric Association has stated that political and moral debates over the integration of gays and lesbians into the mainstream of American society have obscured scientific data....', along with the rest of the moral/political controversy stuff. It isn't "burried" in that position; it's simply where it should be given what it's about.Born Gay (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

History section

The history section, IMHO, is more confusing than enlightening. It's quite unclear why it is so divied to specific political boundaries and researchers when a chronology would likely make more sense. Most likely the history of conversion therapy parallels a history of understanding sexuality including homosexuality. I'm not looking for a battle here but FWIW I wanted to state that as someone who would like to see this be a good article. -- Banjeboi 14:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware the history section needs major changes. Please comment on the proposals on my project page here [1] (they include proposals for the lead as well as the history section).Born Gay (talk) 23:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No thanks, I'm not comfortable with my interactions with you on this article. -- Banjeboi 23:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that. Born Gay (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Born Gay edits

Born Gay, please could you clarify your reverts? Articles should present prevailing professional consensus. Why do you think that only American mainstream organizations opposing Conversion Therapy should be named in the article? And why you removed the fact about randomized trials from highly reliable source? Thus, I highly suggest to discuss further development of the article, since there is no reason why there should be presented extremistic view from obviously unreliable sources (low-quality psychological journals etc.) Such encyclopedic effort is valueless for readers. --Destinero (talk) 05:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Before making major changes to an article about a controversial subject, it is proper to discuss matters and seek consensus. You did not do this, and since it was not clear to me that your changes were improvements, I reverted you. You gave few edit summaries, and those you did give were extremely vague and unhelpful. I'm perfectly happy to discuss each particular change you want to make individually, but if you insist on making them all at once without discussion it's very likely they will all be reverted.

OK, it does make sense. --Destinero (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not necessarily think that only American mainstream organizations should be mentioned, but there is a case for not including others. The only discussions of the history of conversion therapy there are (all of two articles, I believe) are focused mainly on the situation in the United States. That being the case, it seems sensible that the article should be concerned mainly with the mainstream view in the United States. Also, it is not nearly as clear as you seem to think it is what counts as a reliable source and what doesn't. It depends on how the source is used. You say that this article shouldn't present "extremistic views" - well it doesn't. It mentions them and describes what they are, which is entirely different, and clearly valuable. Born Gay (talk) 07:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no statement in the introduction that this topic is connected with US only. In addition, there is a chapter about situation in UK and other countries and it is desirable to summarize professional consensus represented by the largest and oldest organizations in this field on the world. There is no doubt that there is no better or more reliable and reputable sources on this this topic on this world and if the fringe ideological, political and activist (not scientific or reputable) organizations with several hundreds members and founded only several years ago is included here (moreover I would say that this is against Wikipedia principles of undue weight), than there is no reason to exclude the sources I added. --Destinero (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight

Psychology reports is low-quality journal and thus exceptional views published there are unacceptable under the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight and Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources policies and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Scholarship guideline: "Wikipedia articles should cover all significant views, doing so in proportion to their published prominence among the most reliable sources. Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals in those fields well covered by such indexes, but not included, should be used with caution. Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Destinero (talk • contribs) 15:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

@Destinero. If you review the more recent archives, you will see how this page operates. Hopefully you can learn from that and find a way of adding appropriate content. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I never said that conversion therapy was connected with the US only. It is connected to some extent with numerous different countries. However, what sources there are focus more on the United States than on other countries, which really shouldn't be surprising. Maybe the mainstream view in other countries should be covered as well, but if so it may not deserve as much space. Again, regarding reliable sources, it depends how they are used. Starting a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard may be a good idea. You can find it here. Born Gay (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course its not surprising - people here tend to see it is crap, so it is not that big an issue. It's only an issue in places where many people follow a certain type of religion, and psychiatrists can make money out of it. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem to use references such as http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/reparative_therapy.pdf and http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/uploads/rcp.html http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pressparliament/pressreleases2009/statement.aspx . Why you have problem with those? --Destinero (talk) 05:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say I did have a problem with them, so your question is misconceived. Born Gay (talk) 07:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thus I really don't understand your objections to include Australian and British reliable source in the first sentence of article. This is not article about US only and add two references to the first sentence and reformulate it actually isn't much space. So why you are reverting? --Destinero (talk) 11:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This article has enough problems with undue material as it is (in all honesty, that's partly my fault). Your edits are making the situation worse. You have made no good case that this material should be included, and I've already explained the case against it. Born Gay (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Psychological Reports is unacceptable reference

"Science is a collective enterprise. Published research papers can be considered scientifically significant to the extent that they influence the thinking and research of other scientists and have an impact on the formulation of new research questions and the design of future studies. Based on this rationale, research studies are often evaluated, in part, by the prestige of the scientific journals in which they are published and by how often they are subsequently cited in the scientific literature by other researchers and professional colleagues. Objective measures are available for both of these criteria, using data published regularly in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) and the Journal Citation Reports (JCR). Impact factor is widely used by librarians, information scientists, and researchers from a variety of disciplines as an objective indicator of a journal's quality, value, and impact. What are the impact factors for the journals in which the Cameron group has published its papers? Four of the Cameron group's publication outlets – Journal of Psychology, Journal of Psychology and Theology, Omega, and Psychological Reports – were categorized as General Psychology journals in the JCR. They are listed here, along with examples of some of the top- and bottom-ranked journals in that category for 1994 and 1995, and again in 2005. The average number of citations for a paper published in the highest-ranked journals (e.g., Psychological Review in 1994, Psychological Bulletin in 1995) was approximately seven or higher. In other words, articles published in these journals were cited, on average, at least seven times during the two years after their initial publication. All of the journals used by the Cameron group were in the lower half of the rankings and, in many cases, near the bottom. For those journals, the impact factors were substantially less than 1.0, meaning that the average article published in them was not cited at all in the two years after its initial publication. Instead of publishing in highly-respected, scientifically rigorous, and highly influential psychological journals (such as those in the top half of the JCR rankings), most of the Cameron group's research reports have appeared in Psychological Reports. As shown in the table below, Psychological Reports consistently ranks near the bottom of the list for impact. Other approaches to ranking the prestige and significance of journals have similarly ranked Psychological Reports at a low level in comparison to other psychology journals. Psychological Reports publishes a larger number of articles and has a lower rejection rate than is typical for psychology journals. According to JCR in 1994 and 1995, for example, Psychological Reports was the third largest journal for which statistics were collected, publishing 510 articles in 1994 and 504 articles in 1995. Psychological Reports is also different from the vast majority of psychology and social science journals in that it requires contributing authors to pay a fee (in recent years, $27.50 per page). The practice of charging a per-page fee or requiring purchase of preprinted copies of the article is rare in psychological and social science journals. Such per-page fees are not charged by the high-prestige psychology journals (e.g., those published by the American Psychological Association and the Association for Psychological Science). Thus, the Cameron group has published its empirical research in academic journals with low prestige and, at least in the case of Psychological Reports, with a low rejection rate and a publication fee required from authors. Given the serious methodological flaws in their survey studies and obituary study, it is reasonable to conclude that the Cameron group's papers would have been rejected by more prestigious scientific journals." http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_cameron_journals.html

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources: "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources."

Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Scholarship: "Wikipedia articles should cover all significant views, doing so in proportion to their published prominence among the most reliable sources. Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals in those fields well covered by such indexes, but not included, should be used with caution. Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred to provide proper context, where available." Thus I expect your apology.

The reference "Nicolosi, Joseph; Byrd, A. Dean; Potts, Richard W. (June 2000), Retrospective self-reports of changes in homosexual orientation: A consumer survey of conversion therapy clients, 86, Psychological Reports, pp. 1071–1088" is unacceptable to Wikipedia under the above cited policies and guidelines, since it is one tentative study published in unreliable source. Thus I am removing undoubtedly unreliable reference. --Destinero (talk) 10:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this, Destinero, it is not policy to use unreliable sources that support a fringe view in favour of reliable sources that criticise that view. I support your edits, I do not support BornGay's reversals. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

To Destinero: I am not going to apologize to you. Your suggestion that I should is childish, and bad wiki-etiquette. Let's be clear what is actually at issue here: should the article mention what Nicolosi et al think, or shouldn't it? Mentioning their views is something completely different from supporting them, and it's crucial to make that distinction. Part of the purpose of this article is to explain to readers what supporters of conversion therapy think, and in my view it is foolish to remove material (such as Nicolosi's study) that helps to do that. I don't consider it especially important that this particular study be mentioned, but neither do I think that removing it serves any good purpose. Making enormously long quotatons from Wikipedia's policies is an annoying waste of talk page space, and really doesn't help you make your case. The reliability of Psychological Reports is an issue that has been discussed before on other articles, and there is no general agreement that it cannot be used. For example, see the comments by DGG, a very experienced and fair administrator, on this issue[2]. His conclusion was that, "It is not of such low quality that material in it can be rejected altogther, nor or such high quality that everything in it can be trusted", which seems reasonable.

To Mish: Which edits by Desitnero in particular do you agree with and why? Just saying that you agree with them, without being specific or giving an explanation, is not helpful. Would you agree with any edit Destinero made? Destinero's edits are problematic for many reasons (several of them have violated due weight, NPOV, and other policies), and I am not convinced that they shouldn't be reverted simply because for some reason you think they're good. In my view they are quite unhelpful, and if there is going to be a consensus among editors on this page that they shouldn't be reverted, I will simply stop working on this article. I don't see the point in trying to improve an article when a group of editors insist on making changes that lower its quality and violate its neutrality. Born Gay (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that something needs to be there about NARTH, and it needs to be related to the mainstream views on NARTH. If their reports are dismissed, and of poor quality, then I can see no justification in citing claims made in those reports directly. Especially when they are deemed to be problematic claims that have no evidence to support them. By all means say that NARTH claim s things, but not citing doubtful statistics, then add that they are generally dismissed by experts. Otherwise, the people reading this article might be misled into assuming that they are credible. Their credibility is not generally acknowledged (apart from by NARTH and a few people with a religious interest in 'bigging-up' reparative therapy). We can no more be involved in that than we can in giving conspiracy theories credibility. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 00:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to restore the mention of that study right away. That's partly because I don't see the study as being of crucial importance, and partly because there is no consensus at the moment for restoring it. However, the reason given for removing it was completely mistaken, and I will, possibly, be restoring it at some stage in the future, if that seems appropriate. It's simply not true that Psychological Reports can never be used as a source, and I see little reason to worry that readers will decide that conversion therapy is credible simply because Nicolosi's or NARTH's views are mentioned (not presented as fact, but just mentioned) in the article. Born Gay (talk) 00:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, their views need to be discussed, in the context of the critique, it is the inclusion of unsubstantiated figures that concern me. The other thing that concerns me is the removal of more reliable sources in favour of weaker sources. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 02:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources can be removed for any number of reasons, including considerations of due weight. If something isn't significant enough to be mentioned in an article, it shouldn't be mentioned, even if the source is reliable. Discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard may help matters. If that fails, I will consider placing a request for comment regarding the Psychological Reports issue. I wondered if you could suggest a wording for it? I don't plan to restore this information in the near future, but the issue may reoccur at some point, and it would make sense to make more effort to see where consensus lies. Born Gay (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to let you work that one out with Destinero. I'd appreciate you running it through here, though, before posting it. To be honest, I'm more interested in the history section, because I have read most of the original texts. I have taken the liberty of reorganising the History section along the lines you suggested on the spave you linked to earlier. I want to finish playing with it, then when I'm happy with it, I'll bring it here for feedback. I think it is important to have that section, but to try and reduce it as much as possible. I think this is part of the problem with the article, that it is so large with so many sections, it tends to detract from the main body of text on contemporary issues, and when people get there it is fragmented, and they don't see 'the whole', and start to chip away at bits that in isolation look like they give undue weight to stuff. Somehow, that needs to be attended to in a way that is less fragmented and the balance becomes clearer.

I am reorganising the history chronologically in the following way:

19th Century
20th Century: Europe up to WW2
20th Century: USA up to WW2
20th Century: Europe WW2 to 2000
20th Century: USA WW2 to 2000
21st Century: Europe
21st Century: USA

The second half of the 20th Century might need to be broken down somewhere between 1969 & 1973, but I'm not thinking about that, the sections aren't too long this way, and there aren't so many. I've reduced Krafft-Ebing substantially, and Freud a bit, removed a couple of entries, halved Hirschfeld, etc. I'm mainly focusing on the European stuff, because I'm not that interested in most of the USA stuff beyond Bergler and Kinsey. I've split Europe and USA because I feel others would be better tacking the USA, and I try to avoid USA articles as there are plenty of US editors. Also, historically (up to about 1936 anyway) the main interplay was between UK, Germany & Austria. We can look at how well that split works after WW2 later. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 03:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Changing the history section in any significant way (and it does obviously require significant change, including abandoning the country-by-country organization, which wasn't such a great idea) needs consensus. It's true that I went ahead and changed it without consensus, but looking back I wish I hadn't done that. It might have produced a much better result if I had discussed matters beforehand. So I would request that you not change it again without further discussion. That's not to reject your proposed changes, I simply haven't had a chance to look at them carefully yet. I will comment further when I have. Born Gay (talk) 03:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry, when I have finished, I will post them here for comment before updating the section itself. I would like to suggest that to avert future edit wars, we do this with any major changes to the article. That we copy the section(s), set up a sandbox linked from here, and work through the section(s) until we are happy with it/them, then once consensus is achieved, we replace what is on the main page, and that becomes the consensus version - and we all try to ensure no major changes are made without discussion here. Otherwise it is simply not fair to the readers to go through this whenever an editor comes here who has issues with the way the article is now. I am not clear that what we have now has been arrived at through consensus, and that is part of the problem. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 11:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yarhouse and Throckmorton Study

Born Gay, could you please quote where is in the paper claimed that "there is evidence that it can be effective."? I've red it many times and probably I overlook something? Thank you. --Destinero (talk) 09:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"The authors present 3 arguments in favor of providing reorientation and related services: (a) respect for the autonomy and self-determination of persons, (b) respect for valuative frameworks, creeds, and religious values regarding the moral status of same-sex behavior, and (c) service provision given the scientific evidence that efforts to change thoughts, behaviors, and feeling-based sexual orientation can be successful."

I don't know how you missed that. Born Gay (talk) 09:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

And where is the detailed supportive evidence of changing orientation and not only feelings, thoughts or behaviour? --Destinero (talk) 09:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

What relevance does that question have? People who claim that conversion therapy is effective don't necessarily mean by that that it changes orientation 100% - sometimes they make more moderate claims. Born Gay (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Randomised trials

Born Gay, why are you removing the crucial well-referenced and wikilinked fact from the lead? This is clearly something which should every reader of the article know in the beginning. Where you have consensus for your cleaning? --Destinero (talk) 09:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed it because it's not appropriate for the lead, the purpose of which is simply to summarize the main points of the article. The particular information you want to add to the lead doesn't even appear anywhere else in the article, so obviously it doesn't have any place in a summary that sums up the article as a whole. It's gratuitous, in that it's not even about conversion therapy specifically. Furthermore, it's based on a British source while everything else about the mainstream view in the lead is American, which it should be, given that most sources on conversion therapy emphasise the situation in the United States. My not having consensus for removing it doesn't mean you should add it without consensus. Born Gay (talk) 09:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That sentence provides framework, context. If you are unable to prove unreliability of the source and that the trials were carried, than you have no right to remove this essential fact. It's only one sentence. My not having consensus for adding it doesn't mean you should remove it without consensus. --Destinero (talk) 09:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about conversion therapy. That information isn't about conversion therapy and does not belong here. Nothing in the article needs this "context." I have no idea why you think I have to "prove" the source is not reliable, rather than you needing to prove it is reliable. The last sentence of your reply really is childish, and indicates little understanding of how Wikipedia is supposed to operate. Born Gay (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Why you think you have more right to do what you want that others? Since the fact is that current version of the article is in your way. And be aware of NPA policy and loaded language "childish" to me. --Destinero (talk) 09:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Your question doesn't have anything to do with the article, and isn't an appropriate use of the talk page. I would suggest dispute resolution, asking for a third opinion, or some other more sensible way of dealing with this disagreement. Born Gay (talk) 09:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

what is needed is a source that refers to the relevance of such randomised trials to the evidence on conversion therapy. It is a bit like my comment about this being pseudo-science - Freud is in the history as having some relationship to conversion therapy, and Freudian psychoaonalysis was determined to be pseudoscience by Popper - but because conversion therapy did not exist, we seem unable to talk about Popper's critique of Freud (as he never discusses conversion therapy), while we are able to talk about Freud (who didn't either, but has been linked historically to the development of conversion therapy. Most academics know it is all smoke-and-mirrors, but it is a matter of tracking down the sources which say this. Like this one [[3]], or this one [[4]]. Rejecting papers in leading international journals just because they are British is odd. These journals tend to be cited in the USA as well as the UK, and just because Conversion Therapy is a bigger issue in the USA than the UK is not relevant. People from the USA publish in the UK because it is not the USA, for very good reasons. Drescher has done so, Green has done so for many years, and there are others. One of the reasons Conversion Therapy is not the problem it has become in the USA is because of the way it has been managed in UK medical and psych journals. They need to be cited, because they have been more effective in showing up the problems inherent in this type of therapy in a way that has not been managed nearly so well in the USA. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 12:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not its being a British source per se, but its being placed between sentences about the mainstream view in the US. That means it might look as though it were about the mainstream US view, which it isn't. Born Gay (talk) 00:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That's easy to change. Take this sentence here:

Mainstream American medical and scientific organizations have expressed concern over conversion therapy and consider it potentially harmful.[9][2] The ethics guidelines of major mental health organizations in the United States vary from cautionary statements about the safety, effectiveness, and dangers of prejudice associated with conversion therapy (American Psychological Association), to recommendations that ethical practitioners refrain from practicing conversion therapy (American Psychiatric Association) or from referring patients to those who do (American Counseling Association).[2][7][10] Sigmund Freud was a major influence on the development of conversion therapy, although he was skeptical of its effectiveness.[5]

Mainstream medical and scientific organizations in the United States and other countries have expressed concern over conversion therapy and consider it potentially harmful.[9][2] The ethics guidelines of major mental health organizations in North America and Europe vary from cautionary statements about the safety, effectiveness, and dangers of prejudice associated with conversion therapy (American Psychological Association), to recommendations that ethical practitioners refrain from practicing conversion therapy (American Psychiatric Association) or from referring patients to those who do (American Counseling Association).[2][7][10]

This:

Sigmund Freud was a major influence on the development of conversion therapy, although he was skeptical of its effectiveness.[5]

Has nothing to do with that paragraph, it needs to go somewhere else. Mish (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You're perfectly correct. Where it should go, I'm not sure. The lead can have up to four paragraphs; maybe this could be part of an additional paragraph. Born Gay (talk) 09:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I have removed that sentence from the lead for the time being. Possibly it could go in an additional paragraph focusing on Freud and psychoanalysis; it's hard to deal with Freud properly in one sentence. Born Gay (talk) 07:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

sandbox for history

Hi, before you make too many changes to history, perhaps you could look at the sandbox I set up for the history.

User:MishMich/CV history

I have merged all the European history, and separated out some major timescales. I have merged all countries for pre 20th Century, but kept USA and Europe separate as I am less knowledgeable about the USA (apart from Bergler & Kinsey etc.). I have had a comment that the USA & Europe needs to be merged from 20th Century inwards - but I have left it so that this can be worked on by somebody who is more interested in the USA while I work through the European stuff. Could use some material from Australia/NZ as well I guess. If you could work on reducing the USA sections, I will get back to slimming the European stuff, and then have a go at merging the two. Then when we are agreed on the revised section we can replace the section in a way that does not disrupt the article for any readers while this gets sorted out. Mish (talk) 09:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

My first comment is that I think there's still a lot of stuff there that quite likely doesn't belong in the article at all. It's questionable at best if Schrenck-Notzing or Charcot deserve any mention, and the same can be said for everything else in the 19th century section. Cutting back the Krafft-Ebing material is a step in the right direction, but I suspect that deleting it altogether might be a better option. The problem with all of these figures is that there's susprisingly little evidence that they influenced the later development of conversion therapy.

Freud is a completely different case; all the relevant sources indicate that he was a massive influence on conversion therapy, despite the way it diverged from his somewhat more tolerant views. I'm not sure the Freud material should be cut back at all, though maybe it could be abbreviated a little. The later paragraphs dealing with Vinchon, Nacht, Ferenczi, Boehm, Bergler, and Klein are better, and are closer to how the article should read. The Nazi material is undue, and would be better abbreviated to a sentence or two at most.

The material on Hirschfeld is still a little too long; it probably needs only a sentence or two, dealing with how he was willing to refer gay people who wanted to change to psychoanalysts such as Sadger. Mentioning his comparison of homosexuality to having a hare lip is somewhat pointless. In the US section, I think the material on Brill probably should be abbreviated a little more. I'm not at all sure whether Stekel or Deutsch should be mentioned or not; Lewes barely deals with Stekel, and Yoshino mentions him only in a footnote. La Forest Potter probably doesn't belong there at all, unless there is some mention of him in primary sources (books by conversion therapists).

The organization of the history section in your proposed version is definitely better than what is there now, but it would probably be better yet to move toward a more purely chronological arrangement, since that is how the most relevant sources (Lewes, Drescher, and Yoshino) deal with the subject. Personally, I've reached the conclusion that the history section should focus almost entirely on the Freudian and quasi-Freudian approaches, with other methods deserving only a brief mention, as this is how the sources discuss the history of the subject. The assorted non-Freudian methods (surgery, ex-gay ministries, and so on) would be better dealt with in different ways, in the contemporary methods section. This is because there appear to be no sources that deal with them as part of the history of conversion therapy (though some describe them as methods of conversion therapy).

Other things (Gunter Dorner's work, Lacan, the chemical castration of Alan Turing) shouldn't be anywhere in the article, as they're entirely undue. Probably so are Arthur Janov and the primal scream material. Eysenck (and also Srnec and Freund, and Seligman on aversion therapy) wouldn't belong in the history section, though possibly mentioning their work might be appropriate in a different part of the article. There are a lot of other things I'm still unsure about. Born Gay (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I won't be doing anything with it for a couple days, but will go through the above and see what I can do. I'm not overly concerned with the rest of the article right now - although it would be good to get a clearer idea about what this therapy involves in practice. Mish (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Richard Cohen

I recently came across an article about Richard A. Cohen, who is described as a leading practitioner of conversion therapy. He's not mentioned here. If he is, should he be mentioned here - or if not should his biography be amended accordingly? Not sure how to go about the latter, as it has a verifiable source. Mish (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually Cohen is mentioned, in the Non-professional methods subsection of "Contemporary theories and techniques." I'm reasonably confident that Cohen should be mentioned here, and don't think he ought to be removed, although I'm unsure exactly how much space he deserves. He may have received more attention in the popular media than in books and papers dealing with conversion therapy. This points to the need to take newspaper articles and other media sources into account as well as books and articles in journals. Born Gay (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Odd, I did a search on the page and it didn't come up - but now I see him. Maybe worth mentioning he was permanently expelled from the ACA for ethics violations? Maybe the location under the Non-professional methods subsection covers this, I don't know. Mish (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This section is problematic. It currently states that, "Some methods, including coaching, are outside the purview of professional health associations, and hence are not required to follow professional ethics guidelines", something that, for the record, I found in earlier versions of this article, and readded to the current version without checking to see whether it was correct. I am not sure there is anything in the source that justifies that statement. The closest the source seems to come to it is, "To exacerbate the potential harm done to naïve, shameridden counselees, many of these programs operate under the formidable auspices of the Christian church, and outside the jurisdiction of any professional organization that might impose ethical standards of practice and accountability on them." What that appears to mean is that some programs operate outside the jurisdication of professional organizations, not that the methods the programs use are necessarily outside their jurisdiction (it says nothing about coaching being such a method, for instance). So I'm going to remove that, and give the section a different title, as it is largely about Cohen. Born Gay (talk) 07:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Ex-pedophiles

It appears that many programs and policies of the ex-gay movement are based on similar work done by psychiatrists that have been trying to re-orientate convicted pedophiles from the deviant sexual behavior. It would be interesting if relevant information on this could be added in the article. ADM (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You have stated this before on other talk pages, but did not produce any sources to back this up. Please do not add anything without a proper source, and in addition, please refrain from posting comments I made on other talk pages here as though I had placed them here, which is confusing and misleading. I have removed my response to you from talk:ex-gay. Born Gay (talk) 03:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, one method that has been mentioned is cognitive-behavioral therapy, which in some respects is very similar to conversion therapy. [5] ADM (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The similarity of Conversion therapy to the methods described at that source is a matter of opinion. Stating that they are similar in the article would be Original Research, and there is a policy against that. Born Gay (talk) 04:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Revised Freud section

I have been working on the history section of the article in my sandbox [6]. Most of it is not yet up to an acceptable standard, but in my view the section on Freud is good enough to replace what is currently in the article. This version is somewhat abbreviated, better organized, and includes page references, so I will transfer it to the article if there are no objections. I have included as much information about Steinach as seems relevant, so if agreement is reached to use this version, I will delete the section on Steinach when I make the change. Born Gay (talk) 01:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete Krafft-Ebing

I think the next thing that should be done with the article is to delete the Krafft-Ebing section. There are no sources that describe KE's views on altering homosexuality as part of the history of conversion therapy, and there's no direct evidence his views influenced Freud. Comments? Born Gay (talk) 06:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. Mish (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll do it then. I was a little reluctant to remove that information, but frankly it seems the best thing to do, despite the possibility of his being an influence on later practitioners. There are a lot of other things that should probably be cut out of the article eventually, but I'm going to wait and work on the article in my sandbox before doing that. Born Gay (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

New APA resolution

This is from Yahoo News, and there's nothing on the APA site, but this is one to watch out for in the newspapers, and presumably an official statement:

Psychologists repudiate gay-to-straight therapy

The American Psychological Association declared Wednesday that mental health professionals should not tell gay clients they can become straight through therapy or other treatments.

Instead, the APA urged therapists to consider multiple options — that could range from celibacy to switching churches — for helping clients whose sexual orientation and religious faith conflict.

In a resolution adopted on a 125-to-4 vote by the APA's governing council, and in a comprehensive report based on two years of research, the 150,000-member association put itself firmly on record in opposition of so-called "reparative therapy" which seeks to change sexual orientation.

No solid evidence exists that such change is likely, says the report, and some research suggests that efforts to produce change could be harmful, inducing depression and suicidal tendencies.

The APA had criticized reparative therapy in the past, but a six-member task force added weight to this position by examining 83 studies on sexual orientation change conducted since 1960. Its comprehensive report was endorsed by the APA's governing council in Toronto, where the association's annual meeting is being held this weekend.

The report breaks new ground in its detailed and nuanced assessment of how therapists should deal with gay clients struggling to remain loyal to a religious faith that disapproves of homosexuality. Mish (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Here too: http://www.healthnewsdigest.com/news/Mental_Health_430/Mental_Health_Professionals_Should_Not_Tell_Clients_They_Can_Change_Sexual_Orientation.shtml Mish (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

For those interested, APA's complete report is available here from their website.— James Cantor (talk) 00:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Mish, check the article history; I added this +ref a couple hours ago. :-) —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C01:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I have not had time to read this as yet, but I would be surprised if it really marked a strengthening of the APA's position against conversion therapy. Their position against it was already very strong. Born Gay (talk) 05:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Top story on CNN right now. http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/08/05/gay.to.straight/index.html Dosbears (talk) 05:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, except now it is backed up with firm evidence, so it shifts from not appearing to work and likely to cause harm to does not work and is harmful - plus there is an implicit warning to therapists that this is not recommended, so they shouldn't be steering clients in that direction. It leaves less wriggle-room for those who are still involved with it. Mish (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal ran it with the subtitle: Psychological Association Revises Treatment Guidelines to Allow Counselors to Help Clients Reject Their Same-Sex Attractions [7] Also interesting is an acknowledgement that "sexual orientation identity—not sexual orientation—appears to change via psychotherapy, support groups, and life events." So even though sexual orientation doesn't change, sexual orientation identity does. It also gives a great review of ex-gay groups: "For instance, participants reported benefits from mutual support groups, both sexual-minority affirming and ex-gay groups." One of the biggest things is that it recognizes the benefits of celibacy: "Some religious individuals may wish to resolve the tension between values and sexual orientation by choosing celibacy (sexual abstinence) ... acting on same-sex sexual attractions may not be fulfilling solutions. Licensed mental health providers may approach such a situation by neither rejecting nor promoting celibacy." According to Judith Glassgold, who chaired the APA's task force on the issue, the report "acknowledges that, for some people, religious identity is such an important part of their lives, it may transcend everything else." I think this is a great victory for LGBT people with unwanted homosexual attractions. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd go along with that, although I would not use POV terms like 'victory'. The only people who win through this are people who will be less likely to be pressured into trying to change their homosexual orientation (and those they end up married to). The construction of a religious celibate homosexual identity that involves rejection of lesbian and gay identity, is not LGBT-affirming - it is celibate religious homosexual affirming. While I fully support anybody being celibate for religious reasons, whatever their sexuality, it does not belong in this article. How about creating an article on this subject? Having been a celibate Christian myself in the past, and a novice in a religious order, I do know a bit about the history of celibacy - so I'd be willing to help you on this. My own view is that celibacy is a calling, not a rule, and when undertaken seriously is a sexuality in its own right. Mish (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It is also a victory for LGBT people who want to pursue same-sex relationships. The overall theme was that the client should be able to determine their own goals, without worrying about the abusive practices of therapy of yesteryear. This is a victory for everyone. The only people who loose are those who wish to force their views on others, whether they are religious people who don't think LGBT people should be allowed to pursue same-sex relationships, or LGBT people who don't think LGBT people should be allowed to pursue celibacy or opposite-sex relationships. Not that all religious people and LGBT people think that way, but enough cause consternation. I still don't understand the difference between LGBT affirming and homosexual affirming, whether it be celibate religious or sexually active secular. The point is that regardless of their successful change in sexual orientation identity, the underlining sexual orientation has not changed. Therefore, they are still LGBT people, and any group that advocates their cause is LGBT affirming. You say that celibacy is a sexuality. Does that mean sexuality is a choice? Celibacy is an interesting topic. I too used to be celibate. I'm probably more interested in a broader group of LGBT people - those who have successfully changed their sexual orientation identity. I am struggling to find a place for it. I don't like the term ex-gay, and conversion therapy is too specific of a category. Ego-dystonic sexual orientation in my mind is only for people with associated disorders, but I guess those would be the people going to therapy. Do you have any suggestions? Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Joshua. homosexuality ≠ LGBT. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, LGBT and its constituent parts are sexual identities nnd gender identities. Mish (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)