Talk:Conversion therapy/Archive 7

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 5

Removal of self-determination

The statement "However, the organizations respect the client's right to self-determination" was removed from the Medical consensus section with the summary "it is not logical to follow a statement about how organizations respect the client's right to self-determination with a statement about how this has marginalized conversion therapy." The statement about it being marginalized comes from, not a psychologist, but from the gay rights activist Kenji Yoshino. Why is his view that it is marginalized overpower the official view that organizations respect the client's right to self-determination? According to the APA, "the ethics, efficacy, benefits, and potential for harm of therapies that seek to reduce or eliminate same-gender sexual orientation are under extensive debate in the professional literature and the popular media" [1] It is POV just to show one side of the debate and remove the official stance. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I stand by the reason I gave for removing that. That sentence, in that context, seemed to imply that the fact that organizations respect the client's right to self-determination (eg, the right to choose conversion therapy if that is what they want) has somehow helped to marginalize conversion therapy, which is nonsense. If it had any consequence, supporting the right to choose conversion therapy would probably help encourage it, and not, obviously, to marginalize it. There is no contradiction between organizations respecting people's right to choose conversion therapy and its being marginalized - it is marginalized, even though people can choose it, and even though the APA says that the ethics etc of it are debated. So please remove the neutrality disputed tag, and the citation needed tag too. Skoojal (talk) 05:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed the citation needed tag myself; will remove the neutrality disputed tag too if there is no further discussion. Skoojal (talk) 03:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Do not remove the NPOV tag until the section is presented neutrally. Patients have the right to self-determination. The text must reflect that before you remove the tag. Kenji Yoshino's views should not take precedence over official statements. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the section is neutral. Insisting that it is not neutral is not a useful contribution to discussion. I've pointed out already that there is no contradiction between Yoshino's statement and official views, which do not say that conversion therapy isn't marginalized. Your comment above makes no attempt to respond to this. If you have a problem with that section, then I suggest that you delete it entirely. I'll probably delete it anyway, since essentially the same information is present in another section of the article. Skoojal (talk) 03:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and delete it. I agree it just repeats what is said in the Mainstream medical view in the U.S. section. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

'History' section of this article doesn't seem to make sense

The History section of the article starts off with this, 'The development of conversion therapy can be roughly divided into three periods: an early Freudian period, a period of mainstream approval of conversion therapy during a time when the mental health establishment became the "primary superintendent" of sexuality, and a post-Stonewall period wherein the mainstream medical profession disavowed conversion therapy.' However, the article then divides the history of Conversion therapy into five periods, only one of which, Post-stonewall reaction, seems to correspond to the three periods mentioned in that sentence. The first of these five periods is called Early Sexologists, and it starts in 1886, which is before the Freudians, thus contradicting the sentence that the History section begins with. This obviously makes no sense, and has to be changed. Skoojal (talk) 03:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll note that probably everything in the 'Nazism' section should have 'citation needed' added to it. Skoojal (talk) 04:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking through this article, it seems clear that Yoshino is frequently used as an unacknowledged source. For instance, the article says that Sandor Rado thought that homosexuality was caused by 'parental psychopathology', but this phrase is apparently taken from Yoshino's article, rather than from Rado. Skoojal (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Omission: conversion therapy for heterosexual -> homosexual?

From the introductory section: "Conversion therapy refers to methods aimed at changing the sexual orientation of homosexuals and bisexuals to heterosexual"

It may be a bit pedantic, but in the interest of completeness it seems that, if the aim of conversion therapy is to convert human sexual orientation, there should be some material available also on methods which seek to change heterosexual orientation to homosexual or bisexual. If not, then "conversion" itself doesn't seem to be the aim, but "heterosexuality conditioning." The term "conversion therapy" may therefore mislead the naive reader, so it bears mentioning explicitly that little research has been conducted regarding conversion from heterosexual to homosexual. Rangergordon (talk) 09:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Are there any extant societies that pressure people to be gay? Capedia (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems dubious to me. Very WP:OR. --Knulclunk (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You can see from the discussions above that this nonsense has already been discussed. The term conversion therapy is not used to describe therapeutic attempts to convert heterosexuals to homosexuality, and no such attempts are on record. Skoojal (talk) 02:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Conor's comments above--which, yes, are patent nonsense--I am agreeing with Skoojal that conversion therapists seek exclusively to change their clients' homosexual orientation to a heterosexual one. That is the point exactly; nobody ever attempts to "convert" heterosexuals to homosexuals.

Today, the discipline of conversion therapy is free of any suggestion that heterosexuality is superior or preferable, in any objective sense, to homosexuality. Such judgments are taken only on a case-by-case basis; practitioners act from a sense of compassion using a therapeutic model whose efficacy can be backed up with scientific findings. (For instance, see A. Dean Byrd's cited statement that individuals who, through therapy, learn to "understand their gender development" become "able to make choices that are consistent with their value system.")

The stated goal of reparative therapy is not to force gays to assume unnatural societal roles simply for the sake of assuaging unhealthy fears of wrongheaded anti-gay bigotry. As cited, therapists merely offer "a possibility of change" to clients who are "unsatisfied" with their sexual orientation. Since no preference is given to heterosexuality, a reader may well conclude that homosexuals and heterosexuals alike who are thus "unsatisfied" might have the opportunity to seek relief through reparative therapy.

However, as Skoojal has pointed out, this is not the case. No conversion therapist has been willing to help, for instance, a heterosexual who (for whatever reason) feels that a homosexual orientation would be more consistent with his/her value system. (Such cases must be rare, but as students of psychology, we must recognize that the kaleidoscope of human experience, sooner or later, offers up every exigency.)

As all have pointed out, there is little or no research regarding heterosexual-to-homosexual conversion therapy. This absence, then, does not constitute original research, but demonstrably serves to uniquely characterize the state of reparative therapy. Flatly, reparative therapy does not seek to convert heterosexual orientation to homosexual orientation. What reason could there be to exclude such a clarification from the article?

Consider this factual statement: "Conversion research has focused on the development of therapeutic models which seek to change homosexual orientation to heterosexual orientation. There has been virtually no research regarding the conversion of heterosexuals to homosexuals." This agrees entirely with Skoojal's statement that "no such attempts are on record." So, no controversy. Rangergordon (talk) 08:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The reason for excluding that clarification from the article is that it is not needed. No one thinks that conversion therapy is used to convert heterosexuals to homosexuality. The definition of conversion therapy (eg, methods of converting homosexuals to heterosexuality) is clear enough, so I undid your edit. Skoojal (talk) 10:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The statement: "There has been virtually no research regarding the conversion of heterosexuals" is original research, but even more importantly, the relevance of the statement is OR as well. Is there a large body of work debating whether straight -> gay conversion should be studied more? Have there been studies linking peer pressure gay, prison gay or LUG to conversion therapy? Seems to me we are just pulling stuff off the shelf. Unless we have reliables sources that link Rangergordon's theory/observation with conversion therapy, it cannot be included.--Knulclunk (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal's statement that "No one thinks that conversion therapy is used to convert heterosexuals to homosexuality" is every bit as OR as anything I've stated--and, in fact, is really just a restatement of my argument. Nobody has questioned whether or not "conversion" works both ways--a curious omission in a field which claims to be scientific. The point is that the therapy is called "conversion," with no explicit modifier explaining that, in this particular case, the "conversion" is from heterosexual to homosexual only.

Obviously, the answer that Knulclunk intends to elicit from his rhetorical question "Is there a large body of work debating whether straight -> gay conversion should be studied more?" is that, no, there is no such body. This is precisely my point. The fact that this "large body of work" does not exist--in other words, that such a fundamental scientific hypothesis has never been tested--significantly characterizes the field of conversion therapy. Nobody even thought to research this obvious question, since "conversion" is not central to the field, but "conversion from homosexuality to heterosexuality." "Conversion therapy" is a misnomer. This bears mentioning.

As both have argued, the most savvy readers will certainly be aware of these issues and automatically assume without being told that "conversion therapy" likely refers to the conversion of gays to straights. However, an encyclopedic article seeks to define its subject as accurately and narrowly as possible. Once it begins to make assumptions such as "Oh, most readers will think this" or "Let's not bother mentioning this--the readers can figure that out," the article ceases to be encyclopedic, limits its own usefulness and, in making the assumption that every reader holds a particular point of view, becomes very much WP:POV. Too bad. Rangergordon (talk) 09:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the definition of conversion therapy given in the article is clear enough, and doesn't need further elaboration. I certainly don't see it as a POV issue. Skoojal (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that we will reach consensus on this issue. It is remarkable to me that a discipline known as "conversion therapy" ignores serious research that could determine whether human sexual orientation can be arbitrarily converted. That this fact, apparently, is unremarkable to Skoojal must simply boil down to a difference in opinion. But, since Skoojal seems to have some sort of proprietary ownership of this article, I guess there's little more I can do beyond registering my dissent. Rangergordon (talk) 07:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact that conversion therapists ignore evidence as to whether human sexual orientation can be changed from straight to gay is not surprising to me because, as far as I know, there is no such evidence. (Skoojal (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming good faith in that you're not purposefully missing the point, and that you must simply be confusing "evidence" with "research."

Like you, I'm unaware of any "evidence" that sexual orientation can be changed from straight to gay. (I'm equally unaware of any "evidence" that it cannot.) However, we're not discussing the existence or lack of evidence--we're discussing the existence or lack of research on the matter. The absence of evidence, either for or against the proposition, is due to a paucity of research on the matter.

If the field were truly concerned with whether or not sexual orientation can be converted as a matter of objective scientific inquiry, then we would expect to find some amount of research regarding straight-to-gay conversion. Two reasons have so far been given for the absence of that research: 1. There is no market demand for straight-to-gay conversion, and, 2. It stands to reason that nobody could be converted from straight to gay and so no research is needed.

If 1. is true, then conversion therapy is market-driven, which makes it a commercial enterprise rather than a field of scientific inquiry. If 2. is true, then conversion therapy is based on an undemonstrated assumption that heterosexuality is, objectively, a preferable state to homosexuality, regardless of a client's circumstances. Rangergordon (talk) 05:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The arguments put forth by Rangergordon are a classic use of undue weight to make the point that conversion therapy is bunk. This is not our job. Allow the facts to speak for themselves. Unless there are mainstream sources discussing the lack "research regarding straight-to-gay conversion", our speculation is inappropriate. WP:OR, WP:V --Knulclunk (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no "undue weight" given to the statement that there has been little or no research done on the conversion of sexual orientation conversion from straight to gay. It's verifiable, nobody on either side disputes it, and it is that statement alone that I have been advocating for inclusion in the article.

My other arguments have been given solely in support of that one, simple, verifiable statement. If I were advocating for the inclusion of my supportive arguments in the article, then perhaps it would constitute "undue weight." But that is not the case. For some reason, proponents of conversion therapy seem unduly opposed to any mention of straight-to-gay conversion. Rangergordon (talk) 07:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't speak for proponents of conversion therapy. If that fact that "little or no research has been done" is verifiable and applicable by a mainstream source, then will likely not be opposed. --Knulclunk (talk) 02:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I will tidy up my edits - I promise

You'll note that I've removed a lot of material from this article recently. I'm confident that most of these changes are improvements, but I'm afraid that in the course of making them, I've probably inadvertently removed a few of the sources the article is based on. I'll go through old versions of the article and readd anything of that kind that got removed by mistake, unless someone gets there before me. Skoojal (talk) 03:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a further promise to tidy things up properly. I've learnt something about editing in the course of changing this article, and I realize that not all the changes I made were as careful as they could have been. I'm going to go through the revision history of this article very carefully, and possibly readd anything that on second thoughts I decide shouldn't have been deleted. Skoojal (talk) 09:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Use of Robert Kronemeyer as a source

Several claims about conversion therapy in the article are sourced to Robert Kronemeyer's book Overcoming Homosexuality. Specifically, the claims that overiectomy, castration, vasectomy and lobotomy were used to treat homosexuality are sourced to that book. I find this to be yet another example of poor sourcing (Kronemeyer's book is an anti-gay tract, not a history of medicine, and it doesn't even have a proper bibliography or index). Kronemeyer's book should be replaced as a source with something more suitable. Simon LeVay's Queer Science should do. Skoojal (talk) 08:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Aesthetic Realism

Aesthetic Realism should be included in the history section. The New York City-based group promoted itself as a provider of conversion therapy in the ~~1960s and~~ 1970s and 1980s. (Perhaps ironically, it believed men could be cured of homosexuality by studying poetry.) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I partly agree. There might be a case for including Aesthetic Realism in the history section, if this wasn't a bloated monster of an article that clearly needs to be cut back. Personally, I'd like to add a mention of Arthur Janov's primal therapy to the article, which is a subject of considerably greater importance than Aesthetic Realism, but I'm not going to do that for the moment, because the article is just too long. Skoojal (talk) 00:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Some recent edits

SCBC made several edits to the article. I think most of these changes are improvements - but I'm unsure about some of them. One of the edits changed the article from 'Some in the ex-gay community believe that sexual orientation cannot be completely changed, but others disagree' to 'Many in the ex-gay community believe that sexual orientation can be completely changed, while others indicate that complete change may not be realistic'. This amounts to a shift of emphasis rather than anything else - it could be argued that both statements were correct - but I still think it's dubious whether that can be justified. More argument would have to be given first (incidentally, the reason I gave for undoing that edit - why try to conceal disagreement within the ex-gay camp? - now seems wrong to me, since I've taken a closer look at it, but I still think undoing the edit was right). Skoojal (talk) 03:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Another thing I am unsure about was the addition of this link br.geocities.com/amigosdafamiliabr/14_2Clevenger.doc. I'm not sure whether this counts as a reliable source or not. Skoojal (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

On your first point, I thought that the existing sentence made the proposition that "some in the ex-gay community believe that sexual orientation cannot be completely changed" appear to be a widely-held view within ex-gay circles, despite the fact that the only citation offered was a cite to a comment made by Alan Chambers in an interview. If anyone is aware of other ex-gay individuals or organizations that hold a similar perspective, please feel free to add some footnotes. I thought it was more accurate to state the majority ex-gay perspective (i.e. that sexual orientation can be completely changed) first -- citing to a variety of organizations that have expressed that view -- and to then make reference to Mr. Chambers' views. On your second point, I can understand your concern about that source. I have not been able to find a comparable source for the same proposition, so I deleted the sentence relating to bias against pro-conversion-therapy studies in academia. Hope that helps.

SCBC (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be another example of the kind of thing I've been complaining about - the use of ex-gay individuals and organizations that only express their own views as representatives of the ex-gay movement generally. I'm grateful, as a matter of fact, for your pointing this out. I'm not saying I won't make further changes, but neither am I going to revert back to the older version. Skoojal (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Conversion therapy

FYI: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 28#Category:Conversion therapy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Definition of Conversion Therapy in this article is original research

The article reads, 'Conversion therapy refers to methods aimed at changing the sexual orientation of homosexuals and bisexuals to heterosexual, or at eliminating or diminishing homosexual desires and behaviors.' It seems clear to me that the sources in the article (especially the statements from the two APAs) do not justify this statement. There is a serious problem here that is going need a lot of work. I am going to say much more about this after I've investigated a little further.Skoojal (talk) 05:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

An example of the problems involved in this definition: The American Psychological Association source says, "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."

Note that,

1. this definition of Conversion therapy does not correspond to that given in this article, eg, "Conversion therapy refers to methods aimed at changing the sexual orientation of homosexuals and bisexuals to heterosexual, or at eliminating or diminishing homosexual desires and behaviors" - that definition implies that any method (therapy or not) of changing sexual orientation is Conversion therapy, but the APA definition only says that therapy counts as Conversion therapy.

2. "eliminating or diminishing homosexual desires and behaviors" is not part of the APA's definition, even though it is part of the definition given in the article.

3. those who have been insisting (apparently ridiculously) that conversion therapy is any attempt at changing sexual orientation, not just changing it from homosexual to heterosexual, appear to have a point, since the APA's definition does seem to be this broad. Skoojal (talk) 05:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Then there's the source from the American Psychiatric Association. It starts with the words, "Therapies Focused on Attempts to Change Sexual Orientation (Reparative or Conversion Therapies)." Again, note that as with the American Psychological Association source, this seems to limit Conversion therapy to techniques that are actually therapy, and does not correspond to the definition of Conversion therapy in the article, according to which any attempts at changing sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual are Conversion therapy, even if they aren't actually defined as therapies. So the article's definition seems simply to be wrong. Skoojal (talk) 05:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Another passage relevant to the definition of Conversion therapy in that source. According to it, 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 a patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation." This seems to limit Conversion therapy to psychiatric treatments, which is once again a different definition from what appears in the article. Note also that it implies that something is only Conversion therapy if it takes the view that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or maintains as an assmpution that homosexual patients should change their sexual orientation, which would seem to conflict with much of what is in the article. Skoojal (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Elsewhere in the American Psychiatric Association source, it mentions "treatments that attempt to change a persons sexual orientation, also known as reparative or conversion therapy." Note that like the American Psychological Association source, this does not define conversion therapy as changing homosexuality to heterosexuality. What one finds in the sources of the article is actually a mixture of different possible definitions of "conversion therapy", and none of them are the same as what is in the article. Thus, the definition is going to have to be reworded completely, and I suspect large parts of the article are going to have to be cut out if the definition finally adopted makes any sense. Skoojal (talk) 06:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yet another source of the definition of Conversion therapy is from the article by Yoshino. It reads, "In using the term "conversion therapy" then, I do not mean the broader practice of conversion treatments, but the narrower practice of psychoanalytic techniques." Note that this doesn't match the definitions of Conversion therapy from the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association, and doesn't correspond to what is in the article either. Actually, it shows that the term Conversion therapy is used in a variety of different and incompatible ways; the article is going to have to explain this, but it may be tricky to do that in a way that doesn't count as original research. Skoojal (talk) 06:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the lede section in accord with the above observations - but frankly, I think much of it still probably amounts to original research. Skoojal (talk) 06:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that since Yoshino adopts a definition of "conversion therapy" that effectively limits it to psychoanalysis, his article cannot be used to argue that conversion therapy in general is marginalized - only psychoanalytic attempts at changing sexual orientation. So here again, the article is going to have to be changed. Skoojal (talk) 06:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be as well to remember that neither of the APA sources, nor for that matter Yoshino's article, is primarily concerned with defining Conversion therapy, so these sources all have to be used with caution. Ideally, a source that actually is concerned with defining Conversion therapy should be found. Skoojal (talk) 06:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a good umbrella term for attempts to reduce homosexuality, whether it be homosexual orientation or avoiding same-sex relationships? I think there should be a central location where people can look up things like Exodus, Sexual Identity Therapy, conversion therapy, malleability of sexual orientation and religious resources for people trying to avoid same-sex relationships. Can you think of a better place for that? Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it would be helpful to have them organized, I suggest, assuming you're interested, in listing all the relevant articles and drafting a template. Hopefully a NPOV term or phrase will be agreed upon. I'm thinking "changing sexuality and behaviours" might be more NOPV. Banjeboi 22:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

To reply to Joshuajohanson: no, I can't think of an appropriate place for what you suggest. I think it is fairly clear that this article cannot be it. It won't do to just make up a definition of "conversion therapy" such that this article would be a place for all the different matters you refer to. Maybe a template would a good idea; I'm not sure. Skoojal (talk) 02:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Content of this article is broader than conversion therapy itself

As has been pointed out above, the contents of this article cover significantly more than conversion therapy. The content is good, and should not be deleted. We must figure out where the content goes. Here are some suggestions:

Malleability of sexual orientation should go to Homosexuality and psychology. Sexual orientation can change for lots of reasons besides conversion therapy. The participants in Lisa Diamond's research did not even undergo conversion therapy. Even the participants in Nicolosi's research who said they changed sexual orientation did not claim that it came through conversion therapy. Some didn't even undergo conversion therapy and only went to ex-gay groups. I think it is still essential to the topic, but maybe should be kept to a small section with a see also link to the main section on the homosexuality and psychology page.
Non-conversion therapy techniques should go to ego-dystonic sexual orientation. Again, I think ex-gay groups, Sexual Identity Therapy, coaches, religious aspects and gay affirmative psychotherapy are related to the topic, but maybe we could put them in under a heading like "Similar techniques" so as to make clear that going to an ex-gay group is not considered conversion therapy.

Of course, these are suggestions, but I think this will help us better understand what exactly conversion therapy is. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so quick to shift the Malleability of sexual orientation stuff. Much of it does seem to be about Conversion therapy. (Although I grant that everything in that section from, 'The American Psychiatric Association has stated...' to 'most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.."' is of debatable relevance).Skoojal (talk) 07:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree Malleability is related to conversion therapy, but my point is that it is also related to ex-gay groups, coaches, sexual identity therapy and in general homosexuality and psychology. Since it is related to all of these other topics, I think it should go into a broader category. Otherwise, when you are talking about the malleability of sexual orientation on the ex-gay page, you would have to link to conversion therapy, rather than a more neutral homosexuality and conversion therapy. This page will still have a malleability section on it, just the main section will be on the homosexuality and psychology page. Do you think moving the other topics to ego-dystonic sexual orientation is a good idea? Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

My impression is that there is no need why this section need be gutted at the moment. However, I may reconsider. It's only slowly become clear to me the kind of treatment this article needs, and my views could always change further. Skoojal (talk) 08:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No consistent distinction?

The article reads, 'The ex-gay movement and the conversion therapy movement are closely linked and no consistent distinction is drawn between them in the literature.' I've already said this in an edit summary, but I'll say it again here: this statement absolutely must be removed if it is not sourced. I'm going to look through the sources of the article to see whether any of them can be used to support this; if I don't find something that can be used that way, out it goes. Skoojal (talk) 06:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Trying to add source

I'm trying to add this a source (eg, "answers", with ref name in front) to the first sentence in the article, to properly source it. However, every time I look at the results in preview, it messes up the article. Could someone with more editing skills please fix this? Skoojal (talk) 08:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If you add a reference such as <ref name = "source">http://www.source.com</ref> and want to use it later, then you'll need to write the next reference tag like this: <ref name="source" /> (note the added 'slash' symbol). What may be happening is that you are leaving out the '/' symbol the second time around - that would cause the rest of the page to be blanked. Hope that helps. GeneralBelly (talk) 12:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I tried what you suggested, and it worked. Skoojal (talk) 09:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed sentence

I removed the following sentence from the article, as it appears to be original research: "The ex-gay movement and the conversion therapy movement are closely linked and no consistent distinction is drawn between them in the literature." The importance of removing this sentence is that it means that there are now no grounds for mentioning ex-gay groups in this article, except when the information directly relates to conversion therapy. That means more material needs to be removed from the article. If I've made a mistake about this, please provide the source for the sentence I've removed. Skoojal (talk) 09:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is related, but the ex-gay groups themselves are not an example of conversion therapy. Earlier I said:

"Non-conversion therapy techniques should go to ego-dystonic sexual orientation. Again, I think ex-gay groups, Sexual Identity Therapy, coaches, religious aspects and gay affirmative psychotherapy are related to the topic, but maybe we could put them in under a heading like "Similar techniques" so as to make clear that going to an ex-gay group is not considered conversion therapy."

You said you saw no need for gutting that section. Now you are the one suggesting gutting that section. What's going on? Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The section that I said didn't need to be gutted at the moment was Malleability of sexual orientation. What I removed was Ex-gay organizations, a different section. You have a point that there are plenty of topics that in one way or another are related to Conversion therapy but distinct from it - however, I think that only a minimal mention of these is what is needed here. In the past, this article has been bloated to monstrous proportions by the inclusion of huge amounts of material that is only marginally (or not at all) related to its main subject. Despite the large amounts of material I've cut out of the article, it's still at a size which (according to the article size guideline) [2] means that it should probably be divided into separate articles. Previously, it had been at a size according to which it, 'Almost certainly should be divided.' Skoojal (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If the article is to be divided, establishing a separate Reparative therapy article might be a good idea, although that would take some doing. Skoojal (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Since you removed the ex-gay section and the sexual identity therapy section, I am removing the malleability section. Malleability has just as much to do with those other topics as conversion therapy does. I'm also moving the deleted sections to other pages. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the analogy you're using is flawed. The sexual identity therapy section was about a different subject, albeit one with some relevance to the subject of the article. The malleability of sexual orientation section is mainly about Conversion therapy. I have retitled it accordingly. Skoojal (talk) 23:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of Sexual Identity Therapy is to "help clients pursue lives they value." If the lives they value is impossible, then Sexual Identity Therapy is giving them false hope. Malleability of sexuality has a lot to do with Sexual Identity Therapy. Same with ex-gay groups. It also has a lot to do with psychology of homosexuality in general. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

However all this may be, I've undone your latest edit. I appreciate that the material in this article needs reworking - you were right to try to remove what's left of the section on gay affirmative psychotherapy and put that material somewhere else. However, I don't think that what you did was exactly the right approach. It doesn't really make sense to have a section called 'Related techniques' and to put Aversion therapy into it - Aversion therapy, as a treatment for homosexuality, isn't 'Related' to Conversion therapy, it is a kind of Conversion therapy. Gay affirmative psychotherapy isn't 'related' to Conversion therapy at all; it's diametrically opposed to it, and hence obviously not used in 'conjunction with' it. Skoojal (talk) 10:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This page is set up to be pros versus cons. That is not right. The purpose of any therapy is to help clients pursue their own goals. These other techniques are related in that they are designed to assist people who are uncomfortable with their own homosexuality. Gay-affirmative therapy assists by helping people feel comfortable with their homosexuality. Conversion therapy assists by helping people change their sexual orientation. Gender-affirmative therapy assists by helping people reduce homosexual desires and behaviors. Sexual Identity Therapy assists by helping people understand what direction they want to go and then follow that direction. There is argument about how affective or how harmful these techniques are, but they reason each one of them was designed was to ultimately help the individual seeking treatment. If you understand this page as an argument whether homosexuality should be changed or not, then you missed the boat. Gay affirmative therapy is not opposite to conversion therapy. Gay affirmative therapy seeks to help people who are unhappy with their homosexuality just as much as conversion therapy. It just has a different approach. I have changed the paragraph to make clear these different therapies do not have the same goals as conversion therapy and have removed aversion therapy as a separate therapy. However, Gender Wholeness Therapy and Context Specific Therapy aren't conversion therapies and should not be listed with them. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't an article about techniques that are designed to assit people who are uncomfortable with their own homosexuality. It's about Conversion therapy, and none of the various sources of the article define it that way. As for arguments about the rights and wrongs of Conversion therapy, believe me, I'll remove anything of that sort. I tracked down the article by A. Dean Byrd. It says of Gender-affirmative therapy: 'What is gender-affirmative therapy? It is simply the process of helping an individual change his or her sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual.' As such, it is, obviously, part of the subject of this article. Skoojal (talk) 07:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Gender Wholeness Therapy and Context Specific Therapy aren't gender-affirmative therapies. The article is wrong. However, I think that the topic is related and should be mentioned in this article, but not as a gender-affirmative therapy. Joshuajohanson (talk) 07:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If those therapies aren't gender-affirmative therapies, then fix the article accordingly. But please don't remove things that really do form part of its subject. Skoojal (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Gender Wholeness Therapy

I removed all mention of Gender Wholeness Therapy from the article. The comments I made in the edit summary notwithstanding, I do appreciate that Gender Wholeness Therapy exists (I just discovered its website) - although the point about the article linked to not showing this stands. A mention of Gender Wholeness Therapy might be a good addition to the article - with a proper source. Skoojal (talk) 09:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I took another look at that website [3], and it doesn't seem to use the expression 'Gender Wholeness Therapy', so I retract the comment about a mention of this therapy being a good addition. Skoojal (talk) 00:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Nicolosi's views

The article reads, 'Nicolosi has stated that if a father and son have a normal relationship, the son will not be gay.' There is a problem with this, which is that Nicolosi did not actually state this. What he apparently did was to answer 'yes' in response to the question, 'You're categorically saying that, if a father and son have a normal relationship, that child will not be gay?' Now I think the article has to be strictly accurate; it cannot imply that Nicolosi actually used the words, 'If a father and son have a normal relationship, the son will not be gay', if he did not use them. The only way of being accurate would be to state in the article that Nicolosi answered 'yes' in response to the question given. However, I do not consider this appropriate material for an article; what somebody says in an interview should not be given as much weight as what they say in a published book, particularly when the interview is a 'rush transcript.'

I am therefore going to remove this sentence from the article entirely. Skoojal (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Cutting back debate within professional literature

I've recently cut back the section on debate within the professional literature, and I'm going to make further cuts. I think that this is an important enough change to require a detailed explanation. Now, before I started cutting it back, this section contained the following passage:

'In the United States, conversion therapy is currently allowed, under the American Psychological Association's code of conduct which states: "Psychologists respect the dignity and worth of all people, and the rights of individuals to privacy, confidentiality, and self-determination." Gerald Koocher, president of the APA, stated: "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."[78]

Mark Yarhouse, of Pat Robertson's Regent University, wrote: "[p]sychologists have an ethical responsibility to allow individuals to pursue treatment aimed at curbing experiences of same-sex attraction or modifying same-sex behaviors, not only because it affirms the client's rights to dignity, autonomy, and agency, as persons presumed capable of freely choosing among treatment modalities and behavior, but also because it demonstrates regard for diversity."[79] Yarhouse and Warren Throckmorton, of the private Christian school Grove City College, argue that the procedure should be available out of respect for a patient’s values system and because they find evidence that it can be effective.[80] Douglas Haldeman, who considers conversion therapy to be pseudoscientific,[81] similarly argues for a client's right to access to conversion therapy if requested from a fully informed position: "For some, religious identity is so important that it is more realistic to consider changing sexual orientation than abandoning one's religion of origin...if there are those who seek to resolve the conflict between sexual orientation and spirituality with conversion therapy, they must not be discouraged."[54]

However, the code of conduct also states that "Psychologists are aware that special safeguards may be necessary to protect the rights and welfare of persons or communities whose vulnerabilities impair autonomous decision making."'

There's certainly a lot of interesting and potentially very helpful information here, but unfortunately it is not arranged in a way that really makes sense. Everything in the paragraph that stretches from 'Mark Yarhouse' to 'must not be discouraged' is placed illogically; it interrupts the discussion of the APA's views. The part that starts, 'However, the code of conduct also states' should follow directly after 'may prove psychologically harmful', if this section is to make sense. Skoojal (talk) 23:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

And come to think of it, the comments by Gerald Koocher shouldn't be where they are either, since they also interrupt the discussion of the APA code of conduct. Maybe they can go somewhere else in the article; I'm not necessarily opposed to their presence here, but their current location is no good. Skoojal (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

History section not logical

I've been removing material from the history section of the article, on the grounds that much of it is not in the right sections. It seems logical that material about conversion therapy outside the US should actually be in the section about conversion therapy outside the US. However, I've just noticed that almost all of the first section of the history section (Early sexologists) is about the history or prehistory of conversion therapy outside the US (Krafft-Ebing and Freud were not Americans). I don't think that all of this material can be placed in the outside the US section, but neither does it seem right to have things arranged the way they are now. I'm unsure what do to about this exactly, however, the entire history section probably needs major rewriting or reorganization. I would strongly encourage other editors interested in this topic to get involved in a discussion about this, because I am not sure exactly how to proceed here. Skoojal (talk) 00:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Just as an example of how the History section is not arranged properly: The section about the Early sexologists (which I retitled German and Austrian sexologists) ostensibly goes from 1886 to 1939. Yet it included a sentence that started, 'From this period through the middle of the 20th century, medical attempts to change homosexuality included surgical treatments such as...' The middle of the century is circa 1950, not 1939. Part of the problem here is the America-centric arrangement of things; it's very dismissive of the rest of the world for 'Conversion therapy outside the US' to be its own section (and also for the article not to start with the Germans). Skoojal (talk) 01:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Clean-up and article overhaul

I suggest cleaning the talkpage to archive stale and resolved threads. From there start a new section stating the next phase of changes you think should happen and go from there. frankly, it's a subject that may be unpleasant or too sensitive for those who may be all too familiar with the rhetoric and practices. I remember some psychiatric survivor's awards that talked about the things that have been done in the past and it was painful to even read about it all. -- Banjeboi 01:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Quotations

This article contains too many quotations. I've recently removed a bunch of them, and I'll probably remove more. There's no need to have multiple quotations making the same points and expressing basically the same views - the right way to handle this is to simply summarize the main views. It isn't important that persons A, B, C, and D, all said X - just let readers know that X is a position several people have taken. Persons A, B, C, and D need not be mentioned unless there is a specific reason why this is necessary. Skoojal (talk) 05:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

German Bundestag decission in 2008

German Bundestag:Antihomosexuelle Seminare und pseudowissenschaftliche Therapieangebotereligiöser Fundamentalisten (German)

In a German Bundestag decission conversion therapy is described as dangerous and not helful. GLGermann (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

APA?

Looking through the article, I think use of the acronym APA should be avoided due to the possibility of confusion between the two large organizations that go under that acronym. I'll go through the times its used and write out directly the organization thats being cited. SiberioS (talk) 23:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Reword by all means (I've done some of that myself), but remember that this is the least of the changes the article needs. It should be rewritten from beginning to end. Please consider some of the article's other problems. Skoojal (talk) 04:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Effectiveness of conversion therapy

SCBC is trying to add this sentence, 'Some in the ex-gay/pro-conversion-therapy communities believe that sexual orientation can be completely changed,[99][100][101][102][103] while others indicate that complete change may not be realistic.[104' to the article. Anyone who looks at the sources provided will see that they are often about cases of change from homosexuality not achieved through conversion therapy. They are thus irrelevant to the subject of this article, and it is appropriate to remove this passage. Skoojal (talk) 02:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand your concern. The modifications I have made should address the concern.

SCBC (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing this issue. However, although I'm not going to revert your edit immediately, I'm still not sure that this is a good use of sources. It is a possible case of WP:SYNTH. I tend to suspect this when several very different kinds of sources (a newspaper article is one thing, an publication in the Archives of Sexual Behavior something else entirely) are used to support one statement. Your edit sort of makes it look as though LIFE ministries and Robert L. Spitzer have the same position of changing sexual orientation; I don't think that's true at all. Skoojal (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Skoojal: I have again revised this sentence. I think it is a stretch to say that the previous version of the sentence was a violation of WP:SYNTH in the first place, but I am attempting to remove any shred of doubt on the subject. If you have further issues with my edit, I would request that you let me know and/or make changes that you think will enhance the edit, rather than simply reverting it over and over again. Without this edit, this section of the article is misleading and POV, because it (absurdly) makes it appear that all pro-conversion-therapy voices agree that sexual orientation really can't be changed. This is why I have inserted the edit and made several changes to edit in response to your feedback. I believe that my most recent edit should completely address any good-faith concerns.

SCBC (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)