Talk:Conversion therapy/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Use of the word "relapse"

My OED does not have this as a medical term. My Webster's has it defined as, "to slide back. The act or an instance of backsliding, worsening, or subsiding...to slip or fall back into a former or rose state...relapse into deep thought" DPeterson^talk 22:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"relapse" implies the subject is slipping back into negativity, (here, homosexuality) which is not POV. also, "relapse" implies the 'effects' of the therapy were more than a pretense. again, POV. ~[[kinda]] 23:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you meant "not NPOV"? "Relapse" is frequently used to refer to a backsliding into drug or alcohol abuse; it has a negative connotation. There are only two uses of the term in the article, which can and should be made more NPOV by making these substitutions. Joie de Vivre 23:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Three things: (1) kinda is using a "common sense" argument. Apart from being original research, it doesn't stand up to the OED--which has more authority in lexical matters than does personal, every day experience. (2) Even if we disregarded the OED, those who have undergone RT would arguably view a return to homosexual behavior as a very negative thing. (3) Disregarding #2, the OED definition proves that the term is NPOV.LCP 23:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The OED is not the definitive reference manual as to whether a certain word usage is always appropriate. In this vein, it should be treated mainly as a guide, not to back the idea that a usage is inoffensive and unchallengeable. This is particularly true as you can discuss with editors, we cannot discuss with a dictionary.

Particularly, the two uses do not refer to the behavior in terms of how the individuals themselves view it, it is a generalized reference. Referring to "returning to homosexual behavior", definitively, as "a relapse" is POV and not necessary. We can just describe what the euphemism means and be done with it. Joie de Vivre 23:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The American Heritage Dictionary's second definition for relapse is, "To regress after partial recovery from illness." This definitely indicates its negative connotations. Also, I don't see how it is not POV to treat the patient's opinion as fact. People who view the therapy's consequences as suppression probably believe "relapse" is the improvement... ~[[kinda]] 00:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the OED is the definitive reference regarding defs. Relapse if more accurate and just plain better English than the longer phrase your suggest. DPeterson^talk 23:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

We are not bound to using only the OED. Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Claim, for example, cites the American Heritage Dictionary, and it is sufficient evidence for my negative connotations claim. You *might* have a case if the OED said specifically, "relapse has no negative connotations." ~[[kinda]] 00:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what to do with a dictionary war. As an English scholar, I can tell you that the OED is more authoritative than the AHD. But “mine is bigger than yours!” hardly seems like a good solution. In any case, I do not personally prefer the current wording over the wording you suggest, and I can understand why one might feel the use of “relapse” pathologizes homosexuality. However, as DPeterson points out, “relapse” is correct and concise. Furthermore, along the same lines that you argue, I could assert that “A return to homosexual behavior” sounds like a good thing and that using it, instead of the more concise and clinical “relapse,” is itself POV. To me, a change from the current wording, which is concise and correct, appears as if it would be POV driven, done primarily because it rubbed someone wrong. And that is not a good reason. If someone asked why the term was changed from the one warranted by the OED, all that could be stated in reply is that an editor (or two) felt that the original wording was POV. That is not a good argument. A good argument would demonstrate via textual proofs of equal or greater weight than the OED, that “relapsed” is the wrong term.LCP 00:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "a return to homosexual behavior" holds no positive or negative connotation whatsoever. It refers to a previous state, an interim period of contrast, and a return to that previous state. How can you posit that it is less neutral than "relapse", which refers frequently to drug and alcohol addiction, or to the return of a disease? Relapse means "you were doing well at something, and then you fell back into your old (negative) behavior". The phrase "a return to x" holds no POV when compared to the word "relapse". We could substitute "experienced homosexual feelings again", or some such, but "relapse" is totally inappropriate. Joie de Vivre 01:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I can tell that you feel strongly about this, and I understand your examples, but examples are not the same thing as an argument. You are asserting that my argument suggesting that “a return to” has positive connotations is a strawman. Unfortunately, we cannot look up the phrase. However, I do assert that it does bring to mind The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, a favorite among gay men [1], in which “a return” home is the best possible thing. The idea that "a return" is the best possible thing is arguably deeply embedded in the American psyche. Regardless, you overstate your case when you say that the “relapse” is “totally inappropriate.” The way the term is currently employed is in accord with its first-line definitions in several prominent dictionaries. Yes, it can have a negative denotation, but that is only as you move down the list. On the other hand, some definitions of the word are negative, so why not use a phrase that does not have obviously negative denotations? So far, you really have not provided a cogent reason.LCP 01:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(un-indent) You said: some definitions of the word are negative, so why not use a phrase that does not have obviously negative denotations? There is no good reason why not; using another word or phrase is exactly what we should do. Getting stuck on personal psychological associations with the phrase "a return to" is not good. We should seek an alternative to "relapse" (in whatever form) because of its negative connotations. The two uses of the phrase are:

• evidence is gathered over short periods of time and there is little follow-up data to determine rates of relapse over the long-term;(Ref: Bright, C. "Deconstructing Reparative Therapy: An Examination of the Processes Involved When Attempting to Change Sexual Orientation", Clinical Social Work Journal, Vol. 32, No. 4, Winter 2004.)
• a header is titled Relapses and ex-ex-gays

The second one is simple. We can rename it Homosexual activity among ex-gays or similar. Regarding the first, without a subscription to the CSWJ, it's harder to be perfectly accurate, but we could reasonably substitute "return to x". What does "relapse" mean but a "return to" prior behavior? I don't really agree with the fairy tale argument, but I think we could go with something like "there is little follow-up data to determine the rate at which individuals experience homosexual urges or engage in homosexual behavior following reparative therapy". Joie de Vivre 02:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I would object to "Homosexual activity among ex-gays" ONLY because it seems to be an oxymoron. Otherwise, I do appreciate the move away from "a return". Fireplace's suggestion below is interesting (albeit verbose and little silly sounding).LCP 15:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Context?

Perhaps this dilemma can be resolved by answering a question that plagues this whole article. From what perspective should this article speak? As far as I understand it as an encyclopedia article, it should be neither sympathetic nor antagonistic toward its topic. So for the sake of argument, I assert that statement is explicitly related to what one does after “reparative therapy,” the topic of the article. So even if “relapse” does objectively have negative connotations, from the perspective from which the statement is made, that is, the perspective of article, “relapse” is the most neutral and correct word.LCP 00:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your cogent statement. You've put into words what I've been trying to get across. DPeterson^talk 01:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who originally added the word "Relapse", and while I agree with a couple editors that it is not ideal for POV reasons, I can't think of an alternative that captures the same meaning without the POV. One option would be to balance out the POV with a title like Ex-ex-gays, "relapses", and "ex-gay survivors", as "ex-gay survivors" is a common term amongst the anti-ex-gay advocates. Fireplace 03:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the need for the quotes. Is there a good reason for them?LCP 19:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No need for quotes. Relapse is the proper word. DPeterson^talk 23:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No, if you are going to use the term "relapse", with its connotation to backsliding into a state of addiction or disease, there must be quotes or it should not be used. Joie de Vivre 16:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As I have said, personally I do not care. However, I object to your change for the following reasons. You are misusing the dictionary and your assertion is without warrant. Just because a dictionary lists two meanings for a word does not mean that one term connotes the other. For example, “Bitch” is defined as, “1. the female of the dog or some other carnivorous mammals; 2. a lewd or immoral woman; 3. something that is extremely difficult, objectionable, or unpleasant; 4. Complaint” [2]. The second, third, and fourth meanings are not connotations of the first. The last term is not a connotation of the second. Et cetera. It all depends on context. The current phrase is a compromise--and inferior. Furthermore, THREE editors have agreed on “Relapsed”; And, it has been demonstrated that “Relapsed” is a legitimate term according to the OED, other dictionaries, and the medical community. In spite of your assertion and feelings, there is no warrant for putting it in quotes or changing it. And if you really want to push this issue and disregard the consensus, “Relapse” is the ONLY term needed as it is technically accurate and concise.LCP 16:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

(un-indent) Your choice of an example word has not gone without notice. The dictionary-documented association between the word "relapse" and addiction or disease warrants avoiding the word's use. It's odd to assert that you do not care, then insist on reinstating it while using the etymology of a swear word as an example to justify your reasoning. Joie de Vivre 16:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Please do not try to psychoanalyze my usage. I am sorry that you were offended by my choice of example. I did not intend anything by it. Really. It is an example that came to mind (in the sense of female dog), and, at least in my mind, has nothing to do with you. I am not perfect, but I think if you look at how I behave on Wikipedia [3], you will find that I avoid fallacious forms of argument. And an ad hominem attack would be fallacious--and useless. You will also find that I give way when I find an argument that is better than my own. This is not personal for me. It is about the principle of respecting consensus and using the best word.

Merely repeating your assertion is not an argument. I have already demonstrated why your interpretation of the dictionary is invalid. The word "bitch" is not only a swear word. In fact, it is not even primarily a swear word. And even if it were primarily a swear word, unless you can demonstrate that “swear words” are subject to different rules of usage or are treated differently than “non-swear” words in the dictionary, you again have nothing but an unsupported assertion. I have provided sound and valid warrant for every assertion that I have made in this discussion. In response, you question my motives and merely re-assert your original claim.

I may be mistaken, but it looks to me as if Joie de Vivre is taking this personally and is unclear about the issue. Can someone else step in here?LCP 17:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You have not sufficiently demonstrated that the word "relapse" is sufficiently neutral to describe not only those people who identify as ex-gay and then engage in homosexual activity, but also those people who left the movement entirely, and went on to identify as gay. Is it neutral to ambiguously refer to gay people with the header labeled "Relapses"? I think not. Joie de Vivre 17:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I am NOT arguing against the inclusion of other terms (eg, "ex-ex-gays"). I am arguing that "Relapsed" is the best term for that idea in header. In other words, your argument is a strawman.LCP 17:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

How are users supposed to tell who the word "Relapses" is directed towards? If the header includes the word Relapses, it is a blanket statement about everyone in the section. Joie de Vivre 17:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You might have a good point there. How would that work with your wording? Would a title including "Relapses" and "Ex-ex gays" and then two sub-heading ("Relapses" and "Ex-ex gays") be too much?LCP 17:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

We should also speak to Knulclunk's concernes below [4]LCP 17:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we are on the same page; I tried to send this at the same time and got an edit conflict:

There are two different groups here: "People who are involved with the ex-gay movement who engaged in homosexual activity once they were involved and then resolved not to do it anymore", and "people who were once involved with the ex-gay movement and then left". Perhaps these should be two different groups, listed separately. Joie de Vivre 17:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That would work for me. It would also be helpful to define the terms as you do above. Do you know if there warrant for doing so in the literature on the subject? Are you ok with "Relapsed" if it is defined correctly and differentiated from "Ex-ex gays"? By the way, I apparently did not assume good faith when I said your argument was a strawman. I did really think that you were trying to circumvent the issue. Sorry about that. I did not realize that you thought I was suggesting the use of only “Relapsed”. I would be grateful if you could tell me where in my argument I went wrong and left you with that impression (so I can avoid that type of mistake).LCP 18:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think you were suggesting the use of only "Relapsed". I was objecting to applying the word "Relapsed" to a broad group that also includes people who have left the movement entirely and now identify as gay. Do you support that usage? Joie de Vivre 21:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I finally see your point. I may be mistaken, but agree with you that those who are glad to be ex-ex gays might find "Relapsed" offensive--regardless of its intended meaning. At this point, however, I start getting muddled and have to go back to my question about context. The article is about reparative therapy, and from the perspective of reparative therapy, those who return to the gay lifestyle would be considered "relapsed." I would also add that those who would consider themselves as having "fallen off the wagon" should be under the header "relapsed." However, as I said, I do agree with your point! So, I wonder if we are trying to do too much in the header. Maybe we should use Fireplace's header, put every term in scare quotes, and then briefly explain what each term means. Is that too silly? Thoughts?LCP 15:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the terms are pretty self-explanatory, especially given the examples in the section. Fireplace 15:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

At this point, then, since Joie de Vivre and I have already been in one edit war, I'll trust you to respect the issues we've raised here and leave it to you to do as you see best.LCP 16:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's too silly. I'm glad you understand my point of view. Please see my comment below. Joie de Vivre ^T 16:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I still like Ex-ex-gays, relapses, and ex-gay survivors. "Ex-ex-gays" is pretty widely used, self-explanatory, and npov. "Relapses" is slightly pov, but its meaning is crystal clear and the pov worry is balanced out by using "ex-gay survivors" as well. I have no strong feelings about using scare quotes. Fireplace 14:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I discovered that there was some duplication between the section we were working on ("relapses"/ex-ex-gays), and Ex-gay#People in the ex-gay movement. What I did was remove the duplication by forming a new section in that article and linking it here (as the sections in the lower part of that article do. The only duplicated person is Bussee because he "relapsed" as well as "left", I guess. Take a look and let me know what you think. Joie de Vivre ^T 16:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Good work regarding the de-duplication. I still don't like the scare quotes. We know what they mean, but I think a new reader would find them confusing. Perhaps someone that hasn't been in on the discussion could take a look. I would trust Andrew c. And, I am concred about the inclusion of Talley and Paulk under a header titled "relapsed." Unless Talley has claimed to be an ex-gay, he really shouldn't be in the section. If he has made such a claim, that needs to be stated. Regarding Paulk, I don't think merely going into a gay bar could be counted as a relapse. Sorry to use a negative example, for I do not mean to pathologize, but a drunk needs to actually take a drink before you'd say he's fallen off the wagon. I am concered that these people are being slandered.LCP 17:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

How many of these people actually underwent reparative therapy? For example, according to Kirk Talley's page, he "relapsed" before he underwent reparative therapy. How can you relapse before you even leave homosexuality? That just doesn't make sense. There is no indication that any of the other people underwent reparative therapy. The new additions were taken from the ex-gay page. I agree it needs to be de-duplicated, but I think it makes more sense to put them on the ex-gay page since not all of them have undergone reparative therapy. That is also where the people who didn't relapse are placed. One of the reasons this is POV, is because the failures are documented and not the successes. I think either the failures should go back to the ex-gay page or the successes should come here, preferably the former.Joshuajohanson 17:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I would support changes along the lines you suggest. Perhaps you can collaborate with Joie de Vivre.LCP 15:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Totally disputed tag

A "totally disputed" tag has now been added. So that we may address these concerns, would you provide a clear list of factual and neutrality problems in the article's text, with reference to specific language in the article? I am not able to parse the above NPOV discussion's relation to the language of the article, so referencing the earlier discussion isn't helpful. Fireplace 04:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

See discussion above. I am not going to waste time rehashing and rephrasing for you what you can read above. DPeterson^talk 23:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That's awfully aggressive and, frankly, isn't assuming good faith. Most of the text of the article, and the vast majority of the sources, have come from my edits, and multiple times I've expressed an interest in getting this to FA status: if there are legitimate NPOV/factual issues, I want to tackle them. The discussion in the "NPOV" section above is not helpful because it is largely divorced from the actual text of the article and because some of the issues raised there have been addressed in subsequent discussion and/or changes to the article. Fireplace 00:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Joshuajohanson can supply a list of issues. I agree that such a list could be helpful. Perhaps it can have two or three parts: (1) statements already in the article that are contested as biased; (2) statements that need to be included.

Like Fireplace has said earlier, we have been over this, but I agree a list would be helpful. Here are some problems with factuality and neutrality that I see. This is just a quick list and is not meant to include everything.Joshuajohanson 20:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

• This article's treatment of reparative therapy is overly broad. It is only one method to treat sexual orientation which is based on the idea that homosexuality is a reparative drive. This article expands the definition to include everything from prayer to aversion therapy. It then uses statements by the APA on reparative therapy to combat all of those methods, so it sounds like even praying to change orientation is ineffective and potentially harmful.

• Reparative therapy is not a well defined, well demarcated field. An accurate encyclopedia article will represent the topic as fuzzy around the edges. How would you suggest we clarify the statement of the current APA position? Fireplace 18:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• The ex-gay movement is related to reparative therapy, but it is not the same thing. Unless it is directly related to reparative therapies, it should go on the ex-gay page. I think a couple paragraphs explaining ex-gay relationship to reparative therapy should suffice. Extensive documentation of ex-gay camps don't need to be here.
• The view of reparative therapists is misrepresented. Extreme measures such as "girl was held down while staff members screamed at her until she admitted that she was hurting her family by being a lesbian", the leader who was "having sex with women for the purpose of getting close to lesbians to convert them to heterosexuality", having women "apologize to the men for the feminist movement", the man who "impulsively underwent an incomplete sex-change operation", or the account where "One man slashed his genitals with a razor and poured Drano on his wounds" are not typical. Although I understand that some mention is appropriate, it should be balanced by the typical case. However, that has been removed. [5] [6] [7]

• This is difficult because it is hard to find reliable sources explaining common reparative therapy practices. We DO have sections on psychoanalysis and the various theories behind RT. Fireplace 18:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• The self-determination "argument" is inaccurately represented as the reparative therapist argument against current APA policies. It isn't an argument against APA policy, it is APA policy.[8]

• You're advocating a particular interpretation of how APA policy should be applied to reparative therapy. The "Self-determination argument" section clearly says that reparative therapists cite APA policy when making that same interpretation. Fireplace 18:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• There is extensive debate in the professional literature.[9] Both sides should be represented. The APA has printed articles in favor of reparative therapy[10] and the ACA printed an article where it lists ex-gay organizations like Courage International with other religious sources to refer their patients to.[11]

• What specific language do you object to, or what specific language would you like to add? Fireplace 18:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• This article spends excessive time rejecting the anecdotal evidence presented by reparative therapists but there is no mention of what that evidence actually is.[12] In contrast, evidence of potential harm is equally anecdotal, but is extensively documented.

• Most of the language relating to examples of anecdotal evidence removed in that diff is back in the article. Fireplace 18:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Reaction of reparative therapists to mainstream medical view is also not fairly represented. Criticism about scareing the psychologists away from research, preventing NARTH from representing its point of view, or denying data pointing to the effectiveness of reparative therapy have been removed.[13]
• The Techniques section talks about non-mainstream medical approaches, but any mention of how a mainstream doctor would help a patient seeking to reduce same-gender attractions with the approval of the APA have been removed. [14]

• This is difficult because it is hard to find reliable sources explaining common reparative therapy practices. We DO have sections on psychoanalysis and the various theories behind RT. Fireplace 18:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Other than the WHO (which isn't even mentioned in the introduction) there is no mention of other country's position, such as China. [15]

• Fixed. Fireplace 15:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, this issue involves many people that aren't directly involved in reparative therapy. While the gay point of view is heavily documented, the viewpoints of pro-family and Christian organizations are demonized. If we are going to talk about third-party point of views, let's be a bit more balanced.

• What specific language do you object to, or what specific language would you like to add? Fireplace 18:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Introductory section is extremely POV. Almost all comments are negative.

• What specific language do you object to, or what specific language would you like to add? Fireplace 18:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Factuality

• The American Psychological Association opposes practicing reparative therapy. The president of the APA, Gerald P. Koocher, stated "The APA has no conflict with psychologists who help those distressed by unwanted homosexual attraction."[16] I have only seen other medical organizations recommend against it, being unsupportive of its promotion, and being concerned about the environment that NARTH's position can create, which are all different than opposing reparative therapy itself. I would like to see the ethics guidelines explain what those guidelines actually are rather than summarizing them to be a "strong stance".

• I'm having a hard time disentangling this. The Koocher quote, as you know, was a remark that he immediately clarified, and it is bad faith to continue to rely on it out of context. Regarding the ethics guidelines, what specific language would you like to add or change? Fireplace 18:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• ex-gay organizations focus on ... will oneself not to act on same-sex desires. See here.

• Fixed. Fireplace 15:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Existence of a medical consensus. There is extensive debate in the professional world. The only consensus I see is what is written in Just the Facts, like homosexuality is not a mental illness, it is not inherently bad and they do not support the promotion of reparative therapy among young people. Just the Facts should only be used to support what is actually in Just the Facts. It should not be used to justify a claim to a non-existent medical consensus. For example, these claims that the medical consensus are false:

• Sexual orientation is unchangeable Clinton Anderson, director of the APA Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Concerns Office, said "I don't think that anyone disagrees with the idea that people can change." [17]The APA only says reparative therapy cannot change orientation, not that sexual orientation is unchangeable. Others just say there is no evidence. See Talk:Reparative_therapy/Archive_4#Unchangeable.3F
• attempts to do so are often damaging to the person's well-being. Evidence of harm is anecdotal. Actual position statements are carefully worded to only talk about potential harm. There is no scientific evidence of harm whatsoever. Again, Just the Facts is referenced, which only talks about how damaging the promotion of reparative therapy is to those who do not wish to change.

• That language is no longer in the article. Fireplace 18:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• reparative therapy is not effective. Some have said therapy cannot change orientation, but that isn't required for reparative therapy to be effective. Most medical organizations say there is no evidence that it is effective, which is different than saying it is not effective.

Thanks Joshua. Fireplace 14:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

ex-gay survivors

What does ex-gay survivor mean? Is it like surviving zombies? Or like being a cancer survivor who also used to be a practicing homosexual? The term makes no sense. --Knulclunk 03:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

See google search results. It's a common term among anti-ex-gay/RT advocates for people who have been involved with ex-gay groups/reparative therapy, and subsequently rejected it. Fireplace 14:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That would make the term strongly POV, yes? --Knulclunk 16:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but please see [18] above.LCP 16:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I personally believe we shouldn't question what people identify themselves as. I don't see a problem with people saying they are gay, ex-gay, ex-ex-gay, or ex-gay survivors. Whatever we decide, it should be the same for both. If we say can't say that people are ex-gay, but define ex-gay to just be a "term" used by someone who now "considers" themselves to heterosexual, we shouldn't say ex-gay survivor either. Again, personally I am in favor of recognizing the existence of both ex-gay and ex-gay survivor, but if one is deemed inaccurate, the other should be as well.Joshuajohanson 21:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent addition to ex-ex-gay section

What do other editors think of this recent addition? (The string of edits are by the same user to the same section.) I think it not appropriate per WP:SPAM#How not to be a spammer and WP:BIO. Joie de Vivre 15:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem important or relevant enough to warrant inclusion. Fireplace 14:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

American Psychiatric Association Update

This was in 6/13 APA update, distributed to all members: OsteopathicFreak 16:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Drescher: "No good scientific evidence" that sexual reorientation therapy works. The Chicago Tribune (6/11, Hamill) reported on the "religious-tinged treatment that some call conversion, sexual reorientation or reparative therapy," noting that "[a]ll the major medical and mental health organizations see such therapy as potentially harmful and recommend against it. The gay and lesbian community denounces it as self-hatred. And even the most thorough studies say just a fraction of the people who enter such treatment truly change their orientation." The Tribune continued, "Mainstream medical and mental health organizations say people shouldn't be calling" groups promoting that therapy at all. "These are faith-based models, and I'm a physician who works in evidence-based medicine, and there's no good scientific evidence that this works," stated Jack Drescher, M.D., who was chairman of the American Psychiatric Association's committee on gay, lesbian and bisexual issues until last year.

Sex-ed lesson: Homosexuality is not a mental illness. The Washington Post (6/12, B1, de Vise) added, "Montgomery County [Md.] sex education teachers would be allowed to tell students who ask that homosexuality is not a mental illness under a last-minute change to new lessons that go to the school board today for a politically charged vote." The lessons "are proposed for all eighth- and 10th-grade health classes in the fall" and "represent Montgomery's first countywide attempt to broach homosexuality in sex education." The Post also noted, "An alliance of citizen groups opposed to the lessons on moral grounds has appealed to the Maryland State Board of Education, which is expected to rule this summer. Another segment of the community, including much of the school board's advisory committee, felt the lessons didn't offer enough information to answer student questions about homosexuality." The Washington Times (6/13, Altamirano) also covers this story.

Psychiatric Survivors Memorial and annual awards

Not sure if helps the article but there is an annual "Vie En Rose Awards" that honor "Friends of Psychiatric Survivors" in San Francisco.[19] Benjiboi 00:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed

I added cite needed tags to

The APA has created a task force to revisit its policy on reparative therapy, with an official statement expected in 2008. Anderson, the director of the APA’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender concerns office, said the task force may or may not rewrite the policy, and they are sure to consider religious influences.

. Is there any reference from the APS regarding the task force? Also, if a statement is attributed to an individual, we should have a reference for that paraphrase or quote...in this instance, I think a quote would be better. DPeterson^talk

On another note, it is the American Psychiatric Associations DSM not the Amer Psych Associ...I fixed that. DPeterson^talk 11:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The article itself paraphrases the statements, so we can't quote the individuals exactly, so unless we want to quote Joshua Lynsen, we should probably stick with paraphrasing it. The article says:

• The task force’s report, due sometime in 2008 or beyond, could offer definitive advice on gay patient therapy when released.
• [Anderson] said the task force’s six members could let stand the existing APA policy — or they could completely rewrite it.
• Anderson said the task force would consider religious influences.

Ex-gay camps and ex-gays

I think ex-gays and ex-gay camps would better fit on the ex-gay page. As I mentioned earlier, it is not evident that any of the ex-gays ever underwent reparative therapy, except Kirk Talley who "relapsed" before he underwent therapy. If there are no objections, I am moving the section on People who "relapsed" and Scandals involving minors into the ex-gay page.Joshuajohanson 03:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Back to basics

It might be good to go back to the beginning, and define exactly what reparative therapy is. Is it the general heading for counseling that deals with sexual orientation, or is it a sub-type of counseling that deals with sexual orientation? I would propose that it is much more of a defined term that points to a particular type of counseling, and doesn't have sub-types as suggested in the article. Very few ex-gay ministries actually use the term reparative therapy, because it is such a specific term. Instead, one might say "you might benefit from some counseling." I think that reparative therapy is a term that Joseph Nicolosi popularized, and it is his technique that would define what reparative therapy really is. Maybe this article should be part of broader heading, such as "counseling techiques dealing with homosexuality." Klondike2007 18:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

tagging

When placing a tag disputing the neutral point of view of an article, notice that the tag specifically directs users to this talk page. {{totallydisputed}} tags are not for slapping on articles because you don't like what it has to say. Address your concerns specifically on the talk page to try and fix any problems. If concerns are not being voiced, then the tag is inappropriate. VanTucky ^(talk) 17:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, see Talk:Reparative_therapy#Totally_disputed_tag. That said, I've just gone through the bullet list and responded to most of the items. Further, I think that the problems raised focus on just a few sections on the article, and don't warrant an article-wide tag. Fireplace 18:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Socarides' son Richard Socarides

I have deleted this sentence: "Commentators have found it ironic that Socarides' son Richard Socarides is openly gay and was Bill Clinton's Senior Advisor for Public Liaison for gay and lesbian issues."

This sentence is little more than gossip that belongs in a tabloid newspaper and not an encyclopedia. A parent has little control over a child's adult behaviour. The fact that Socarides' son is gay, a baker or a taxi driver is not relevant to the subject matter. Benqish 11:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, a couple things. First, the subject of Richard's sexuality and his relationship with his father is fairly extensively discussed in mainstream news media: there was a long article about it in the Washington post magazine (July 11, 1999), and Charles' obits in the NYT and the post discussed the issue. Second, Richard's sexuality is relevant here insofar as Charles Socarides believed that male homosexuality was often the result of an "absent, weak, detached or sadistic" father. Fireplace 16:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we should compromise this out. You have a fair point but it is about the man not his work. So I have put the comment in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Socarides#Personal_life and deleted it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benqish (talk • contribs) 08:12, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

The whole article "Reparative Therapy" is biased. The view that homosexuality is not a disease is by no means mainstream. There is no objective, statistical evidence of mainstreamity and, therefore, this implication should not be promoted in a scientific article like this one.

• Oh come on, reparative therapy is rejected by every major medical organization. If that's not "non-mainstream," the term has no meaning. eaolson 23:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

My point is that a scientific, factual article should provide information, not opinions, especially immature, politically biased opinions not supported by scientific evidence. As for mainstream and non-mainstream, the U.S. with APA and WHO is not the whole world. The majority of organizations, medical magazines and medical professionals AROUND THE WORLD know that homosexuality is a disorder. Treatment centers are now everywhere and getting more in number and better in results. Reparative therapy works alright, and there is more and more evidence of that. And since Wikipedia interfaces the world, the authors of the article in question should not stress one opinion too much. It does not help gay rights, by the way. No one really believes that reparative therapy is harmful when they are thousands of ex-gays out there who are living normal hetero lives and happy about it. The article is biased, and it harms both Wikipedia's image and gay rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.237.189.78 (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The mainstream scientific position, both in the United States and in other countries, is extensively cited throughout the article. The ICD-10 and the DSM-IV, both of which specifically state that homosexuality is not a disorder, are the standards recognized by scientists worldwide. Fireplace 02:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cohensholding.jpg

Image:Cohensholding.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cohensholding.jpg

Image:Cohensholding.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 18:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

I'm requesting moving the article to Conversion therapy, which currently a redirect here. Both terms refer to the same phenomenon. Several reasons for the move: (1) "Reparative" is inherently NPOV, as it assumes that sexual orientation is something which can or should be "repaired." (2) The label "reparative" dates from 1983, but the practice of conversion therapy goes back to the late 1800s. (3) Google scholar turns up 22% more hits for conversion therapy than reparative therapy. Fireplace 21:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Dybryd 01:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What do current practitioners of the therapy call the procedures? — AjaxSmack 18:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

As these practitioners are marginal in their own field of clinical psychology I'm not sure that's particularly important. Dybryd 19:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It varies. Conversion therapy, reparative therapy, sexual reorientation therapy, and any number of others all have been used. Fireplace 20:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't see this proposal until after it happened, and I disagree. Non-Scholar Google searching finds a 2:1 preference for "reparative therapy" [20] [21]. With this therapy being not accepted by the medical community, Google Scholar results may not be indicative of the phenomenon as a whole. Also, not all types try to "convert" the subject to heterosexuality, but they all believe something needs to be "repaired". I believe the Catholic stance (e.g. Courage) is to encourage lifelong celibacy, not conversion. eaolson 18:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

And Conversion Therapy is not NPOV? C'mon. you didn't even let discussion go for 48 hours. Usually major changes like this are given 7 days minimum. I'd move it back, but I'm afrind my moving skills are rusty, and I don't want to loose all the talk pages.

As far as the name choice, conversion seems to be preferred among LGBT activists, yes; but most sources, even the majority of the sources cited by the article, use "reparative therapy" by a margin of 3:2. Reparative therapy is such a common term, it is often shortened to RT in mainstream, medical and LGBT publications.

The argument given for the move, "it assumes that sexual orientation is something which can or should be 'repaired.'" is inherently POV. The name should be restored unless a better argument can be put forward.--Knulclunk 02:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Erm, I waited 5 days after proposing it before making the move, not 48 hours. My original arguments did not cite "LGBT activists." I cited the scholarly trend as evidenced by Google scholar (I can run other academic searches to verify if you're skeptical of Google scholar).

Eaolson points out that Google returns more hits for "reparative therapy" than "conversion therapy" -- but if you filter out wikis and blogs (here and here) the numbers are closer, and scanning through those lists, most of the hits would not count as reliable sources. But regardless -- these therapies, though marginalized by the mental health community, nevertheless are part of the academic discourse and are themselves the object of academic study. A search of recently scholarly archives is the better index here.

Eaolson also points out that some religious groups favor chastity over "conversion" -- that's correct, and those groups would be better described as ex-gay groups, not conversion/reparative therapy groups.

Finally, as I mentioned originally, "reparative" is historically anachronistic, as it refers to a specific theory of Elizabeth Moberly's, and doesn't accurately describe everything that happened before her 1983 book. Fireplace 04:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That is what I thought. I was pretty sure that reparative therapy was just a specific type of conversion therapy based on Elizabeth Moberly, and that the term reparative came from her theory that homosexuality was a drive to repair something that went wrong in early childhood, not that reparative therapy repairs homosexuality, and that conversion therapy began way before reparative therapy. But then, even with the change, it seems like reparative is being used as a synonym for conversion therapy. I understand a lot of people use it as a synonym, but even so, it should be explained somewhere.

By the way, I agree that ex-gay groups should not be classified as conversion/reparative therapy groups. Can we move the Love in Action stuff to the ex-gay page?Joshuajohanson 05:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Lyn Duff: Did she sue the camp or not?

This article says Lyn Duff sued the facility where she was held. However, her own article mentions only her emancipation case. Did the suit against Rivendell happen or not, and what was the outcome?

Dybryd 01:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll run a lexis search and try to find out. Fireplace 18:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Medical interventions: "(and sometimes even continuing today)"

In section 1.1 we get a sourced list of medical therapies that were used in the twentieth century, together with the offhand parenthetical "(and sometimes even continuing today)".

This seems to me an inadequate treatment of the continuing use of medical treatments for homosexuality. This is a pretty big point, and I think we need to clearly state which of these treatments continue in use, where they are used, and by whom. I notice that the lower section "Actual Practice" (1.3.3) mentions no medical treatments.

I think this really needs to be made clear.

Dybryd 18:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The actual practice section has two paragraphs on ex-gay groups, one paragraph on Richard A. Cohen, whose practices have been criticized by several conversion therapy groups,[22] and a final paragraph on New Age techniques, which hardly seem typical. The actual practice section does not seem to reflect what most conversion therapists actually do. The Psychoanalysis section does not have any primary sources, and focuses on the philosophy of only two of "today's leading representatives", one of whom is dead. The aversion therapy section is much more detailed, even though it seems to be largely unused in the industrialized world.

In general, the article seems to focus more on why its wrong than what it is. There are several questions unanswered. What do they think causes homosexuality? What are the techniques to overcome it? Who practices conversion therapy? The article says "The ethics guidelines of the mental health establishment discourage, and sometimes prohibit, its practice." Sometimes is rather vague. Can we more specific on when that sometimes is? The American Psychiatric Association has stated that "anecdotal reports of 'cures' are counterbalanced by anecdotal claims of psychological harm." While these anecdotal claims of psychological harm have been well documented, little seems to be said of these anecdotal reports of cures. The section on Evidence cited by conversion therapists and ex-gays only talks about why mainstream medical organizations reject the evidence without saying what the evidence actually is. There is even a section on relapses, but no section on those who haven't relapsed. You read this article without really knowing anything about conversion therapy except it is rejected by mainstream medical organizations. In my opinion, a lot of work needs to be done before it reaches feature article status.Joshuajohanson 16:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoa. Slow down.

Please propose huge changes (like removing entire sections) here before you make them. Dybryd 04:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I did. On 7 October 2007 I asked "Can we move the Love in Action stuff to the ex-gay page?" I had previously made the proposal on 23 June 2007.[23]

Anyway, let's discuss it. The section is about ex-gay camps, so it seems logical that it be in the ex-gay section. Most of the section is about the ex-gay group Love in Action, which is not run by psychiatrists, and what they do shouldn't be considered conversion therapy. I wouldn't mind a summary in this page and then a link to the main page, which would be on the ex-gay page. While I am at it, I think the secions in Actual Practice regarding the ex-gay groups should also be moved.Joshuajohanson 04:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

For convenience of review, I've placed JJ's proposed additions on a subpage.

Although I agree with some of JJ's criticisms of the article, I can't say I think much of his additions! For one thing, their tone is not encyclopedic -- the descriptions read like press releases for these people. They also don't really discuss the practice of therapy, and the people don't seem to be professional psychologists, much less psychiatrists -- they simply express support for the ex-gay cause.

Of course, the subject of this article is an ideologically charged one and that fact should not be avoided or minimized, but what the article is really missing is concrete discussion of present therapeutic practice - not a bunch of links to advocacy websites.

Regarding your use of categories, I'm a bit confused! You say what Love in Action does should not be considered conversion therapy. Why not? At the moment the article defines conversion therapy simply as "methods aimed at changing ... people's sexual orientations" which Love in Action certainly attempts to do. It ain't medicine, but then lots of things called "therapy" aren't.

I'm especially bewildered that you want to get the Love in Action camps out of the article when it comes to their actual attempts to change people's orientation, but at the same time you inserted a guy who apparently has a solely administrative role in LIA, just for a chance to state his allegiance to the ex-gay cause. These actions are contradictory - unless viewed as expressions of the single purpose of showing the ex-gay movement in a favorable light.

Dybryd 05:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Correct. What Love in Action does cannot be considered conversion therapy. Exodus International, of which Love in Action is a part, has made very clear in their policy statement that "it is not a clinical facility and does not conduct clinical treatment of any kind,"[24] They do not have licenses, nor do they claim to. To practice conversion therapy or another other type of psychotherapy you need to be licensed by a credible organization. Mainstream medical organizations distinguish ex-gay ministries, or as they call them, transformational ministries, from reparative therapy. They say: "Reparative therapy" refers to psychotherapy to eliminate individuals' sexual desires for members of their own gender. "Transformational ministry" refers to the use of religion to eliminate those desires." [25] Love in Action is run by reverends, not therapists. I am not saying it has nothing do with conversion therapy, but just that it has more to do with the ex-gay movement.

I included stories of ex-gays in the Evidence cited by conversion therapists and ex-gays section because that is the evidence psychologists point to in order to say change is possible. If you are going to say why the evidence is not accepted, you need to first say what it is. For example, Mark Yarhouse uses it in the article published in Summer 1998 edition Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training entitled "When Clients Seek Treatment for Same-Sex Attractions: Ethical Issues in the "Right to Choose" Debate". It is evidence for change, not necessarily that the change came about through conversion therapy. That is one of the arguments against conversion therapy, that while they know change is possible, they questions whether change comes from conversion therapy.[26] I could probably do a better job on the biographies. I just wanted something to counterbalance the "Relapses" and other scandals section. By the way, Frank Worthen started Love in Action after he became straight, so it wasn't through Love in Action that he changed his orientation.Joshuajohanson 08:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to say that conversion therapy means only clinical conversion therapy, then we would need to change the lead, which at the moment lists prayer and religious counseling among the therapy's forms.

But I don't necessarily agree that we should limit the definition in this way. The word "therapy" in normal use encompasses both formal psychiatric treatment by M.D.s and also informal counseling or other treatment by people with very obscure qualifications (e.g. "I'm a licensed Reiki therapist! Just look at my shiny certificate!"). Since even the M.D.s among conversion therapy advocates are acting outside the professional standards of their discipline, it seems pointless to me to use a "clinical psychiatrists only" definition of therapy here - we would be talking about a creature that doesn't exist!

Dybryd 08:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

M.D.s that advocate conversion therapy are NOT acting outside the professional standards of their discipline. They must be licensed by the APA. This article clearly states the APA's "ethics guidelines do not explicitly prohibit it." If they were working outside the APA's standards, they would get their licenses revoked. Here are the standards the APA has issued in regards to conversion therapy.[27] In fact, the president of the APA, Gerald P. Koocher, has stated "The APA has no conflict with psychologists who help those distressed by unwanted homosexual attraction."[28] Ex-gay ministries differ because they do not have to follow any APA standards. It might be considered "religiously mediated" therapy, but where do you draw the line? I'm fine with changing the lead, because I really don't want to consider every prayer to be changed as a form of conversion therapy. Anyway, the point is that ex-gay camps have more to do with ex-gays than conversion therapy, not that they don't have anything to do with conversion therapy.

By the way, I just have to tell you your name is throwing me off. The name of the Narth's president-elect is D. Byrd. Joshuajohanson 22:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to comment on one aspect of the above discussion: attempts to define 'conversion therapy' beyond something very general like "an attempt to treat homosexuality through therapy" will be too narrow to capture the range of what is out there. There is no requirement that the practitioner be licensed - "therapy" can be practiced by just about anyone. I tend to agree that Love in Action is more aligned with ex-gay groups than conversion therapy, but insofar as they use group therapy and talk therapy to treat homosexuality, it is appropriate to discuss them here (note that the NYT specifically describes Love in Action's methodology as conversion therapy [29]). Fireplace 02:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Behavior modification in practice?

We list three broad types of therapy: (1) Behavior modification, (2) Psychoanalysis, and (3) Religion. But only types 2 and 3 get a description!

Again, more detail on what these folks actually do is what the article needs most of all.

Also, and this is a minor point, but an aspect of the need for more concrete detail on practices -- what the heck is "buddha therapy"? Both WP and Google lead me nowhere. Does the article in Contemporary Sexuality give a description?

Dybryd 05:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this the missing section? In the middle of "Entrenchment" in the past tense history section, the text suddenly shifts into present tense, saying:

“ Practitioners who view same-sex orientations as resulting from learned behavior may adopt behavioral modification techniques. These may include masturbatory reconditioning, visualization, and social skills training. The most radical involve aversion therapy such as electroconvulsive therapy. Documented cases include electric shocks being administered to patients' genitalia, "sometimes paired with disturbing images, including a bowl of feces and pictures of Kaposi's Sarcoma lesions." In another case therapists used plethysmography, which uses electric sensors attached to a person's genitals to measure sexual arousal, was used, in conjunction with shock therapy, to electrically shock the patient's penis when he became sexually aroused by same-sex images. ”

Is this meant to be a discussion of contemporary practice? If so, should it be moved down to "actual practices" or a new section titled "behavior modification" so that points (1) (2) and (3) each has its own explanation?

I notice that the final sentence of the paragraph shifts back into past tense, though - and also that it has an extra verb! What is intended here?

Dybryd 07:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

In 1994, the American Medical Association issued a report saying "aversion therapy is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians."(Health Care Needs of Gay Men and Lesbians in the U.S. American Medical Association Report, 1994) Since then, it has not been used in the US, nor most of the civilized world, though there are reports of it being used in some pre-industrialized nations, mostly as abuse of human rights. Joshuajohanson 08:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting quote, but what reason is there to think that conversion therapists would be inclined to follow the professional standards of the AMA? Dybryd 09:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

If they didn't, they would loose their license, or at least in the US. I know NARTH "advises its members to provide psychological care in a professional, ethical manner which is consistent with the codes of ethics of the national mental health organizations and state licensing boards." Now, "coaches", like Richard Cohen, aren't under the same guidelines, but then they are limited in what they can do. For example, they can't be therapists and I'm pretty sure that applies to aversion therapy. I am not sure about outside the US. Joshuajohanson 16:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

To answer Dybryd's original question: behavior modification is discussed (glossed over really, but I think it's enough for a general encyclopedia article) in the last paragraph of the "Freud and early sexologists" section, and in a couple paragraphs in the "Entrenchment" section.

Regarding the extent to which behavior modification is used today, I agree that should be sourced. There are examples in other countries and examples from the US in the 1990s -- I'll look this up. Also, note that "behavior modification" is much broader than "aversion therapy" -- but you're right that the "harsh" examples come from aversion therapy. Fireplace 02:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Section tweaks

Well, I've been a bit of a hypocrite in making minor changes to the article's heading structure without discussing them here. But I think they make this very long article read a little more clearly. Basically, I've split "History, doctrines, and techniques" into "History" and "Contemporary theories and techniques." It's the latter that I think needs attention and expansion.

Dybryd 06:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess you're right. In researching this material, I found it impossible to conceptualize "contemporary" doctrine as distinct from "historical" doctrine -- there's no cutoff point, and the current psychoanalytic theories stretch way, way back in time (unlike non-psychoanalytic theories, which historically tend to die out within a generation). But alas, encyclopedias sometimes need to simplify a complicated narrative for the sake of presentation. Fireplace 02:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Therapy vs Ex-gays: OR/POV?

I recognize that the precise distinction between conversion therapy and the ex-gay movement is a ambiguity that makes it difficult to write clearly about this subject. However, it's an ambiguity that I think the article in its present state goes a little too far in trying to resolve.

In the first paragraph, the sentence distinguishing therapy from the ex-gay movement is sourced to the APA Online pamphlet. That pamphlet never uses the term ex-gay! The same inapplicable source is given in the section Distinguishing between conversion therapy and ex-gays. This section does contain other sources, but none for the distinction that it tries to draw between the two movements - that is essentially a judgment by the editors of the article, and as such it's OR and/or POV.

In general, I don't think we need this section (or the comment in the lead), and I feel this very long article would be improved if it were simply cut. If other editors feel it really must be kept, then we're going to need sources for the distinction that actually mention both the terms we say they define!

Dybryd 08:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

What would you suggest? In general, I think the article leans very heavily on ex-gays instead of conversion therapy. If it is going to do that, it should say why it is talking about ex-gays instead of conversion therapy. It does have sections saying some ex-gay organizations consider reparative therapy a useful tool. Maybe that is sufficient? Joshuajohanson 08:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the APA pamphlet talks about "transformational ministries", which is roughly synonymous for "ex-gay organization", at least as the terms are commonly used. Another good source which loosely distinguishes them is Yoshino's excellent Yale Law Journal article (see ref in article) which says:

In part because of this trend in the mental health profession, the most high-profile contemporary purveyors of conversion therapy tend to be religious organizations. These include fundamentalist Christian groups such as Homosexuals Anonymous, Metanoia Ministries, Love in Action, Exodus International, and EXIT of Melodyland.... these organizations are relatively insulated from the depathologization of homosexuality, as they are less reliant on a literal disease model to justify their conversion practices.

We could cite that article here along with the APA fact sheet.Fireplace 02:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Conversion therapy vs Reparative therapy

I mentioned this before, but I wanted to mention it once more under a separate heading. According to my understanding, reparative therapy is only a certain type of conversion therapy, which is based on Elizabeth's theory that homosexuality is a reparative drive and practiced by those who believe homosexuality is a mental disorder and they try to eliminate homosexual desires.[30] Whereas conversion therapy is more general, including reparative therapy, but also including aversion therapy, gender wholeness therapy, context specific therapy, religiously mediated approaches and other techniques that do not necessarily believe homosexuality is a mental disorder or may only try to reduce homosexual desires and increase heterosexual desires rather than eliminate them.

So to address this, I wanted to reorganize the theories and techniques section into the different types of conversion therapies, and change the introduction from saying conversion therapy is the same thing as reparative therapy to say that reparative therapy is a type of conversion therapy, but at times the two terms may be synonymously.[31]Joshuajohanson 16:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, we do have the info about the origin and meaning of "reparative" already. The "theories and techniques" section is the one that needs most work, so go ahead and try out a rewrite (in Talk if it's substantial), but I'm not sure we need this detail in the lead - which is already a bit long. The terms are so widely used interchangeably (a few days ago we were arguing about which is the more general term!) that I'm not sure the distinction is important enough in modern practice to justify that level of detail in what's meant to be a general overview of the topic.

Dybryd 18:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was a major rewrite. I put it on the subpage Dybryd created. This includes several different therapies besides reparative therapy. It takes from several sections, and references some of the same articles as other pages, so you see some site errors. If I don't hear back, I'll go ahead and make those changes.Joshuajohanson 02:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I haven't heard anything, so I went ahead and made the changes.Joshuajohanson 06:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm okay with most of these changes, but have made a few revisions. (1) Under your "Reparative Therapy" subheading, there were some problems. The APA source wasn't distinguishing "reparative" from other types of conversion therapy. The sentence distinguishing the two would, I think, be more appropriate in the paragraph on Moberly. Finally, Nicolosi and Socarides' views are, first and foremost, psychoanalytic theories, not Moberly-based theories. (2) evergreeninternational.com and peoplecanchange.com are not reliable sources. I've replaced the text there with a lengthier quote from the Regent law review. (3) genderwholeness.com is not a reliable source. I've added a lengthier quote from the NYT article. (4) theguardrail.com is not a reliable source. I also don't see any reference to "Context Specific Therapy" or Jeff Robinson at the other source you gave ([32]), but apologies if I missed something. Pending reliable sources, I removed that paragraph. (5) I'm not comfortable with the "Professional vs. Non-Professional" dichotomy you've created. (6) I removed the 1994 conference -- ex-gay conferences and ex-ex-gay conferences happen with some regularity. Maybe there should be a sentence saying as much (but maybe on the ex-gay page). (7) I removed the stuff about new age therapies. Having read a lot of the literature on conversion therapy, this stuff is *very* rarely mentioned, and it doesn't strike me as notable enough for this article.

Finally, because this page is up for featured status, please follow citation formatting guidelines when adding new references. Fireplace 15:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Some points to your revisions:

1) The Presbyterian Church is not an ex-gay group; they aren't even united on whether they accept homosexual behavior. There is a huge difference between an organized religion and an ex-gay group. Ex-gay and ex-ex-gay groups have conferences all the time, but the religious techniques section is talking about how organized religions deal with homosexuality. Yes they are related, but they are very distinct and the way they tackle homosexuality is very distinct and they should be in separate sections. For example, ex-communication is something that only a church can do, not an ex-gay group. BTW, why did you take that out? Several ex-gays have said that was an instrumental part of their process. For example, Ben Newman said "Excommunication was part of a life-transforming process that saved my life, saved my family, and saved my soul."[33]

OK, splitting the sections seems correct. I hadn't heard of excommunication as a modern response to homosexuality, but fair enough. Fireplace 00:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

2) If you find some reliable source that Evergreen believes that therapy can change orientation, you can replace it. But it is a primary source talking about what they believe, and there is no reason why they would put something they don't believe on their web site. How is it that you claim Evergreen International and Center for Gender Wholeness are incapable of saying what they believe. They are the primary source in saying what they believe. I do not understand your logic at all. I think this article NEEDS more primary sources. Also, the fact that Evergreen teaches that therapy will not change your orientation is a big difference than Exodus and should be mentioned.

Well, see WP:SPS. Also, see Beckstead, "Cures versus choices: Agendas in sexual reorientation therapy" (2001), Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy, which describes Evergreen as a group advocating conversion therapy. The problem with using these self-published sources is that we have no idea whether these treatments are actually used or accepted by the community with any regularity, or whether they are merely a banged-out theory that someone from the group uploaded to the website. If the latter, they are not notable enough to warrant inclusion -- and without reliable sources, we don't know which it is. Fireplace 00:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It's making the claim about itself, so it would be more along the lines of WP:SELFPUB. It is from the official web site for the organizations, not just "someone from the group". The purpose of the web page is set forth policies. I could see Evergreen advocating conversion therapy back in 2001, but a lot has changed since then, especially this year. The statement "therapy will likely not be a cure" is new, but it is what they currently believe and teach. It is perfectly logical that they would change positions in 6 years and perfectly acceptable by WP:SELFPUB to publish its change of policy on its own website. Joshuajohanson 01:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

3) Under the definition that the APA gave of reparative therapy, gender-affirmation therapy does not fall under that category. That distinction should be clear. The APA is a reliable source.

None of the three citations you gave back up the claim that "gender-affirmative therapy" does not regard homosexuality as a mental disorder. But more importantly, while the APA defines reparative/conversion therapy as presupposing that homosexuality is a mental disorder, others more broadly define it as any therapy attempting to change sexual orientation (e.g., ACA, AAP, Yoshino, Haldeman, Bright -- see cites in article). Fireplace 00:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

But the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, The Interfaith Alliance, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association still define it as presupposing that homosexuality is a mental disorder. Different people define it different ways. My citations were more to show that these treatments were not reparative therapies. The main thing I want to show in this article is that the statement by the in no way applies to these therapies. Those statements were very clear they were directed at reparative therapies, which they define as presupposing that homosexuality is a mental disorder. To my knowledge, nothing any professional organization had ever put out has made any statements on any of those three therapies. I want to make sure that the statements by the medical organizations are only applied to the treatments to which they should be applied to. Right now, the article muddies up the differences. How would you suggest making that clear?Joshuajohanson 01:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You write: To my knowledge, nothing any professional organization had ever put out has made any statements on any of those three therapies [which (purportedly) do not presuppose that homosexuality is a mental disorder].' "The validity, efficacy and ethics of clinical attempts to change an individual's sexual orientation have been challenged. To date, there are no scientifically rigorous outcome studies to determine either the actual efficacy or harm of "reparative" treatments." (APA) "Therapy directed specifically at changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation." (AAP) "Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation? No." (the other APA) Further, it is not clear that these organizations would accept a conversion therapist's word at face value when he says that his theory doesn't presuppose that homosexuality is a mental disorder (the APA, e.g., has already blasted the conversion therapy literature for their misrepresentations: [34], rec. #3). Fireplace 02:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Gender-affirmation therapy is not "directed specifically at changing sexual orientation". That is the whole point of GAT. It focuses on affirming your own sense of your gender rather than changing orientation. All of the quotes that you provided are about changing orientation, which is not the point of GAT. It may be the byproduct (there is no scientific evidence whether orientation can change or not), but it is not "directed specifically at changing sexual orientation". Medical organizations have issued several statements placing restrictions, expressing concerns, outlining pitfalls and otherwise moderating the treatment those seeking conversion therapy receive. The reason they do that is so that their advice can be followed. GAT follows this advice. It follows the restrictions, it takes into account the warnings and it avoids the pitfalls. Gerald Koocher, president of the APA, sums it up by saying: "In a full multifaceted therapeutic relationship, the therapist has every duty to respond to patient choice and to help patients achieve their goals.... BUT... [First,] therapists must determine whether patients understand that their motives may arise purely from the social pressures of a homophobic environment.... [and second,] patients must understand that [treatments to modify sexual orientation] lack a validated scientific foundation and may prove psychologically harmful." That is almost verbatim the first two phases of sexual identity therapy "(1)assessment, (2) advanced or expanded informed consent." They followed Koocher's advice in every part.

Your second point that "it is not clear that these organizations would accept a conversion therapist's word at face value" is so WP:OR it almost doesn't even deserve an answer. There is no evidence that these therapists are irreputable, and your guilt by association argument is not sufficient. These therapists are licensed under the APA and regularly publish in peer-reviewed journals. If it were found out that they were acting unethically or disobeying the restrictions APA has placed on conversion therapy, including practicing under the assumption that homosexuality is a mental disorder, they would be kicked out and have their licenses removed, as is what happened with Richard A. Cohen.Joshuajohanson 20:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

4) I agree with the New Age stuff. I didn't put that in there.Joshuajohanson 21:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

JJ, help me to assume good faith, here. Scanning through the "Counseling Today" pdf, it's very clear that your summary radically misrepresents the thrust of the article, which never mentions the word "ex-gay" much less recommending a referral to their agencies. On the contrary, it says, "Counselors wishing to serve this population should get acquainted with the GLBT-affirmative religious bodies in their areas." Please.

Reading a source and seeing it so misrepresented by the text you cite to it is going to make me very, very uneasy about any sources you use that can't be immediately checked by clicking a url.

Separate from issues of content, I'm not sure about your phrase "Counseling Today recommends." Is this appropriate language for an article in a magazine that is not by the magazine's editorial board, but has independent authors?

Dybryd 02:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The main thrust of the article, as I understand it, was "more attention ought to be paid to integrating gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) issues and spiritual identity into the range of multicultural competencies." I summarized it by saying that psychologists should "be aware of the spiritual implications in reconciling their patients' religious beliefs with their sexual identity." That by itself, neither in the original article, nor in my summary, says whether that religious beliefs should be gay-affirming or not. The article then goes on to look at several different aspects of the effect religion has on a client. Like you said, it does say to be aware of gay-affirming churches, but it also warns counselors "not to proselytize or put that on the client’s experience." They can discuss these gay-affirming churches, but they are told not to tell patients "you’ve got to give up your church." Counselors should be open to the patient's religious beliefs, even if the "mainstream denomination does not support who they are, they shouldn’t have to leave their church." It then includes a list of religious resources, both gay-affirming and non-gay-affirming alike. One of them, which is what I referenced in the article, was the ex-gay organization Courage International. You are right, the article did not have the word "ex-gay" in it. I summarized this by saying the article "recommends counselors to be open to referring patients to ex-gay organizations like Courage International." Neither the article nor my summary is an endorsement of ex-gay groups, just the fact that they list it. My purpose of including this article was that it told counselors to be sensitive to the patients' religious beliefs and included ex-gay organizations in a list of possible referrals for the patient.

How about this for a change?Joshuajohanson 04:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• An article in Counseling Today which discusses spirituality for gays recommends that counselors should not tell patients they have to leave their church, even if the religion only allows celibacy or marriage. Although it discusses several gay-affirmative religious groups, it encourages counselors not to proselytize these views onto their patient. At the end of the article, it includes Courage International with a list of otherwise gay-affirmative religious groups to which the counselor may refer a patient.

Well, the problem with this version is that it in no way addresses the subject of the article, conversion therapy! Dybryd 04:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Courage is a religious organization that uses religious techniques to help people overcome homosexuality. It was listed under religious techniques. The point is that although these organizations have issued precautions against conversion groups and ex-gay groups, it can still ethically allow patients to have their own religious beliefs and even refer patients to these organizations.Joshuajohanson 05:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That is an extremely strained reading of the article. Dybryd 06:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, saying a program helps people "overcome homosexuality" is at least POV in its implication that being gay is a disorder or liability which generally should be overcome. Maybe this is more neutral: "Courage is a church organization that provides a religious framework in which homosexuals, unable to come to terms with their own sexual orientation, may acclimate to a heterosexual lifestyle." Rangergordon (talk) 07:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Responding to Joshua's original suggestion: I'm a bit two-faced here. I agree that the article should not be called "Reparative therapy" because it's anachronistic to refer to, e.g., Rado's theories as "reparative therapy". But, it's also misleading to say that, today, "reparative therapy" is one distinct type of conversion therapy among many. Today, "conversion therapy" and "reparative therapy" are generally treated synonymously in the literature. Fireplace 02:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It may be that conversion therapy and reparative therapy are terms that are often used synonymously, but they shouldn't be. This article does a disservice to its readers if it perpetuates that kind of confusion. Skoojal (talk) 04:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The APA has no conflict with psychologists who help those distressed by unwanted homosexual attraction

This quote was removed from the article with the reason that the quote was later clarified. This issue had been discussed before, but I didn't have time to address it. Now I do. As I remember correctly, Fireplace objected to this quote because he felt a later quote clarified what he originally meant. I think that is OR. The new quote did not negate anything in the previous quote. This quote is from a reliable newspaper and it is valid. I think Fireplace's arguments are his own opinions and should not stop this quote from being in the article.Joshuajohanson 06:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

China: Taoist ex-gays?

A personal anecdote: I once had a Taiwanese student from a Taoist family, who told me that when he came out to his parents as a teen, they took him to a traditional Taoist practitioner who tried to de-gay him by means of prayer, yelling, freezing water treatments, and burnt herbs. It didn't work. Maybe someone could dig up a source on this sort of thing if it's widespread? Dybryd 03:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality challenged

I wish to challenge the neutrality of this article. The majority of text on the page in question supports the argument that reparation (or conversion) therapy is useless or harmful. That amounts to promoting an opinion. Reference is indeed made to people who hold other opinions, but those opinions are quickly dismissed or disparaged. A truly neutral article would give those opinions a fair chance. Disagreeing with gays is not the same as hating gays. Shoes6 16:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

When a consensus of third-party authorities holds to a particular position, it is not NPOV to present minority dissenters as anything other than minority dissenters. Dybryd 17:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

What? There is no consensus that conversion therapy is harmful. Where do you get that idea? I quote from the APA "To date, there are no scientifically rigorous outcome studies to determine either the actual efficacy or harm of "reparative" treatments." They have been very careful in only stating potential for harm, which is different than saying it is harmful. Almost ever therapy has potential for harm. They have said "anecdotal reports of "cures" are counterbalanced by anecdotal claims of psychological harm." However, I think this article has lost that balance. Both anecdotal evidences of harm and cures are covered by reliable, third party sources, but only anecdotal evidences of harm are covered in this article. I agree with Shoes6 in his assertion that that is not a neutral treatment.Joshuajohanson 19:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The APA's position represents a consensus among the psychiatric community that "The potential risks of reparative therapy are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior" [APA Position Statement on Psychiatric Treatment and Sexual Orientation December 11, 1998]. Perhaps as an advocate for reparative therapy, you may not be able to accurately judge POV/NPOV on this issue, but you can surely see that an NPOV viewpoint would most likely reflect the majority opinion of psychiatric professionals. Rangergordon (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are antecdotal claims of psychological harm for reparative therapy, just as there are anecdotal reports of 'cures'. Potential for harm does not mean harmful, just as potential for success does not mean successful. But that is reparative therapy, not all conversion therapies. I am not an advocate of reparative therapies, as you claim, but of gender-affirmative therapies, which are completely inline with modern ethic codes. There is a lot of room for abuse, which abuse has been well-documented, and the ethic codes were written to address that. As long as they follow these standards "The APA has no conflict with psychologists who help those distressed by unwanted homosexual attraction."[35] Psychologists across the US and other parts of the world legally practice conversion therapy and have thousands of antecdotal stories of success. I am an advocate of a NPOV, and that is the mainstream view on the topic. When I originally started working on this article, it said sexually orientation is something fixed and innate, which goes directly opposite to mainstream science point of view. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's understandable that reparative--sorry, "gender affirmative"--therapists describe sexual orientation as mutable. Their livelihood depends on it. But, if the mainstream view did not reflect that sexual orientation is innate, then ex-gays would not self-identify as "ex-gays." They would simply be "heterosexuals." And, I suppose, the whole point of this article would then be moot. Rangergordon (talk) 07:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to officially challenge the neutrality of the section Conversion therapy/ex-gays as a means to shape the LGBT rights debate. This is an important section, and even the APA has declared "the issue of changing sexual orientation has become highly politicized." However, the APA did not take sides, as this section has done and has stated "The political and moral debates surrounding this issue have obscured the scientific data by calling into question the motives and even the character of individuals on both sides of the issue." This section only calls into question the motives of one side of the debate, not both sides. The paragraph is written with a very strong LGBT activist slant, and we are led to believe that social conservatives are just out to get the poor little innocent LGBTs. Interestingly enough, the very reference for the assertion that social conservatives say LGBTs should not have, among other things, social acceptance, is an article reporting how Alan Chambers believes LGBTs should have social acceptance, but that he is against gay marriage. Let's rewrite this article to fairly show both sides of the debate.Joshuajohanson 23:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the section wasn't NPOV. It was also largely redundant of information elsewhere in the article. I removed it. Fireplace 22:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Electro....

I think there is on some places in the Text (i see it at "(1886–1939)" and "(1939–1969)") and in the sources there a little confusion about "electroconvulsive therapy" (Electric Shock to the head) and "aversion therapy" with electroshock. --Fg68at de:Disk 19:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

laughable

Every time I read about reparative/conversion therapy I find it laughable.. man, some people really must have nothing better to do with their lives. It should be said. what a load of bollocks. Just leave people alone. This article should state from the start how this practice is a complete violation of anything that is normal on this Earth.

---

193.136.74.7 (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's fun, you should try it! I've had a blast. I really enjoyed my sessions. I haven't gone recently, but plan to go back once work settles down. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure I would... must be great to get some electric shocks .. ... or maybe a biiiiiiiig hug from that therapist ;-)... I'm sure that would definitely "cure" me. Jeez, now seriously, some people haven't a clue of what typer of world we live in. If it wasn't just laughable, this would go hand-in-hand with what Nazi scientists were trying to achieve, with their eugenist medicine... after attemtping at a "cure" for homosexuals, where can the line be drawn??? gypsies, jews, africans, handicapped, dark haired people?(all this was tried by Nazi scientists) Reminds me of brainwash, manipulation, hidden agendas and most of all a lot of (self?) hatred. Most of all , on a historical note, it should be stated somewhere on this article that similar "therapies" were attempted by these fascist/repressive regimes early in the 30s 40s and even now (Iranian government?)--193.136.74.7 (talk) 08:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You're pretty gullible. Conversion therapy as practiced by licensed professionals is nothing like that. I suggest you start doing some research from some reliable resources, of which Wikipedia is not included. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Of all the therapies on WIki, of course the one that is morally conservative gets bashed

WIkipedia: neutral? Hardly. Also note how unbelievably huge this article is...compared with sex therapy, which is one paragraph, the wiki leftists take the gloves off and use this supposedly "neutral" article as a bashing ground to thrust their opinions. Even the introduction is 3 times bigger than the opening paragraph of Hillary Clinton, and loaded...absolutely loaded, with criticism. Was this article written by homosexuals? Seriously. I pose that quesiton with real seriousness. Psychotherapy nenver worked on me...it doesn't work on a LOT of people...so what justification therefore should I take to unleash hell on the article governing psychotherapy? So you're gay...and you hate conversion therapy because you believe (without proof) you are born with it...great...you can have that opinion, but this IS A form of therapy that is practiced by many licensed practitioners...just like Art Therapy, or Adventure Therapy, or Light Therapy, etc. Get over it, and leave your liberal leftist bias at the door. Wikipedia is widely known as a baised source of information....this article is proof.

Knol can't get here soon enough! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk) 04:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yawn. Take it to Conservapedia. Or, you could actually contribute something to the article rather than ranting about it. eaolson (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

History and doctrinal development

I think this section needs a fair amount of clean-up. I propose:

• merging the 'Outside the U.S.' section into the rest of the text or at least marking it with the globalize
  • I don't know, I think it's helpful to have this content split off. The majority of the literature that's arisen regarding conversion therapy comes from the US, and having a bulleted, separate section for non-U.S. material allows the reader to do a cross-country comparison that would be harder if the content were integrated with the rest of the text. Fireplace (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• changing the Nazism section - I think it biases people and give undue weight to the Nazis when most of the participants in WWII were preforming conversions. Did the Germany's use conversion before Nazism and continue to after?
• remove or justify extraneous info e.g. "In Norway, a country known for its strong LGBT rights legislation"... So what? If it had weak LGBT right legislation would that change the point? or "In India, psychiatry and psychology scholars have "preserved an almost complete silence on the subject of homosexuality".[66] One paper discusses behavior modification methods used to treat the sexual orientation of thirteen gay patients.[67]" I'm not sure what this means. There is only one paper that discusses the methods used? Some of the only available material is a paper published on the methods used on thirteen gay patients?
  • Norway is famously progressive with respect to gay rights issues, so I think it's helpful to include that as context. Regarding the India sentence... what I meant to convey was that there's little published literature on this issue in India, but here's one of the very few examples of something relevant. Fireplace (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

--J2000ca (talk) 06:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant criticism

Part of the article reads, 'Critics argue that it [the Spitzer study] relied upon samples selected by conversion therapists themselves (86 participants were handpicked by ex-gay organizations), that proper random samplings were not used, that small samplings were used, that the subjects appeared to be ex-gay advocates who may have been biased in favor of conversion therapies, that 60% of the subjects had previously reported being bisexual, and that no follow-up study had been carried out to ascertain long-term conversion' Some of those criticisms may have some validity, but one of them is clearly irrelevant: the objection that a random sampling was not used. Since Spitzer's study was not intended to be representative, the lack of a random sampling is not important. The article would be improved if this could be made clear. Skoojal (talk) 07:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Baggage from Homosexuality

I am appending below text removed from said article, as the discussion was overly detailed for the location. It does not seem that it is necessary here and only duplicates the arguments, but in case I missed something I am appending it below: In a survey of 882 people who were undergoing conversion therapy, attending ex-gay groups or ex-gay conferences, 22. 9% reported they had not undergone any changes, 42.7% reported some changes, and 34.3% reported much change in sexual orientation.Exodus International is the largest ostensibly ex-gay group. A major ally of Exodus International is Focus on the Family, who works with Exodus International in their Love Won Out ministry. These groups disagree with the position that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) adopted in 1973 that: "The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable." The website warns that "conversion therapy" is poorly documented and could cause potential harm. The American Psychiatric Association stated, "[T]here is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of 'reparative therapy' as a treatment to change one's sexual orientation." In 2000, the APA reaffirmed the essence of their 1973 position, stating that "[i]n the last four decades, 'reparative' therapists have not produced any rigorous scientific research to substantiate their claims of cure." Haiduc (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not baggage. This is covered in more depth on the conversion therapy page. This is a very important issue and needs coverage on the main homosexuality page. Also, the second half is misleading because it makes it seem as if all of these groups assumed homosexuality is a mental illness, and it also makes it seem as if the APA disagreed with a survey that they themselves published. Joshuajohanson (talk) 08:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Addition of neutrality tag

I added a neutrality tag to this article for several reasons. Let me start out by saying that I do have a personal vested interest in this as I am a gay man who suffered under the care of a conversion therapist for two years. A path which I ultimately abandoned. So I am not a proponent of conversion therapy. However, I do think that people should have the right to pursue whatever treatment they feel is best for them. That being said, I do think this article overstates the APA disaproval on conversion therapy.

• For one thing the wikipedia article reads as if the APA actually said that "reparative therapy creates an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish". This is not the case. The quote comes not from the APA but a psychologist interviewed by a gay publication. To my knowledge, the APA has never made such a strong stance against conversion therapy.
  • Well, there's a reliable third-party source saying it was an APA statement, but since the source isn't ideal, I've removed the quote from the lead but left it in the body of the article. Fireplace (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Second, the article does not fully explain the APA's position on reparative therapy. The reason why the organization has not condemned the practice is because of the guiding principle of the APA to respect and remain neutral on religous beliefs and practices. Out of respect for a clients religion, therapists do not try to impose values opposed to that religous system onto there clients. To do so is viewed as highly unethical by the APA. It is for this reason that the APA has not banned the practice of conversion therapy, although they do have high concerns over the potential harm such therapy may produce.
  • The article could certainly use some streamlining, but I think that it does capture the APA's stance on these issues. The section on client self-determination seems to address this. What language do you want to change, or what reliable sources do you want to include? Fireplace (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• There are several other ethical factors involved such as personal autonomy. These are central ethical issues surrounding the debate over conversion therapy and there lack of discussion here biases this article in favor of banning conversion therapy. I don't have the articles in front of me but I am sure it would be easy to look up. The APA has discussed the ethics of this decision to not ban conversion therapy on numerous ocassions and in numerous articles in their own journal. The lack of such journal citations seems a huge oversite within this article.
  • I've done extensive searches through academic journals and bibliographies on conversion therapy, and I believe most relevant articles are already cited in the article. Which ones exactly are you referring to? Fireplace (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• In fairness, I also feel that the article does not state the weeknesses in arguements against conversion therapy. Unfortunately, there is no scientific evidence to document the potential harm of conversion therapy. A fact which I think the article states but the implications of which are not clearly explained. Just as there is no strong conclusive study on the sucsess of such treatments, likewise there is no conclusive documenting study against such therapies.
  • The current structure of the article is to state the official position of the various mental health organizations (e.g., "There is potential for harm when clients participate in conversion therapy" from the ACA or "potential risks of 'reparative therapy' are great" from the APA) and also to discuss the lack of extensive data ("anecdotal reports of 'cures' are counterbalanced by anecdotal claims of psychological harm." It further states that there are no scientifically rigorous outcome studies to determine the actual harm of conversion treatments"). That seems to capture what the reliable sources say about this. Fireplace (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• The truth of the matter is, is that conversion therapy is a shady science where there really hasn't been much research done, for or against. So although morally people might have objections to such therapies, they really can't say scientifically that such therapies don't work and are harmful. The stance of the APA therefore, has been criticized by many professional psychologists and members of the organization for pre-emptive judgment on this issue that is based in opinion and politics rather than actual scientific fact. These critics do include psychologists who are highly skeptical of reparative therapy as well as those who are more open to such practices. Sadly, the APA won't help fund research in this area of therapy. I say sad because I think such research would show the hipocracy of the whole ex-gay movement and the fact that you can't make someone straight. It would show the damging effects such therapies have on people in a provable factual unbiased manner. As it is, no such proof exsists and until it does neither side can definitively defend there position. It should be noted too that critics of APAs accusations on the negative effects of conversion therapy have responded by pointing out that such traits like suicide, self-destructive behavior, and depression are also common among young gay men and gay men just coming out and are concerns that the LGBT community have for the mental health of young gay men. So if such traits are found in those going through conversion therapy, is it the therapy or the fact that they are wrestling with the5re sexuality at all the factor causing such symptoms.
  • Some of what you say above is already discussed in the article, other parts seem like personal opinion or original research. Fireplace (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• Also, the article tends to marginalize opposing positions to the APAs stance as some sort of fringe group in the psychological community. This is not the case either.
  • Skepticism and concern about conversion therapy is widespread, and the article cites reliable sources saying as much. Fireplace (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
• There are a significant amount of psychologists that support conversion therapy, including the former head of the APA among others. It's not the majority but enough to avoid comments in the article which seem dismissive, especially since many supporters of conversion therapy hold important positions and are highly published in leading psychology journals.
  • The article includes quotes from some such people. If you know of more and there are reliable sources, feel free to add them. Fireplace (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I would have to say that although this article is in line with my personal opinion I think it is a little askew for an encyclopedia article. Nrswanson (talk) 05:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

A further comment, although I am not entirely against using gay oriented publications as cited references, I think this article may relye a little too heavily on them. Gay media does have a vested interest in this issue and is therefore open to allegations of bias. When possible, I think this article should try to utilize mainstreem media and professional counceling and psychology publications to present information in order to avoid allegations of bias. Also, not all gay activists are opposed to reparative therapy in all instances (especialy when religous beliefs may hold a more powerful place within a clients sense of self then there own sexuality) and many therapists who oppose reparative therapy as a general practice do think it is a viable approach as a last resort in order to avoid suicide.Nrswanson (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The majority of the sources are from reliable, third-party sources that are not associated with an interest group. There are a few citations to publications that cater to LGBT audiences, but there are also quite a few citations to sources that cater to conservative Christian audiences. Fireplace (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

2008:Germany: German Executive (CDU/SPD) says NO to conversion therapy

• Answer of German Executive by SPD and CDU: Conversion therapy (german pdf-document)

In Germany all parties in Bundestag are against conversion therapy; In an official answer the CDU/SPD executive wrote that homosexuality is no reason for a therapy and that Homosexuality don't need any therapy. It 's dangerous, if people are forced into a conversion therapy. 212.95.108.38 (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Blacklisted source

I see this last edit. [36] What is a "blacklisted source"? Just curious. --Knulclunk (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This site pays anyone to write articles on any subject. The writers are paid by the numbers of visits their stories receive. Thus it qualifies as both self-published and spam, as they have clear economic reasons to create these links. Because of this (and a few others) it has now been blacklisted, or not allowed as an outside link. Please see Admin Noticeboard for more information. Stealthound (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

oh.--Knulclunk (talk) 10:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)