Talk:Conversion therapy/Archive 6

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

"Gay and lesbian" vs. "homosexual"

I reverted a series of major changes by Skoojal (talk · contribs), who purged the article of "gay" and "lesbian" and replaced with "homosexual" and who has made accusations of NPOVness about at least one other editor objecting to the change. "Homosexual" is becoming recognized as a derogatory term among gays and lesbians. From [1]: "Offensive Terminology to Avoid: Please use "lesbian" or "gay man" to describe people attracted to members of the same sex." Skoojal claimed that reverting away from "homosexual" was just "political correctness", but this is incorrect. Per Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality:

Terminology must be neutral. Derogatory terms are not to be tolerated in a category name under any circumstances, and should be added to the list of speedy deletion criteria. Note that neutral terminology is not necessarily the most common term — a term that the person or their cultural group does not accept for themselves is not neutral even if it remains the most widely used term among outsiders.

It is therefore clear that WP guidelines indicate that the most appropriate terms to use are "gay" and "lesbian." eaolson (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The term 'homosexual' is not derogatory, whatever some gays and lesbians may think (other gays, including me, don't have a problem with it). 'Homosexual' is a neutral and accurate term for people attracted to the same sex, just as heterosexual is a neutral and accurate term for people attracted to the opposite sex (and I note that eaolson isn't objecting to 'heterosexual' or complaining that it is somehow derogatory, which logically it should be if 'homosexual' is bad). There is no reason why this article has to use what one particular homosexual organization considers appropriate language: GLAAD does not speak for the homosexual 'cultural group' as a whole. Skoojal (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Should I assume that because no one has responded to my comments above there is no further disagreement and that I should go ahead and edit the article again? Really, I think that if someone is going to call the word 'homosexual' derogatory they should try harder than eaolson has. Skoojal (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

First, I disagree with your statement that if "homosexual" is offensive then "heterosexual" must therefore also be derogatory. If political groups start using "heterosexual" to make straight people sound clinically disordered, then I might agree. If you can show me a major straight-rights advocacy group asking that the term not be used, I'll have no objection to "heterosexual" being changed to "straight." In fact, I don't really have any objection anyway. Descriptive adjectives for the majority group are very rarely derogatory, mainly because they are in the majority, the "normal" group.

The question isn't whether the word is inaccurate. Words have connotations and we should be sensitive to them, just how "Eskimo" isn't used on Wikipedia, regardless of its accuracy. You won't find many people objecting to "Caucasian" but I'd be very careful using the clinical term "Negroid" if I were you.

Simply put, "homosexual" isn't generally how the gay and lesbian community describes itself. As examples:

GLADD. Self-evident from the fact they request the media not use the term. (see above)
Advocate.com: Describes itself as the "award-winning LGBT news site."
Human Rights Campaign: "...the largest civil rights organization working to achieve equality for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans..."
Servicemembers Legal Defense Network: lists among its goals, "Lift the ban preventing gays, lesbians and bisexuals from serving openly and honestly in the military."
here!: "a precedent-setting television destination dedicated to serving the country's gay and lesbian audience."
Logo: the new lesbian & gay network from MTV Networks

Those are just examples I pulled entirely at random from all the major gay and lesbian media and web presences I could quickly think of. I didn't cherry-pick; I couldn't actually find a single use of the word "homosexual."

Your claim that "GLAAD does not speak for the homosexual 'cultural group' as a whole" is an impossible to meet standard, as there can never be a group that speaks for the whole of any cultural group whether it centers on race, religion, or sexual orientation. And it's not just one group. As far as I can tell, it's basically every media presence, with the exception of some obviously conservatives ones like WorldNetDaily that can't even use the term "gay" without putting it in scare quotes. From our very own article Terminology of homosexuality#Currently prescribed usage:

Same-sex oriented people seldom apply these terms to themselves, and public officials and agencies often avoid them... The Guardian Style Guide, Newswatch Diversity Style Guide, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, and the Committee on Lesbian and Gay Concern of the American Psychological Association's Avoiding Heterosexual Bias in Language agree that "gay" is the preferred term... People with a same-gender sexual orientation generally prefer the terms gay, lesbian and bisexual.

I stand by my claim that "gay" and "lesbian" should be the preferred terms. eaolson (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Some factual knowledge about the history of the word 'homosexual' may be helpful here. There's a good article about this by Jim Burroway over at the Box Turtle Bulletin website http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/page/2. It describes how the word 'homosexual' was coined by Karl-Maria Kertbeny, an early supporter of what is now often called gay rights, as a neutral term to describe people sexually attracted to their own sex.

The term 'homosexual' is standardly used in scholarly and academic discussion of people who are attracted to the same sex, which it certainly would not be if it were derogatory. It is used this way by both supporters and opponents of the gay movement. The fact that some gay groups think that the word 'homosexual' is derogatory does not make this true. They may happen not to like the word 'homosexual', or even be uncomfortable with it, but that's an entirely different matter. Skoojal (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This remains an issue wherein the terminology on articles should only be changed through consensus. It appears that current consensus on wikipedia is not in favor of replacing "gay" and "lesbian" with "homosexual." Consider building consensus prior to making such changes on articles. Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 01:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

'There has to be a consensus' is an argument one can always resort to if one has nothing better. The majority opinion may prefer 'gay' and 'lesbian', but these terms are not neutral, and the very fact that many homosexuals insist on them shows as much. Skoojal (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict, in response to Skoojal] Yes, and in the early days of the gay rights movement the term "homophile" was used. We don't use it anymore. The word "fairy" was used in a non-insulting way in the 1920s. We don't use that one anymore, either. I'm not saying "homosexual" was inappropriate for the 19th century. I'm not saying it's inaccurate, I'm just saying it's not the preferred usage. Terms change. The very reason "homosexual" is not preferred is that it is unnecessarily clinical. Go take a look at Americans for Truth about Homosexuality or Positive Alternatives to Homosexualty. One thing you'll never find there is the word "gay" used, it's always "homosexual" this and "homosexual" that. That's not a coincidence. That's a very intentional use of a clinical word to imply some sort of disorder.

Again, the WP guideline is to refer to a group as how they generally refer to themselves, not how outsiders refer to them. Furthermore, I think this is analagous to the British/American spelling edit wars that go on. WP guidelines are to leave those as they were initially without a significant reason to change them from one to the other. Maybe you can suggest why it's necessary to change all uses of "gay" to "homosexual" in this article? eaolson (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to the interesting boxturtlebulletin article, let me submit this link from Americablog, a fairly prominent gay blogger:

As a gay guy, the use of the word homosexual is downright messed up. The word homosexual is now often considered derogatory by gays, partly because the word is used incessantly by the religious right for the express purpose of denigrating gays (the word can sound dirty and clinical).

eaolson (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Your use of the word 'we' suggests that all homosexuals agree that the word 'homosexual' should not be used. This is not true. Remember that I'm a homosexual and I don't agree with you. The fact that most homosexuals do not prefer the word 'homosexual' does not make it either derogatory or insulting and is not a valid reason for not using it. The fact that the words 'homosexual' and 'heterosexual' are clinical is what makes them appropriate to an article about a scientific subject. Insisting on politically correct rather than scientifically correct language is a violation of neutral point of view.

Incidentally, you aren't describing accurately the changes I made - I did not remove all uses of the word gay from the article. Not only did I not remove it from direct quotes, which unquestionably would have been wrong, I also did not remove several other instances of the word (in one case, I removed it, but on further reflection decided that I shouldn't have done that and put it back in again). I accept that it may be appropriate within certain contexts, eg to describe gay affirmative therapy. It just shouldn't be used in general. Skoojal (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Another point. There is a substantial group of homosexuals who generally don't want to be called 'gay.' These are homosexuals who regard homosexuality as wrong and want to change their orientation. Why should their feelings and sensitivities count for less than those of homosexuals who are happy being homosexual? Using the word 'gay' rather than 'homosexual' is a way of siding with homosexuals who are happy being homosexual against those who are not. Must it be pointed out that a neutral article shouldn't do this?Skoojal (talk) 04:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the group of people who are homosexual but prefer the label "gay" currently outnumber those who are homosexual and prefer that label. Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 04:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This may be true, but how is it relevant? That's not a convincing response to my point above, which I consider a strong argument for limiting the use of the term 'gay.' Skoojal (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately you will need to work to build consensus. I don't think this argumentative approach is likely to do that. Your perception of your argument being strong does not necessarily change any minds. Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 04:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Argument about article content is what talk pages are for. Can I ask why my arguments haven't changed your mind? Skoojal (talk) 04:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[outdent]While "homosexual" is a perfectly fine word in the right context, I disagree that the terms "gay" and "lesbian" imply a particularly pro-gay viewpoint. I think you're saying that the use of "gay" or "lesbian" (as opposed to "homosexual") necessarily implies POV in support of gay rights. If that were true, then politicians couldn't say they were opposed to gay marriage; religious leaders couldn't say that lesbians are sinful; psychologists couldn't claim that gays and lesbians are capable of reversing their sexual orientation. "Gay" and "lesbian" are, simply, the human terms for men and woman--H. s. sapiens males and females--who are endowed with homosexual orientation. The word "homosexual" is not equivalent; it can be used to describe, for instance, the behavior of a Bonobo chimpanzee during a certain time of day. "Homosexual" as an adjective describes a specific behavior; as a noun, it sometimes applies to a particular sociocultural niche. However, when referring to individuals, it is correct to use "gay" and "lesbian." In discussing, say, bull-on-bull mounting behavior, it is just as imprecise to describe the cattle as "gay" as it is to say that, for instance, the people who moved in across the street are "a homosexual couple." Rangergordon (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a long since dead dispute, and I have no idea why you're bringing it up. I'm just not making an issue of it at the moment. Skoojal (talk) 10:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Usage of the term "gay lifestyle"

Could you please define "gay lifestyle". I'm gay and I'd like to kow what my lifestyle is. --Ecelan (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC) P.S. Please define also "heterosexual lifestyle"; just to make things a bit clearer for the ignorant, like me. Thanks.

Sorry. I did not mean to be offensive. By gay lifestyle I meant people who were either in sexual relationships with people of their own gender or pursuing said relationships. Just because your gay doesn't mean you have what is commonly termed in conservative circles as a gay lifestyle. People who have ceased pursuing homosexual relationships often refer to it as a lifestyle change. I shouldn't have used the term gay lifestyle, but I honestly forget it is offensive and it is sometimes easier than saying pursuing gay relationships. I will make more of an effort to avoid such a term in the future. Is there another term that is less offensive to refer to people who pursue sexual relationships with people of their gender? Joshuajohanson (talk) 07:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"lesbian", "gay", or "bisexual" Дҭї 09:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

But how would that distinguish gays who pursue homosexual relationships from gays who do not? This was the context in which the offensive term "gay lifestyle" was used. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a gay lifestyle because gay people do not behave in a single, uniform manner. Would an out, but celibate, priest be part of the lifestyle? It's a loadedterm used to dehumanize people. In fact, the WP lifestyle article uses "homosexual lifestyle" as the example of a pejorative term. eaolson (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That is precisely the reason conservatives use the term. According to the usage in conservative circles, an out, but celibate, priest would most definitely not be part of the gay lifestyle. The whole purpose of the term is to distinguish those who choose to have gay sex and those who do not. This whole discussion is just simply for my benefit, since the term was used on the talk, not on the main page. I really do want to know what the correct term should be. I am more used to talking in conservative circles, but obviously some of the terminology doesn't translate very well. I do want to correct my speech to not be offensive. What is the correct term to distinguish a gay who is pursuing homosexual relationships from a gay (such as the celibate priest example) who is not? Conservatives use the term gay lifestyle. What do others use? Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The most equitable solution is to use the term "gay lifestyle" in the same way in which its heterosexual counterpart might be used. That is, anytime it would be natural to describe a straight person as living "a heterosexual lifestyle," it would make sense to apply the equivalent term to a homosexual. As Joshuajohanson says, the term "gay lifestyle" applies to non-celibate homosexuals. If "heterosexual lifestyle" or "straight lifestyle" were commonly used in reference to non-celibate heterosexuals, this usage would make perfect sense. This is not the case, however--which renders the term meaningless in general discourse.

The terms "straight" and "heterosexual," when applied to an adult individual, are normally understood to imply that the individual engages, or is inclined to engage, in sexual and/or romantic relationships exclusively with members of the opposite sex. To make it understood that a heterosexual individual chooses to abstain from sex, the term "celibate" is used; otherwise the reader/listener assumes the possibility of a sex life. Similarly, when describing someone who is "gay" or "homosexual," the implication is that the individual engages, or is inclined to engage, in sexual and/or romantic relationships exclusively with members of the same sex. Therefore, to communicate the fact that such an individual is celibate, one must say so.

In mainstream culture, celibacy among adults is rather unusual regardless of sexual orientation, so people naturally assume the presence of a normal sex life unless otherwise indicated. If you wish to say that a person abstains from sex, the only clear way to do so is by using the term "celibate"--or say, if you must, that he or she leads "a celibate lifestyle." Rangergordon (talk) 08:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed factual error

An older version of this article wrote that the label reparative originated in 1983, and that it was coined by Elizabeth Moberly. This is quite misleading; the word reparative was used in numerous different contexts before then (eg, in the work of Melanie Klein), so I have changed this part. The entire paragraph of which that sentence was the start was worded misleadingly. It needs further improvement, and so do other parts of the article. Skoojal (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Therapy for GIDC

I have just started an article on gender identity disorder in children, which is back in the news following announcements about the DSM-V committee appointments on gender issues. The controversy centers on Kenneth Zucker, who advocates therapy in children to prevent adult gender identity disorder (transsexualism). Some previously-mentioned quotations:

Kenneth Zucker (Canadian Journal of Psychiatry (1990). "Two short term goals have been discussed in the literature: the reduction or elimination of social ostracism and conflict, and the alleviation of underlying or associated psychopathology. Longer term goals have focused on the prevention of transsexualism and/or homosexuality."

Simon Pickstone-Taylor (Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2003). "What Bradley and Zucker (1997) suggest for treatment is something disturbingly close to reparative therapy for homosexuals."

Darryl Hill et al. (Haworth 2006): "Zucker and Bradley believe that reparative treatments (encouraging the child to accept their natal sex and associated gender) can be therapeutic for several reasons. They believe that treatment can reduce social ostracism by helping gender non-conforming children mix more readily with same sex peers and prevent long-term psychopathological development (1.e., it is easier to change a child than a society intolerant of gender diversity). Reparative therapy is believed to reduce the chances of adult GID (i.e., transsexualism) which Zucker and Bradley characterize as undesirable."

The "prevention of transsexualism and/or homosexuality" indicates that the literature doesn't make a clear distinction between interventions for altering gender identity and sexual orientation. Zucker wishes to distance his own techniques from reparative therapy because he does not advocate preventing homosexuality, just transsexualism. I feel this should be mentioned here in a section above "New psychoanalytic models and Reparative Therapy." GIDC was formalized as a diagnosis in 1980, though attempts to cure childhood identity disorder predate that diagnosis. The proposed section will be in summary style with a link to the main article GIDC. Wikipedia should include all reliably-sourced uses of the terms "reparative therapy," "conversion therapy," "change therapy," etc. Jokestress (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Only people who are not themselves reparative therapists use the expression reparative therapy in this loose and general way. Self-proclaimed reparative therapists always use the term to refer to a specific kind of therapy. The article should not leave anyone in any doubt about this. Your proposed addition would probably confuse matters. Skoojal (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

More possible inaccuracies in the seciton "New psychoanalytic models and Reparative Therapy"

The article reads, 'In 1983 research psychologist Elizabeth Moberly coined the term reparative drive to refer to male homosexuality itself, interpreting men's sexual desires for other men as attempts to compensate for a lacked connection between father and son during childhood.' Now, in his book Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality, Nicolosi says this: 'In the psychoanalytic literature, homosexuality has long been explained as an attempt to "repair" a deficit in masculine identity. This theory is not new; in fact, it has a long tradition within the psychoanalytic literature. While not all homosexuality can be explained simply as reparative drive, for most homosexual men it is a significant motivation. When the homosexual encounters another man who is what he himself would like to be, he is likely to idealize him and romanticize the relationship. Reparative-drive theory began with Sigmund Freud (1914), who linked homosexuality to narcissism: "A man can love himself as he is, he can love himself as he was, he can love someone who was once a part of himself, and he can love what he himself would like to be" (p. 90).' That's from pages 70 and 71, in the section 'Homosexuality as a Reparative Drive.' Now if this is true, then the article's claims perhaps look misleading. Skoojal (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

On page 72 of that book, Nicolosi attributes the reparative drive explanation of homosexuality to Anna Freud, Sandor Rado, and Lionel Ovesey, all of whom wrote well before Elizabeth Moberly. Nicolosi identifies Moberly's contribution as the idea of defensive detachment (p. 19-20), not the reparative explanation of homosexuality. Skoojal (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, it seems that the term reparative drive is used to explain homosexuality, not as a term for homosexuality, as the wording of that section implies. Skoojal (talk) 02:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate Quotation

This article contains the following quotation from Joseph Nicolosi: 'Each one of us, man and woman alike, is driven by the power of romantic love. These infatuations gain their power from the unconscious drive to become a complete human being. In heterosexuals, it is the drive to bring together the male-female polarity through the longing for the other-than me. But in homosexuals, it is the attempt to fulfill a deficit in wholeness of one’s original gender.' The section of Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality that this is taken from is about 'The Limitations of Homosexual Love', and is not primarily about what causes homosexuality. I suggest that this quotation be removed and replaced with something more suitable. The following from page xvi might be better: 'In reality, the homosexual condition is a developmental problem - and one that often results from early problems between father and son. Heterosexual development necessitates the support and cooperation of both parents as the boy disidentifies from mother and identifies with father. Failure in relationship with father may result in failure to internalize male gender-identity. A large proportion of the men seen in psychotherapy for treatment of homosexuality fit this developmental syndrome.' This is much less colorful than the other quotation, and that's part of the reason I'm suggesting it (I have made some related comments on the Joseph Nicolosi talk page, questioning the usefulness and appropriateness of using out of context quotations as a way of explaining someone's theories). Skoojal (talk) 03:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Rethink on Statement sourced to Throckmorton

I recently added the words, 'The term reparative therapy is sometimes used loosely as a synonym for conversion therapy in general', to the introduction. So long as this explanation is allowed to remain in the introduction, I no longer think that the statement sourced to Warren Throckmorton needs to be in the article. It might arguably be better placed in the article on Throckmorton. It may seem ironic that I have now removed this myself, having several times re-inserted it, but after some reconsideration I think the sentence I have placed in the introduction is a clearer way of explaining things; hopefully it will also be less contentious. Skoojal (talk) 06:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent Addition to the Article by Whistling 42

Recently, the following sentence was added to the article: 'In Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders' Media Reference Guide, editors list the term "reparative therapy" under Problematic Terminology, stating: "In reporting, the term "reparative therapy" should be avoided whenever possible (except in quoted material), as it insinuates that lesbian, gay and bisexual people are 'disordered' or 'broken' and need to be 'repaired'."' This statement is wrong. It is perfectly obvious that it is the theories of the reparative therapists that 'insinuate' this, and emphatically not the use of the expression reparative therapy itself, which is the name of a particular kind of therapy. No one is supporting the theories of the reparative therapists simply by using the expression reparative therapy, and it is silly to suggest otherwise. Skoojal (talk) 07:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This assumes that those who coined the term "reparative therapy" did so in good faith, rather than out of a desire to provide political cover for opponents of gay and lesbian rights, who base their opposition on claims that homosexuality is a "choice." After exposure to widespread ridicule, it became popular for the model's proponents to characterize it as politically value-neutral, with the sole aim of assisting clients genuinely troubled by their sexual orientation. I believe people's objection to the term, however, is that, if the model truly were value-neutral, why would its proponents have chosen a loaded term like "reparative," which clearly presumes that homosexuals are somehow "broken"?

I don't know whether the term should necessarily be banned, however. Recent euphemisms for reparative therapy only serve to cover up its political motivations, so from that standpoint, I say let its proponents call it "reparative" if they wish to reveal their spurious conviction that being gay or lesbian is some kind of psychological flaw which must be repaired. Rangergordon (talk) 10:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

In general, reparative therapists do not assume that homosexuality is a choice, so the first sentence of your post above seems misleading. Regarding the motivation for using the term 'reparative', see the article on Joseph Nicolosi. I am relieved to see, however, that you don't think the term should be banned. Skoojal (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience tag

Since many (if not most) psychologists seem to consider CT pseudoscience (scientific claims with no facts/studies to back them up) I added the appropriate tag.

Cheers, Conor (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Undid edit. Certain brands of conversion therapy, such as aversion therapy, are considered pseudoscience, but other techniques such as Sexual Identity Therapy, have been broad acceptance and have presented at APA conferences. The APA has set out principles laying out the principles that should be followed while practicing conversion therapy[2]. The President of the American Psychological Association has said: "The APA has no conflict with psychologists who help those distressed by unwanted homosexual attraction." An editorial by a single person who believes sexual orientation change therapy is pseudoscience is not enough to place a pseudoscience tag on the conversion therapy page. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Joshuajohanson. Thanks for explaining your revert. I wasn't trying to suggest that the article I posted the link for was the sole or even primary reason for adding the tag - it was just what sparked me to consider adding it. My reasoning was based on the Wikipedia definition: "Pseudoscience is defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status" and the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, definition: "A theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation".

The Conversion Therapy article's paragraph on Medical Concensus reads:

The medical and mental health consensus in the United States is that there is no scientifically adequate research showing that that conversion therapies are effective or safe, and there is some evidence that they are potentially harmful. All major U.S. mental health organizations have expressed concerns about such practices.

This seems to describe a pseudoscientific subject. What do you think?

Best, Conor (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

'Pseudoscience' is a dubious and poorly defined term. I doubt that it should ever be used, and it certainly should not be used here unless there is an extremely strong case for it. I think it is a major misconception to think that something is 'pseudoscientific' if there is no consensus that it is effective or safe - that apparently doesn't mean the same thing at all (see the WP article). By the way, that article you linked to contains nonsense; it reads, 'The diagnosis of homosexuality as a disease was based on untested and unproven theoretical psychoanalytic concepts that evolved in the Victorian era.' This is misinformation. Skoojal (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The actual quote, which the paragraph was summarizing, was that there was "no scientifically rigorous outcome studies to determine either the actual efficacy or harm of "reparative" treatments." It further stated that they support efforts to research it. A lack of rigorous outcome studies is not proof that it doesn't work, any more than it is proof that it isn't harmful. Furthermore, not everyone agrees with the US. The World Health Organization lists ego-dystonic sexual orientation in the ICD-10 and states individuals may seek treatment in order to change it. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It's true that "A lack of rigorous outcome studies is not proof that it doesn't work," but the tag 'pseudoscience' doesn't mean "proven not to work," it means "lacking any basis in the scientific method." If there is no credible scientific evidence supporting it, then it is a pseudoscience by definition. After all, there are no rigorous outcome studies proving that the weeds in my backyard don't cure cancer, but if I establish a "Capedia Weeds Institute" that applies dubious methods to establish that these weeds cure cancer, I'm engaging in psuedoscience. Capedia (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that conversion therapy should not be categorized as a pseudoscience. Regarding your comments above, however, I should point out that Warren Throckmorton doesn't regard sexual identity therapy as a kind of conversion therapy. Skoojal (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Skoojal, Hi Joshuajohanson,

It's easier to reply to you both in one post - no disrespect meant.

I don't see how pseudoscience is 'dubious and poorly defined' above. I quoted the American Heritage Dictionary, which is generally regarded as a good source for definitions. Here are 2 more concurring definitions from reliable sources: Merriam Webster Free Dictionary

I had written a longer reply based on the article before you made your most recent edits, so I will have to re-read the relevant parts and examine further the sources you reference before re-examining the pseudoscience idea.

As for my change to the lede, I was trying to make things clear, not make it POV or confusing. Your edit has odd syntax - heterosexual as a noun doesn't work in that instance. Surely "identifying" as homosexual isn't POV? If anything it covers LGBT ideas on identity *and* religious/ex-gay/other beliefs about choice... I've clarified the syntax and added the 'identify' bit.

I'm not sure if the edit summery by Skoojal ("undoing edit - this article is already too long and you want to expand it even further? the article needs the reverse of this! see talk") was meant for me... just to clarify, I didn't make the edit you were reverting.

Best, Conor (talk) 00:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

With regard to ICD-10 classification, it's important to recognise that it is specifically and solely confined to those with "associated psychological and behavioural disorders" - so people who just wake up one morning and want to change sexuality or someone who is doing it for religious reasons wouldn't qualify. Conor (talk) 00:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Joshuajohanson,

After reading your newly edited version of the Medical Consensus paragraph, I have to ask you if you actually read any of the sources that you reference? The original summary that you charged was "biased" was actually far more reflective of the sources. The APA statement, for example, is unequivocally against conversion therapy, e.g. their conclusion reads: "Therefore, the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as reparative or conversion therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation."

You claimed the paragraph you edited was biased and then went on to remove a paraphrase of the following Am Psych Assoc quotation: "To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective. Furthermore, it seems likely that the promotion of change therapies reinforces stereotypes and contributes to a negative climate for lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons." This refutes your anti-pseudoscience arguments. Why did you remove this?

The oft-quoted "Mental health professional organizations call on their members to respect a person’s (client’s) right to selfdetermination; be sensitive to the client’s race, culture, ethnicity, age, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, socioeconomic status, language, and disability status when working with that client; and eliminate biases based on these factors.", when actually read in context, does not give psychologists leeway to perform CT.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American School Counselor Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of SocialWorkers, together representing more than 480,000 mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus is not something that needs to or can be “cured.”

If you look down through the other information about CT in the rest of the world, the consensus is similar to that in the US.

Conor (talk) 01:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The quote "the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as reparative or conversion therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation." means just that, any psychiatric treatment which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation. Not all conversion therapies are based on that assumption. I left in "All major U.S. mental health organizations have expressed concerns about such practices." I'm not arguing that. Expressing concern is not the same as labeling it a pseudoscience. There is no adequate scientific evidence that it is safe or effective, but there is also no adequate scientific evidence that it is unsafe or ineffective. No evidence means no evidence. The reason the quote was biased was because it only showed one side, not because it was wrong. The quote you bring up also only shows one side. I have read the sources extensively and it does talk about that there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other, where the original summary made it seem as if there was conclusive evidence that it isn't safe. I think CT in Europe and Canada are similar to the US, but not the rest of the world. You say the wording is that their position "does not give psychologists leeway to perform CT." That is simply wrong. The fact of the matter is that they are given leeway. Every psychologist practicing conversion therapy under NARTH is accredited with one of these major psychological associations, including Joseph Nicolosi. Joshuajohanson (talk) 08:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal, if sexual identity therapy isn't a type of conversion therapy, what is it? I thought it just wasn't a type of reparative therapy. Joshuajohanson (talk) 08:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The important part of that quote is: "or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation." What do conversion therapies focus on? Everything I've read (here and otherwise), including review after review by groups like the APA, indicates that conversion therapy works on the basis of someone trying to change sexuality based on the idea that they should.

You're treating the consensus paragraph as if its purpose is now to prove/disprove the pseudoscience tag, whereas its job is to give a fair and concise overview of the consensus. If you like you can separate out the ideas country-by-country, but please be careful not to suggest that the US consensus is not overwhelmingly against all forms of CT. It can be considered represntative unless you have good sources to back up the claim to the contrary. If you can show that other countries/organizations outside of North America/Europe view CT positively then please add it to the consensus section. Conor (talk) 08:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That is where the self-determination argument comes in. Conversion therapy as practiced under the license of these medical associations is based on the idea that the client wants to change or diminish sexual orientation. Not that they should, just that they want to. That is a huge difference. The wording of the 1998 APA declaration is that "the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as reparative or conversion therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation." Yet, even with this firm opposition, they stated "The American Psychiatric Association does not currently have a formal position statement on treatments that attempt to change a persons sexual orientation." Those are two different things. You can't confuse the two. If the APA and the ACA outright opposed all forms of conversion therapy, they wouldn't produce ethical guidelines to follow when practicing conversion therapy. Read the ethics guidelines section. Joshuajohanson (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverting my edits

Skoojal,

Please give better reasons for reverting my referenced edits other than them being too long. I'm trying to refine syntax and grammar so that the lede is actually coherent. I added the vice-versa bit because conversion therapy is also used in theory for ego-dystonic sexuality disorders, per ICD-10. My additions to the consensus only seem to be causing you trouble because you and one other editor disagree with what the (well-sourced) material wrote - when it was LONGER and used references incorrectly ye didn't seem to have any problems with it.

Please discuss any further problems here; I had the patience to avoid an edit war over the pseudoscience tag, so reciprocity would be appreciated.

Thanks, Conor (talk) 01:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

To suggest that conversion therapy is used to convert heterosexuals to homosexuality is completely ridiculous. That is simply not what the term means. If you reword the article so that it says this, I'll undo it. Dictionary definitions of complex concepts don't impress me. There isn't even full agreement on what science is, much less what pseudo-science is. I note that one of those definitions was that pseudo-science is something that pretends to be based on science but is not. This is a completely different issue from what therapies are safe or effective and what are not, which is what is under discussion.Skoojal (talk) 03:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I'd rather avoid an edit war so I've backed off on the pseudoscience tag to consider it further. With respect, I've taken a step back even though I've simply been adhering to the top 3 sections of Graham's hierarchy. Please try not to call edits "ridiculous", etc., when they are referenced and in good faith.

I'm sure you're as keen for compromise as I am and we don't want to infringe 3RR, so how about "and, in theory, vice-versa"? Have you read the ICD-10 link I posted? It notes that edo dystonia applies to all sexual identities. I think it would be clear the way I've suggested but we could add a clause mentioning that it is almost exclusively LGB-oriented. Conor (talk) 03:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If something is ridiculous, it's ridiculous. Even if you do have a source that defines "conversion therapy" as including changing heterosexuality to homosexuality, which I will check, it's still absurd and misleading to put this in the article, because that simply is not how the term is usually used. So I reject your compromise. Skoojal (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Having looked at your source, I see that it does not define "conversion therapy" as including changing heterosexuality to homosexuality, which I had already suspected before looking at it. You have no case at all. Skoojal (talk) 05:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I can see you have problems with my suggestions - perhaps I'm not explaining myself very well. However, I'm concerned that you are reverting entire blocks of text and referring to them as nonsense/ridiculous. I appreciate and respect your previous edits on this and similar topics, and I am sure that - while we disagree on some things - we are both here for a good common purpose: improving wikipedia. I've asked a neutral admin to intervene and try to mediate. I'm hopeful that we can sort it out quickly. Until then, I'm calling a truce and will refrain from making any further edits/reverts to the article.

Best, Conor (talk) 05:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Getting outside involvement is not necessarily a bad idea. Unfortunately, you asked an administrator who currently seems to be taking a wikibreak. Maybe you could ask somebody else? You indicated that you considered the wording of the Medical Consensus paragraph the most important part of the dispute. I agree, and am open to further discussion about that issue. I doubt that the words 'The organizations do, however, respect the client's right to self-determination' should be removed from the article, but the rest is more debatable. Skoojal (talk) 08:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I realise she's on a wikibreak but I'm not in any rush - she happens to be an excellent and particularly fair admin. If you are in a hurry, I'd suggest User:Anthony.bradbury. Please let me know on my talkpage if you decide to approach a Sysop. I'm glad that you're open to discussion. Conor (talk) 08:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm personally not inclined to rush to administrators at the first sign of disagreement and expect them to settle everything; they tend to expect people to negotiate issues like this. I'm more inclined to side with Joshuajohanson over the wording of the Medical Consensus paragraph, but I'm perhaps not as strongly settled on one wording as Joshua is. Possibly some compromise can be developed here. Skoojal (talk) 08:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the first time I've asked an admin to intervene, so I absolutely hear you on that count. However, I would be more comfortable having an impartial 3rd party involved. I've left a message on Anthony's page. Conor (talk) 09:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I was invited to give an opinion and my only reaction right now is that I would like to see a reference to the techniques being used to expand a person's affective capacities beyond the limits of heterosexuality. Haiduc (talk) 14:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have just returned from holiday, so please excuse the initial delay in responding. I see that the article is long, and it will take a little time to go through it, look at the reversions in the history and also go through the talkpage. I will hopefully come up with what will, with luck, be a sensible commentary tomorrow. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Conor (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Cultural references section - borders on trivia

I think the first sentence of the 'cultural references' section, 'Conversion therapy and the ex-gay phenomenon occasionally appear in popular culture, usually in a satirical or skeptical context' has its place in the article, but I think the rest is either trivial or borders on trivia, and could perhaps be removed. Comments? Skoojal (talk) 01:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If there are no responses or objections soon, I am going to remove most of the cultural references section, which in my view is trivia. Skoojal (talk) 06:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to remove it: the material is well referenced and interesting; it's a discrete and short section; it does not constitute trivia, nor does it break any policies or rules in the MOS that I'm aware of. So that would be a very strong vote to keep. GeneralBelly (talk) 08:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

"Interesting" is not a good reason by itself for keeping something in an article. What some film maker thinks about conversion therapy may show us something about the film maker, but it shows us nothing about conversion therapy itself - and that is what the article is about. Such material would be more appropriate to other articles, and I am still inclined to remove it, especially since this article is too long. Skoojal (talk) 09:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Indenting with one extra colon beneath the last post would make it much easier to distinguish and read your responses. Instead of "interesting" I should have said "relevant". Your effort to pare down the article is commendable, but there is plenty of excess material that could be removed before the cultural references section. As I said, it's a short section, it's well referenced and it relates directly to the subject of the article. Unless you can prove that it directly breaches some policy or can suggest an article to which it is more appropriate then it ought to stay put. GeneralBelly (talk) 09:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel strongly that this section should be removed, or at least greatly reduced in size. It is a compilation of trivia that shows nothing significant. The general point that conversion therapy has been referred to in popular culture can be made in one sentence, without having to mention the various ways it has been mentioned (in some cases, such as the movie But I'm a Cheerleader, these already have their own articles). Besides being unimportant, having it there suggests that somehow the views of conversion therapy of people who produce comedies and movies actually matter - which they don't. Skoojal (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It is really a very short section so I cannot see how it could be "greatly reduced in size" without removing it altogether. It is not a compilation of trivia - trivia are unrelated facts whereas these facts all pertain to pop culture references. While you may not view it as important, I think that it is. The section gives the reader an impression of how popular culture views conversion therapy. CT is a relatively rarely used therapy that is supported by a small minority of psychologists and religious groups and yet it has garnered considerable attention from mainstream media/entertainment - I think that's significant in itself. It's important for people to see how the world understands (or misunderstands, depending on your point of view) CT and how it is portrayed outside of the academic/clninical setting. As I mentioned above - and indeed in my post below - there are far longer sections that could be edited or moved to make space in the article without scarificing this section. GeneralBelly (talk) 12:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It is trivia in the sense of being unimportant; I will remove most of it. Skoojal (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal, just a friendly reminder that unilateral decisions are not favoured on wikipedia. You need to give very good reasons for removing verifiable material other than just claiming that the stuff is "unimportant" in your own estimation. Pop culture references are widely accepted as valid sections in wikipedia articles and, as I mentioned, can provide valuable insights into how an issue is perceived by/portrayed to the general public. You have failed to provide a just argument for removing the section and doing so would indeed make me worry about ownership issues. Respectfully, GeneralBelly (talk) 14:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I have discussed this on the talk page. The reasons you are giving for keeping the pop culture trivia are without exception bad reasons. One single sentence is all that this needs - it's not important what one episode of South Park said about Conversion therapy, and it's silly to suggest that it is. This is a problem of undue weight. Skoojal (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

If the section were particularly long I would likely agree with you that it should be cut down, but it is a short and pertinent section in my opinion. The reasons I have given (while open to debate) are well thought-out and clearly explained while you have yet to refer to a single policy or precedence on wikipedia which suggests that such a section should be removed. On the other hand, I can point to entire articles on pop culture references to a particular subject... surely this indicates that cultural references can be noteworthy. Wikipedia is not all about article lengths and rules - we need to provide a big picture of the topic and I think that the section in question is valuable in that regard. By the way, I commend your effort to remove much of the ex-gay material; that move has made a fair dent in the length of the article. GeneralBelly (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The actual details of what South Park said about Conversion therapy (or even the fact that it said anything about it) are definitely not pertinent. This is a problem of undue weight, and I will look up the policy and quote it here if need be. As with telling us the details of how many children a particular ex-gay has, it's tacky and irrelevant. Skoojal (talk) 01:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal, if you read my previous comment, I was COMMENDING you for your edits to the ex-gay section; i.e. I was giving you a compliment. I am still troubled by your edits though: why have you edited the cultural references section without finding consensus? What is the point in having a discussion on a talkpage if you go ahead and do what you want regardless? All of our opinions are equally valid here. You are editing and making reverts unilaterally - that's not good etiquette. Please revert your edit to the cultural references section and continue the discussion here. Thanks, GeneralBelly (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

GeneralBelly, I am not going to restore that section, and the reason is this [3]. Part of it reads, 'An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.' Mentioning South Park at all in an article on Conversion therapy violates this, since it has no significance here (although the fact of popular culture in general refering to conversion therapy is worth maybe one sentence). Skoojal (talk) 02:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll note that while you're complaining about my removing that, SCBC has indicated that doing so is a good idea - while simultaneously adding more of the kind of irrelevant details about the lives of ex-gays that you agree with me shouldn't be there. There seems to be a need for more extensive discussion about what kind of material is appropriate. Skoojal (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal, you have really frayed my wikinerves and have convinced me that you have serious ownership issues with this article. I don't agree with your undue weight argument - it was a short, short, short section that did not change the weighting of the article; in fact, undue weight is only abstractly related to the issue at all. Have you read Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles? I am not trying to force my opinions on you or anyone else, but you aren't displaying any desire to reason with me or compromise or even reach consensus. Your reasons for reverting my edits also keep changing (note that you have reverted every single edit I have ever made to this article and have begun edit wars to keep it that way). I'd urge you to re-evaluate your approach to editing this article and allow others to have some wiggleroom. Perhaps I'm naive, but I have never experienced such closed editing of an article. I am taking a wikibreak solely because your stubborn editing is stopping me from contributing to this article. I'm keen to help you pare it down to a more concise version, but you are pushing your own ideas far too strongly. If this gives you some sense of victory, then I hope it's worth it. See you after my wikibreak; hopefully you will be in a more co-operative mood. GeneralBelly (talk) 02:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems people are accusing me of trying to own pretty much every article I work on seriously. It's never been my intention. Undue weight was a good reason for removing the material - even a short mention of South Park treats it more seriously than it deserves. Another relevant policy that everyone should try observing is civility [4]. Skoojal (talk) 02:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think people may indeed get the wrong idea about you sometimes - I personally believe you have good intentions. But I do think that if a number of editors are suggesting that you have owenership issues then they may not all be wrong. I would be dismayed if you were even hinting that I wasn't being civil. If you read over all of my comments, I have gone out of my way to be complimentary and genial towards you, even when you have been curt, made unilateral reverts without consensus, labelled my edits "ridiculous" and accused me of complaining. You are not an easy editor to work with and I've tried to reach out to you as a collaborator but you seem to prefer me as some form of foil. Despite all that, I wish you good luck with your future edits. Any further comments would be more suited to my talk page, rather than taking up space here. Best, GeneralBelly (talk) 03:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

The length of this page is annoying but I'm going to archive it in the next couple of days. If anyone else wants to do it before I get a chance, then maybe take a look at Help:Archiving_a_talk_page, in particular Help:Archiving_a_talk_page#Automated_archival. Conor (talk) 01:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I archived alot of the older threads to Talk:Conversion therapy/Archive 1. I was wondering where the earlier threads were (since there were no other archives), and afterwards found the answer... they are at Talk:Reparative therapy/Archive 1 through 4. If someone would like to move the Archive 1 of this page to Archive 5, and then archives 1-4 to the current article name (unless that is against wiki policy) feel free to. I lost access to my old acct and this one is not at autoconfirmed yet, so I can't move pages. User529 (talk) 09:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Conor (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

So long as it's clear where the Reparative Therapy archives are, I don't think they need be renamed Conversion Therapy archives. Skoojal (talk) 23:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That works for me... I added the links to the reparative archives to the archive box. User529 (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Conversion Therapy Disagreement

Before I comment, I need to make a few points clear.

1. I personally am heterosexual.
2. I do, however, have a close relative who is, to avoid prejudging the issue, of the alternative orientation, and of course as a medical practitioner I come across all orientations. So I have no personal bias.
3. I am not a member of WP:ARBCOM, and have no standing in wikipedia except that of being and admin of some experience.

Having said that, then it appears to me that the points at issue are susceptible to rational analysis.

1. The dispute over the exact description to be applied to those men or woman whose primary sexual orientation is to members of their own sex seems to me to reflect changing historical usage in association with changing views in society on sexual orientations which differ from what is at the time the accepted norm. When the word "homosexual" was first used, it was used in a clinical sense to label a condition which was at that time believed to be a physical or psychological abnormality, and this reflected the general feeling of society at the time. Homosexuality was, of course, a criminal act punishable by imprisonment in this country (UK) and, I believe most other countries in what is called the developed world. This perjorative odour contained in the word homosexual has lingered into the modern era, and hence I believe that people who are labelled "homosexual" still feel, and to some extent are, labelled thereby as being in some ill-defined way as inferior or unsavoury. Hence the development of the use of the term "gay", which is a recent artificial construct which lacks the outmoded connotations of the old term. Incidentally, in the UK the term gay can be applied to ladies also, and therefore to some extent overlaps the term "lesbian", which descends from Greek mythology but which appears to have avoided being used to stigmatise ladies whose sexual orientation is to their own sex. In summsry, it is my view that the terms "gay" or "lesbian" should be used in the article except in direct quotations from published work.
2. The term pseudo-science should, i feel, be used only with extreme caution and only when there is a very clear consensus in favour of its usage. It is true that there are a number of clear dictionary definitions of the term, but the assignment of the term to any discipline must, by definition, be a matter of opinion. A believer's science is a sceptic's pseudo-science. I get the impression that there are enough people who accept the validity of the technique of conversion therapy to disqualify the use of the term pseudo-science.
3. I do not interpret the reference quoted as indicating that conversion therapy is used, or is designed to be used, to convert heterosexual to homosexual orientation.
4. The Medical Consensus paragraph, which forms a major part of the argument, seems to me in my naïive to be the most straightforward to resolve. If the dispute relates to the exact wording, then the wording is clearly available and can be directly documented. And should be. Interpretations and paraphrases may convey the meaning of the original, and I think that essentially they do, but changing the wording in any way, particularly on a contraversial subject, is bound to cause dissent and should be avoided.

This is, I think, the best I can do. I claim impartiality - I do not recall ever interacting with the main protagonists here - but not specific expertise. If you do not agree, please remember that I comment only because I was asked to.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Anthony, many thanks for your input. I hope it will help us move forward. GeneralBelly (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

New "History of Conversion Therapy" article?

Would it make sense to condense the history of CT into a single, concise summary paragraph and move the bulk of the material to a new article that could be referenced beneath the History of CT section? That would open up a lot of space. GeneralBelly (talk) 09:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps also the "Medical Consensus", "Outside the US" and "Mainstream Medical Views" could be merged, edited down, moved to a new article or some combination of the three? There seems to be a fair amount of repetition. GeneralBelly (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that logically "medical consensus" and "mainstream medical views" should form part of a single section (I'd suggest deleting the "medical consensus" section and adding its contents to "mainstream medical views" instead). "Outside the U. S." should probably remain separate, however. Skoojal (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed Gratuitous Information about Ex-Gays

I have removed a huge amount of information about ex-gays from the article, on the grounds that the level of detail was irrelevant and gratuitous (telling us how many children someone has is not helpful, and it could be considered intrusive). In any case, this stuff overlapped with biography articles, which is where it really belongs, not here, in an article that's still too long. Skoojal (talk) 01:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Picture of John Paulk

I'm not going to move it right away, however, I suggest that the picture of John Paulk would be more appropriate for the article on him. Skoojal (talk) 00:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Bioenergetics

There's a description of Richard Cohen's therapy: 'He holds male patients in his lap with the patient curled into the fetal position, and also advocates bioenergetic methods involving slamming a pillow with a tennis racket while shouting "Mom! Why did you do this to me?"' I don't think that this is either a fair or a fully accurate description of what Cohen does. It implies that Cohen thinks that each and every patient should always behave in this exact way and say those exact words; I don't think this is true, and I certainly don't think that one video clip from CNN proves that this is the case. The description needs to be changed. Skoojal (talk) 04:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I used a briefer and more fair description, though as I said, it will need more reworking. I have strong doubts as to whether a video clip from CNN is a good source - one of Cohen's books would be vastly better, as well as more scholarly (for what it's worth, I find this similar to other poor uses of sources in the article, including the way that a book by Socarides was used to support a description of what 'today's conversion therapists' think, even though Socarides was speaking only for himself, the way a paper by Mark Yarhouse and Warren Throckmorton was used to support a similar general claim even though its authors were again only speaking for themselves, and the way a website from Exodus International was used to support a broad claim about ex-gay groups, even though that organization was again only giving its own position, which wasn't described quite correctly). Skoojal (talk) 04:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)