Talk:Homosexuality and psychology/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Referencing for this article

The referencing for this article sucks. I was interested in reading the source for the line "Gay men tend to be more concerned about their physical appearance than straight men." The associated reference just says "brand et al 1992". You can't just provide a name and date, there needs to be a title for the article that is being referenced. Brand may have written any number of articles in 1992. There is a whole list of references at the end that are useless and need to be revised.

Bailey quote

The following quote was removed:

J. Michael Bailey interprets the data to indicate that "increased psychopathology among homosexual people is a consequence of lifestyle differences associated with sexual orientation...such behavioral risk factors associated with male homosexuality such as receptive anal sex and promiscuity."

It had the summary "rv -- the source is from an editorial that has been criticized, that isn't representative of the professional view, and that has been mischaracterized by your phrasing." Where is the criticism? I think the wording makes it clear that it is only Bailey's opinion, not representative of the professional view, and I tried to quote it so that I didn't mischaracterize it. Can you be a bit more specific? If not, I'm putting it back in. Joshuajohanson (talk) 07:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I've been away. I suspect (but am not sure) that you haven't actually read the article (which requires a subscription), but have instead read NARTH's gloss of it here. But, NARTH takes the quote completely out of context. In the article, Baily suggests four possible reasons for the data, and doesn't specifically advocate any of them (in fact, he seems most amenable to the view that social oppression is the cause). The reason you want to emphasize ("receptive anal sex and promiscuity") is listed last, and Bailey goes on to criticize that suggestion in the very next sentence of the article. Fireplace (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't access the full Bailey article either, but I would not trust NARTH to accurately and neutrally represent a study on homosexuality, as they are an fundamentalist supported group, fringe among social scientists (psychiatrists, psychologists, therapists, social workers, and behavioral scientists), and are notoriously very anti-gay. It's like expecting a tobacco company to be forthcoming on the health risks of smoking on their own. Fireplace's comment rings true, and I endorse. — Becksguy (talk) 20:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Fireplace. You are right, I don't have access to the full article. I agree that NARTH can't be completely trusted. I would like to read the whole article someday, but for now, I trust you. If it was mischaracterized, it wasn't me who did it. I really am trying to accurately represent things, and I think there is a very liberal twist to everything on wikipedia, but that doesn't mean the conservative twist is any more accurate. I thank you for your explanation. That really was what I was looking for. Joshuajohanson (talk) 06:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Charles Socarides.jpg

The image Image:Charles Socarides.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Contemporary stuff.

So I was reading the Contemp Med Views section. How does the 2nd sentence make any sense? What are 'vulnerability factors'? It makes it sound as if they were treating homosexuality as a metal illness, IMHO. Also, has the study(or they lesbian one metioned under mallability) been replacated? AFAIK, scientific study's have to be reproducable to be considered scientific. And if there aren't any other study's published yet, are there any that are still ongoing to see if they get the same results?Kairos (talk) 08:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Repetition of material from conversion therapy article

An awful lot of this article contains exactly the same content as the conversion therapy article - it's nearly word for word (the main reason the correspondence isn't exact is because I reworded the conversion therapy article). Shouldn't this stuff simply be deleted? Article content should not overlap to this extent. Skoojal (talk) 04:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If no one responds to my comments or makes objections, I am eventually going to cut this article back drastically, or maybe replace its contents with something altogether different. Skoojal (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I wiped the stuff that repeated the same material from the Conversion therapy article. I think a brief mention of Conversion therapy is what is wanted here, not regurgitation of the same material from that article. What this article needs (among other things) is a detailed discussion of psychoanalytic theories about homosexuality; they can be presented in proper detail here because there is not space for them in the Conversion therapy article. I have access to plenty of material on this subject, and can gradually add it to the article. Skoojal (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the section on contemporary view should have been deleted. It is not about therapy, just the overall malleability of sexual orientation. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
If the section on contemporary view is not about therapy, then it should not be in the Conversion therapy article. But so long as it is there, it should not be restored to this article. Some degree of overlap between articles is inevitable and even helpful, but there has to be a limit. Skoojal (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
It belongs here. None of the information in that section was about conversion therapy. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Then cut the Conversion therapy article back. Then re-add the information here. Skoojal (talk) 06:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Vague claim about American-ness of topic?

I think the clause ", which has been carried out predominantly in America," should be deleted if it can not be justified. Such research has also been carried out in Australia, the UK and Europe, but I have no idea whether it is researched more or less in America than it is elsewhere. If there is evidence that this is an overwhelmingly American concern, then that would be quite interesting in itself and there should be a reference to prove it or at least some less vague info, but otherwise the claim can be dropped with no harm to the rest of the article.

124.176.50.236 (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Homosexuality from APA list of disorders

Whats the feeling out there for starting a page on this topic? It seems to come up alot when one is researching anything to do with homosexuality(which i am). I hear conflicting stories on it. 86.42.170.247 (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of change of sexual orientation

The APA has made a new statement of change in sexual orienation. They said "There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether or not recent SOCE do or do not work to change a person’s sexual orientation." Earlier methods were deemed ineffective, but there isn't evidence for these newer methods. I would like to update the section to reflect this. Also interesting was the discovery that "Some women find current categories for conceptualizing their sexual orientation and sexual orientation identity limiting, as concepts in popular culture and professional literature do not mirror their experiences of fluidity and variation in sexuality and relationships." I think it a great recognition of the APA on the fluidity of sexuality. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

However the section should be changed, it should not done be through simply adding a long quotation without summarising it properly. Born Gay (talk) 22:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
isn't this just another way of saying women report more bisexuality, but don't like the category? Mish (talk) 23:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Personally I think it's another way of saying women generally are less homophobic and embrace sexuality. -- Banjeboi 17:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I would like to see this section split into two sections - one about the fluidity of sexuality and the other about efforts to change sexuality. One being about the natural progression of sexuality and the other being about external forces trying to change sexuality. Those are two completely different topics. The phenonemon of bisexual women bouncing between male and female partners is completely different from an ex-gay group, for example. Having a broader topic about sexuality can also include changes in sexual orientation identity. The new findings of the APA that psychotherapy, support groups and life events can change sexual orientation identity, but not sexual orientation, and there is no evidence of harm in rejecting a gay identity, need to be included in here. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
That makes sense, as long as the section about efforts to change is only a summary of the existing article on Conversion therapy. The most notable examples of this fluidity I am aware of (may be UK specific notability) are the late Jazz Musician George Melly, who was openly gay in his younger days, and Tom Robinson, who was active in gay lib. Mish (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The following edit was removed with the edit summary that "your 'interpretation' is dubious":

  • "Older efforts at changing sexual orientation were ineffective and there is not enough evidence to conclude whether or not current methods change sexual orientation. However, sexual orientation identity can be changed through psychotherapy, support groups, and life events."

The addition was based on the following quotes from the results from the APA task force:

  • "There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether or not recent SOCE do or do not work to change a person’s sexual orientation. Scientifically rigorous older work in this area found that sexual orientation (i.e., erotic attractions and sexual arousal oriented to one sex or the other, or both) was unlikely to change due to efforts designed for this purpose."
  • sexual orientation identity—not sexual orientation—appears to change via psychotherapy, support groups, and life events

I'm not sure what part of my interpretation is dubious. The current text that fringe groups believe homosexual attractions can be diminished is not acceptable. These "fringe" groups are spoken of favorably in this report and the report verifies that they do change sexual orientation identity. The most recent information must be in there that there is not enough evidence to determine whether or not sexual orientation can change through recent SOCE. I agree that a statement by a US group does not invalidate statements by other groups. I would like to work together for a solution that represents the current view of change in sexual orientation. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It is how you say it. Sexual orientation has not changed - the older studies showed that it could not be changed, and they were based on good evidence, there is no new evidence to challenge that older research - that sexual orientation cannot be changed - that is not about older methods and newer methods, it is about the possibility of changing somebody's sexual orientation, there is no evidence one way or the other whether newer methods work or not - the research there has been is crap. OK? Another way might be:
  • "Research into sexual orientation shows that attempts to change it are ineffective and there has been no research of any significance that shows whether any modern techniques that claim to change sexual orientation are any different. However, sexual orientation identity or religious identity can be changed through psychotherapy, support groups, and life events."
I agree that how you say it is important. I disagree with your interpretation. Your summary makes it sound like all attempts are ineffective, both modern and past. This is not true. There are no studies of scientific rigor that show whether current methods are effective or not. The research in the past does not apply to modern techniques, which your summary seems to suggest. I was rereading the document, and I think it is inaccurate to say that research shows that older methods were ineffective. The actual text says that "sexual orientation was unlikely to change due to efforts designed for this purpose." Being shown to be ineffective and being unlikely to be effective are two different things. When in doubt, I think we should be as faithful to the original text as possible. I think it is imperative to include the information that there is no evidence "whether or not recent SOCE do or do not work to change a person’s sexual orientation". This is an important finding, and we need to include that information. There is no reason to censure it. Here is my new suggestion:
Wrong, There is no evidence they are effective, what there is is evidence that they aren't, and that is older (properly conducted) research. If there is a new technique, and there is no evidence whether it works, then the existing evidence stands - that there are no proven methods of changing sexual orientation. What you think about that is irrelevant, whether it works or not, that is the way it is. That is not POV, that is the way stuff happens. Mish (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
The other problem was that in inserting the new resolution by the APA, you removed the text about the major US, UK and Australian professional organisations - who all state that it don't work and it can harm people - that is not a POV. The APA is one US organisation, and what it says has no bearing on what the other US APA (for e.g.) the UK BPS (etc) or Australian orgs say. So, do remove the NPOV tag, please, and once you have come up with a consenus version of the new APA resolution, insert it in a way that it does not obliterate existing NPOV text. FYI, the new resolution does not alter anything from their 1997 resolution, it supplements it.
If you do not feel that it alters anything from their 1997 resolution, you should not have a problem with including a direct quote. Maybe the problem is the "but", since that denotes a contradiction, and as you said, there is no contradiction. My text almost cites verbatim what the task force says, so I don't know how you can say that I am wrong. The older techniques weren't proven to be ineffective, but unlikely to be effective. The official APA statements said "Furthermore, anecdotal reports of "cures" are counterbalanced by anecdotal claims of psychological harm." Your summary does not "counterbalance" these anecdotal claims, but gives favor to the harmful claims. Another problem is the complete lack of mention of how all of these organizations support the patient's right to self-determination. The current text is not NPOV. How about this:
  • According to the APA, "There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether or not recent SOCE [sexual orientation change efforts] do or do not work to change a person’s sexual orientation." Research has shown that methods to change sexual orientation were unlikely to be effective. There have been anecdotal claims of cure, but these have been counterbalanced by claims of psychological harm. Major US, UK and Australian professional and scientific organizations have expressed concern over the potential harm caused by these efforts, and have recommended that practioners avoid trying to change the client's sexual orientation, while stressing the importance of allowing the client to determine their own goals in therapy. Through psychotherapy, support groups, and life events, sexual orientation identity or religious identity can be changed, according to the goals of the client.
I think this has all of the essential elements, without any OR. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not me who says that it does not alter anything - the APA, in the response, says this:

  • "With regard to the policy, we recommend that the 1997 policy be retained and that a new policy be adopted to complement it." (p.89)

The APA also say:

  • "There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether or not recent SOCE do or do not work to change a person’s sexual orientation. Scientifically rigorous older work in this area [...] found that sexual orientation [...] was unlikely to change due to efforts designed for this purpose". (p.128) That would be the full quote, from the conclusion.
  • "We concluded that the early high-quality evidence is the best basis for predicting what would be the outcome of valid interventions. These studies show that enduring change to an individual’s sexual orientation is uncommon. The participants in this body of research continued to experience same-sex attractions following SOCE and did not report significant change to othersex attractions that could be empirically validated, though some showed lessened physiological arousal to all sexual stimuli. Compelling evidence of decreased same-sex sexual behavior and of engagement in sexual behavior with the other sex was rare." (p.2)
  • "We found that there was some evidence to indicate that individuals experienced harm from SOCE. Early studies documented iatrogenic effects of aversive forms of SOCE. These negative side effects included loss of sexual feeling, depression, suicidality, and anxiety." (p.3)
  • "Some individuals perceived that they had benefited from SOCE, while others perceived that they had been harmed." (p.3)
  • "Recent studies of SOCE participants do not adequately distinguish between sexual orientation and sexual orientation identity. We concluded that the failure to distinguish these aspects of human sexuality has led SOCE research to obscure what actually can or cannot change in human sexuality." (p.3)
  • "the results of scientifically valid research indicate that it is unlikely that individuals will be able to reduce samesex attractions or increase other-sex sexual attractions through SOCE." (p.3)
  • "In the years since APA’s adoption of the 1997 resolution, there have been several developments that have led some APA members to believe that the resolution needed to be reevaluated. First, several professional mental health and medical associations adopted resolutions that opposed sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) on the basis that such efforts were ineffective and potentially harmful... Second, several highly publicized research reports on samples of individuals who had attempted sexual orientation change... and other empirical and theoretical advances in the understanding of sexual orientation were published. Third, advocates who promote SOCE as well as those who oppose SOCE have asked that APA take action on the issue." (p.12)
  • "Recent SOCE differ from those interventions [aversion therapies] explored in the early research studies. The recent nonreligious interventions are based on the assumption that homosexuality and bisexuality are mental disorders or deficits and are based on older discredited psychoanalytic theories [...] None of these approaches is based on a credible scientific theory, as these ideas have been directly discredited through evidence or rendered obsolete." (p.82)
  • "Other forms of recent SOCE are religious, are not based on theories that can be scientifically evaluated, and have not been subjected to rigorous examination of efficacy and safety. These approaches are based on religious beliefs that homosexuality is sinful and immoral and, consequently, that identities and life paths based on same-sex sexual orientation are not religiously acceptable." (p.83)
  • "we concluded that the early evidence, though extremely limited, is the best basis for predicting what would be the outcome of psychological interventions." (p.83)
  • "The few early research investigations that were conducted with scientific rigor raise concerns about the safety of SOCE, as some participants suffered unintended harmful side effects from the interventions." (p.83)
  • "Those operating from religious/spiritual traditions are encouraged to recognize that it is outside their role and expertise to adjudicate empirical scientific issues in psychology" (p.120)
  • "the American Psychological Association affirms that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality regardless of sexual orientation identity;" (p.121)
  • "the American Psychological Association reaffirms its position that homosexuality per se is not a mental disorder and opposes portrayals of sexual minority youths and adults as mentally ill due to their sexual orientation;" (p.121)
  • "the American Psychological Association concludes that there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation;" (p.121)

What you want to put in has so far not reflected this (or the rest of the report) at all. Mish (talk) 00:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing that the new statement contradicts the old statement. My point was that if you agree with that, you shouldn't have a problem with the new statement going in there. Nothing you wrote contractdicts what I wrote. There is just a different emphasis. None of the quotes you mention talk about respecting the client's right to self-determination, but that is replete throughout the document. One advantage of Wikipedia is that with multiple editors we can present balanced information. My previous summary did say that research showed that change was unlikely, it talked about the potential harm and the recommendation to avoid attempts to change sexual orientation. You did bring up a few points that weren't in the summary. I wanted to make a few comments. Just because there is evidence of harm, or it is based off of faulty logic, or religious leaders overstep their bounds, does not prove it is ineffective. People got around just fine before Newtonian physics came along, even though they were based off faulty logic. While it is true that some of the extremely limited earlier evidence best basis for predicting what would be the outcome of psychological interventions, it is not proof. The statement itself says "Given the limited amount of methodologically sound research, we cannot draw a conclusion regarding whether recent forms of SOCE are or are not effective." Statements that homosexuality is normal doesn't preclude change in sexual orientation. Brown hair is pretty normal, but some people still dye their hair blond. The APA does defend the patient's right to determine their own destiny, which the current text makes it sound like they do not. I'll rewrite the intro to see if I can include your statements into mine. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Phlogiston theory is a better analogy - the theory seemed to work, but was wrong; Newtonian physics was right, later it was found to be a special case, it still works and is still used for most stuff. We represent what they say.- they say:

  • "there is insufficient evidence that SOCE are efficacious for changing sexual orientation. Furthermore, there is some evidence that such efforts cause harm"

i.e., there is not enough evidence to show it is effective, but there is some evidence to show it is harmful. That is a very significant comment - because research that has potential to harm the client is precluded by most codes for ethical research; that makes it hard to see how any future research could take place without violation of professional ethics. Mish (talk) 08:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that they are saying that. My point is that it doesn't negate everything else that they have said. I'm not arguing the factuality of the section. I am arguing the neutrality of the section. The section is not neutral because it shows one side, but not the other. In order to remove the NPOV flag, the section should also contain information that:
  • There is insufficient evidence to show that SOCE is not effective. - The section does accurately report that there is insufficient evidence to show that SOCE is effective, but it ignores the fact that there is also insufficient evidence to show it is not effective. I think it would be easiest to say "whether or not" like the report does. Supporting quotes "Given the limited amount of methodologically sound research, we cannot draw a conclusion regarding whether recent forms of SOCE are or are not effective." and "There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether or not recent SOCE do or do not work to change a person’s sexual orientation."
  • Anecdotal reports of "cures" are counterbalanced by anecdotal claims of psychological harm - The section does accurately discuss the harms, but it does not discuss the evidence for a cure or the benefits. Supporting quotes include "Furthermore, anecdotal reports of "cures" are counterbalanced by anecdotal claims of psychological harm." from an earlier report and "Some individuals perceived that they had benefited from SOCE, while others perceived that they had been harmed."
  • Sexual orientation identity appears to change via psychotherapy, support groups, and life events - This is supported by the quote "sexual orientation identity—not sexual orientation—appears to change via psychotherapy, support groups, and life events." Variations, such as including religious identity or specifying sexual orientation does not appear to change is fine. Both sexual orientation and sexual orientation identity develop across the lifetime of a person. Sexual orientation differs because it can be consciously changed.
  • Therapists are to respect the client's right to self-determination, and affirm the client regardless of the ultimate sexual orientation identity. There needs to be something about the respect for self-determination. That was the biggest finding of this report. The report makes clear that there is no harm in clients choosing celibacy. By only talking about how no one should try to change sexual orientation, it makes it sound as if no one should be able to help a gay man learn to be celibate, or faithful to his wife. This is my biggest issue. The gay lifestyle should not be forced upon anyone. In order to be neutral, it needs to be clear that although there is no need to change someone's sexual orientation identity, the client can chose for themselves what type of lifestyle they want to live. The therapist should try to facilitate the patient in reaching their own goals, and not try to force the gay lifestyle on anyone. Here, and in so many places in Wikipedia, it talks about how the only way for an LGB person to be well-adjusted is to have an LGB sexual orientation identity. This report makes clear that this is not the case. Self-determination needs to be in this section in order to be balanced. Supporting quotes include: "Given that there is diversity in how individuals define and express their sexual orientation identity, an affirmative approach is supportive of clients’ identity development without an a priori treatment goal concerning how clients identify or live out their sexual orientation or spiritual beliefs." and "Thus, the appropriate application of affirmative therapeutic interventions for those who seek SOCE involves therapist acceptance, support, and understanding of clients and the facilitation of clients’ active coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, without imposing a specific sexual orientation identity outcome" and from another report "that psychologists ... respect the rights of individuals to privacy, confidentiality, self-determination and autonomy" and "Mental health professional organizations call on their members to respect a person’s (client’s) right to selfdetermination"[1] Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it is how you say it. Citing that there is no evidence one way or the other is not neutral and does not reflect the report. The point is that any novel approach has to prove it works, and in this case it is discussing a fringe theory that is as yet unproven. The onus is on the proponents to prove it, and this is the sense of the report - there is no such evidence. That there is no evidence doesn't disprove it is not that significant. Nobody has to show harm, somebody has to show there is no harm. That has not happened. Your comment about SOI is unclear - specifically the last sentence, as the report suggests that sexual orientation cannot be changed, only identity. I agree that respect for self-determination is important and needs inclusion - and that in order to be neutral, it needs to be clear that although there is no need to change someone's religious identity, the client can chose for themselves what type of lifestyle they want to live. The therapist should try to facilitate the patient in reaching their own goals, and not try to force a religiously-proscribed lifestyle on anyone. That parallels how you read the quotes you cited, and this reading fits those quotes just as well. It seems the problem you have is not about NPOV in the section, but that you have a POV which interprets this in a way that differs from the prevailing NPOV. Helping somebody choose and live a life of celibacy is appropriate, but being celibate is not the same as a change in sexual orientation - so while it is seen as valid in the report, it has nothing to do with this article, it is about homosexuality and celibacy, which would be part of Homosexuality and religion, or Celibacy. Mish (talk) 23:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it is the way that you say it, and the current way is not NPOV. If you think my suggestions are POV, then let's work together to create something that is NPOV. Those are the points that needed to be included. They come from the report, so I think they are significant enough to include. They say there is not enough evidence to conclude one way or the other, so I think we should say that too. I am not trying to support any particular theory, fringe or otherwise. This is about efforts to change sexuality, not any specific theory. The summary on the conversion therapy page should read differently than the one on this page because conversion therapy only counts one outcome as a success, while this allows multiple outcomes. I think we might be in agreement on the self-determination part. I fully believe it goes both ways and that no one should force a religiously-proscribed lifestyle on anyone. I hoped that my bolded text, "Therapists are to respect the client's right to self-determination, and affirm the client regardless of the ultimate sexual orientation identity" would reflect both ways. Joshuajohanson (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
You missed my point, it is in the way you read it, and then regurgitate this as if it is NPOV, so where you said:
  • The therapist should try to facilitate the patient in reaching their own goals, and not try to force the gay lifestyle on anyone.
I paraphrased this:
  • The therapist should try to facilitate the patient in reaching their own goals, and not try to force a religiously-proscribed lifestyle on anyone.
The same applies where you say:
  • The gay lifestyle should not be forced upon anyone.
That is not neutral, and is not found in the text, and I could just as easily read what is said there thus:
  • The religious lifestyle should not be forced upon anyone.
However, while to me that is what is unsaid within the statements you read differently, as it is not said, then we have to report what is said.
By all means, make it clear that the report says therapists should not try to change cleints' sexual orientation, but can support people with a strong religious affiliation dealing with their sexual orientation identity, and pursuing a life of celibacy. Mish (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
That works for me. The only part that needed to be included was the bold text, or some paraphrase of that text. The other part was only an argument. I agree it would be POV to try to get that part into the article. I did not intend to imply that my argument should be included in the article, just the bold text. I really do want to try to get to an agreement on this. From your statements, it seems like what I added is acceptable to both of us. This is my goal. If not, feel free to bring up any concerns. If it is acceptable, I would like to focus on my other three bullet points and try to get those incorporated into the section. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks OK (to me). One point, though - do APA advocate therapy to assist faithfulness to spouse, apart from celibacy? Also, I would use realignment of sexual orientation identity or religious identity, rather than change SOI. Mish (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The article says "These strategies for individual, couples, and group counseling do not focus solely on one outcome (e.g., divorce, marriage) but on exploring the underlying personal and contextual problems, motivations, realities, and hopes for being in, leaving, or restructuring the relationship." The main thrust of the whole article is to help the client discover and pursue their own goals. It doesn't advocate faithfulness any more than it advocates celibacy or divorce or same-sex relationships, but it does include marriage as an option. Therapists have always worked with people who want to be faithful in a marriage. I don't think they would discriminate someone based on their sexual orientation. I think we should stick with change SOI because that is what the source says. Change is a lot more broad than simply realign. Do you have any comments about my other two points, namely There is insufficient evidence to show that SOCE is not effective. and Anecdotal reports of "cures" are counterbalanced by anecdotal claims of psychological harm? I could modify the third sentence to read "They argue that no scientifically adequate research has shown whether or not such interventions are effective or safe" and then inserting the sentence "Anecdotal reports of "cures" are counterbalanced by anecdotal claims of psychological harm." Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • There is insufficient evidence to show that SOCE is not effective. no - There is insufficient evidence to show that SOCE is effective. Nobody has to show it is not effective, as I said, the problem is the proponents have not been able to demonstrate its efficacy.
  • Anecdotal reports of "cures" are counterbalanced by anecdotal claims of psychological harm - no, the report discusses the research that was not able to provide sufficient evidence one way or the other. , That is not the same as anecdote. Sounds to me like this was qualitative research, which is not the same as anecdote. Sure they discuss anecdote, but in relation to the research, that is research. Conjoining what they say about anecdote to what they say about research in this way is synthetic, as this gives the impression that they are the same thing. Mish (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The APA has done the work, and they have said that they could neither determine it was effective, nor determine it was ineffective. Both have to be included. Why would the proponents have to prove there is insufficient evidence to show that SOCE in not effective when the APA themselves have verified that this is the case. There is no reason to exclude this information. These are the quotes that support my position: "Given the limited amount of methodologically sound research, we cannot draw a conclusion regarding whether recent forms of SOCE are or are not effective." and "There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether or not recent SOCE do or do not work to change a person’s sexual orientation." There is no reason to require proponents to prove it is effective in order to say there is no evidence to say it is not effective. If the task force thought it was important, we can include it. If you can't give me a good reason for excluding it, I am putting it in.
That was actually an exact quote from the first one [www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/reparative_therapy.pdf], and as you said, this new one doesn't negate the old one. Similar statements are in this report: "Some individuals perceived that they had benefited from SOCE, while others perceived that they had been harmed." "These reports of perceptions of harm are countered by accounts of perceptions of relief, happiness, improved relationships with God, and perceived improvement in mental health status, among other reported benefits." "Although the recent studies do not provide valid causal evidence of the efficacy of SOCE or of its harm, some recent studies document that there are people who perceive that they have been harmed through SOCE, just as other recent studies document that there are people who perceive that they have benefited from it." The reports treat harm and benefit on the same level, and so should we. Joshuajohanson (talk) 02:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Fine, but that is not what you said. You said There is insufficient evidence to show that SOCE is not effective. That is not what it says, which is why I paraphrased the obverse. There is no evidence to show whether recent SOCE works or not is a better representation.
These are two different things, the Australian and the APA positions - one is Australian, one is the APA. The 2009 APA policy supplements the 1997 policy. The report itself gives further evidence about the lack of evidence. By all means, if the Australian source talks about anecdotal evidence, cite that in that context - but do not transpose that onto the APA report. The APA report is about a systematic review of available research, and findings drawn from that review, which is that there has been research, but none of it of a quality that any conclusions can be drawn regarding efficacy. The people who have to do research of a quality that shows the process is effective are the proponents, nobody else, they have not been able to do that. The only research the APA has done is to review the research literature - and found it is not good enough to say one or the other whether SOCE works or not. That means, it is still unverified - nobody has to show it doesn't work, because nobody has any reason to suggest it might. Mish (talk) 10:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I put the wrong URL. Sorry about that. It was from the 2001 APA statement, not the Australian one. This is the right one. [2] Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
That's the problem. It was the other APA. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The report from the APA says "Given the limited amount of methodologically sound research, we cannot draw a conclusion regarding whether recent forms of SOCE are or are not effective." and "There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether or not' recent SOCE do or do not work to change a person’s sexual orientation." This needs to be included in the summary. Please see previous argument before reverting. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem is that p.2 co.2 doesn't say this:
  • "given the limited amount of methodologically sound research, we cannot draw a conclusion regarding whether recent forms of sexual orientation change efforts are or are not effective."
It says this:
  • "Given the limited amount of methodologically sound research, claims that recent SOCE (sexual orientation change effort) is effective are not supported."

I have inserted the full quote as per the diff here:

Mish (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry. That quote started off with the same wording and confused me. The quote I was referring to is on p. 43 co.1 I have put in the correct quote. Sorry. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Lifting of a taboo can cause a change in sexual orientation

The following text was removed: "In the US, there has been an increase number of women developing an attraction for other women. Susan Bordo has stated that when a taboo is lifted or diminished, it's going to leave people freer to pursue things. Binnie Klein has stated that "It's clear that a change in sexual orientation is imaginable to more people than ever before, and there's more opportunity -- and acceptance -- to cross over the line."

This article is talking about homosexuality and psychology, and the section is talking about the fluidity of sexuality. I think talking about how lifting the taboo of lesbianism allows more women to change their sexual orientation is important in understanding the nature of the fluidity of sexual orientation. The proceeding discussion talks about that sexual orientation develops across the lifetime of a person. It is only natural to include information on how sexual orientation develops, such as the lifting of a taboo. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It's information about lesbianism and has little relevance to the general subject of homosexuality and psychology. It would be most appropriate to the lesbian article; take it there (but reword it first, because I don't consider the removed text to be especially well written). Born Gay (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
This article talks about all aspects of homosexuality, including lesbianism. There are lots of gender specific information throughout this article. Some examples that are specific to men include: "Gay and bisexual male youths are over 13 times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexual male youths." "Gay men reported significantly higher mood and anxiety disorders than straight men" "Gay men tend to be more concerned about their physical appearance than straight men." " gay male relationships are more frequently "open" than heterosexual relationships because the individuals are men, not because they are gay." "One study found that among sexually active gay men, over 27% of them had experienced non-consensual sex at least once." Examples specific to lesbianism include: "lesbian women may be at a higher risk than heterosexual women." "lesbians were significantly more likely to experience depression (but not other mood or anxiety disorders) than straight women." "Lesbian women are at a lower risk for eating disorders than heterosexual women" "lesbian couples have sex less often than heterosexual couples, "although they seem to be more satisfied with their sex lives."
There has to be one standard, and one standard alone. Either this article is going to talk exclusively about issues that affect both men and women, or it will include both information that is only applicable to men and information that is only applicable to lesbianism.Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
And is there any special reason why nearly all the gender-specific examples you give are negative or controversial? I think a good case could be made for wiping much of this stuff (which does not seem to be sourced properly - the references don't give all the information they should) and starting afresh. Born Gay (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I pulled all the examples I could find in the text. I really was not trying to be biased. I started pulling them before I realized how many of them were negative. Not all are negative. "Lesbian women are at a lower risk for eating disorders than heterosexual women" "lesbian couples ... seem to be more satisfied with their sex lives." It makes sense in an article about psychology you would get lots of references to psychological problems. Many of the references compare men to women, so I think it is beneficial to have all of them in one place. As a precedent, look at any article about homosexuality, and it will almost always include stuff about both men and women. For example, Biology and sexual orientation talks about fraternal birth order which only applies to men, and most of the physiological differences are gender specific. I don't think there is a need to separate based on gender. Where would you put the information that only applies to men? Anyhow, if you want to do such a drastic change, you can suggest it, but until such a change is made this article covers information specific to both men and women and you have no grounds to exclude this information. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Seems more appropriate to something like Bi-curious or just Sexual orientation. Mish (talk) 23:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Given how negative most of the information is here, and given that it appears that it may not properly be sourced, I can only repeat that I think a good case could be made for wiping much of this article and starting again (the problem with the references was pointed out long ago - it's at the top of this talk page - but nothing has been done about it). It's doubtful that there should be anything here unless the sources are presented properly, and certainly not this kind of negative stuff.
An example: the article states that, "However, a Netherlands study (where homosexuality is much more widely accepted than that in the U.S.) shows that mental health problems in homosexuals are still much higher than in heterosexuals, despite the more tolerant society." Do we really want that kind of thing, which almost looks as though it might have been placed there to support some kind of agenda, in the article when the references look that bad?
Or how about this, "One study found that among sexually active gay men, over 27% of them had experienced non-consensual sex at least once." That sounds fantastic to me, and I have to wonder what kind of source it's really based upon (it could arguably be removed as undue even if it is from a reliable source). I am not going to make such a move as drastic as removing sources 3 through to 23 without discussing it beforehand, however. Possibly a request for comment should be placed. Born Gay (talk) 06:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Looking through this article, it is very displeasing to see the kind of sources that have been used. There was a large piece of inappropriately worded text ("In a 2004 study, the female subjects (both gay and straight women) became sexually aroused when they viewed heterosexual as well as lesbian erotic films. Among the male subjects, however, the straight men were turned on only by erotic films with women, the gay ones by those with men. The study's senior researcher said that women's sexual desire is less rigidly directed toward a particular sex, as compared with men's, and it's more changeable over time)" that was sourced to this, [4] which is an article from Oprah magazine. Would it be too much to expect that the actual 2004 study itself be used, instead of an article from a lifestyle magazine? Born Gay (talk) 07:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, I did not look at the content of the quotes before I started pulling. I did notice after I started pulling them, but didn't worry about it. I didn't write those comments and I agree that we should only have what can be verified. My point is that we should be able to include stuff specific to both males and females to be consistent with the other articles. I think the Lesbian article and Sexual orientation article should summarizes what is on here, not the other way around. This is the page that we should be able to really go into the psychological aspects. I think this is where the main information of fluidity of sexual orientation should reside. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Efforts to change sexuality

This section currently consists mainly of direct quotations from professional bodies, some of them long. Since the purpose of an encyclopedia is to summarise, I do not believe that it should (unless someone wants to retitle it something like, "Quotations from professional bodies about conversion therapy", which would at least reflect its contents). I also cannot see anything that makes the Australian Psychological Society so important in debates over conversion therapy that the quote from it needs to be featured so prominently - why is it more important than the Royal College of Psychiatrists, for example, which has a much shorter and less prominently featured quotation? I'm afraid there seems to be little logic to how the contents of this section are arranged. Born Gay (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Reduced the Australian quote, so it runs into the BPS, to show that this corresponds with the US view, which has been reformatted to show what is cited and pulled the disparate bits into readable text, rather than a single quote which appears to incorporate commentary. Mish (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I am trying to write a balanced intro that would include everything Mish and I have brought up in the Discussion of change of sexual orientation. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Effects of coming out on the person's well-being

The article currently says "being out enhances many individuals well-being, and that openly gay people have less anxiety and better self esteem and social support than people who do not." However a recent report by the APA said there was no clear evidence of harm and some people are content denying a gay identity. To include some studies which indicate that denying a gay identity is harmful, but to ignore a major report commissioned by the APA which says it is not is untruthful. Stating "seeking therapy to avoid taking up a gay identity was legitimate" is not the same as saying there is no evidence of harm in denying a gay identity. The section is factually inaccurate in that it indicates that medical field accepts evidence of harm in denying a gay identity, such as more anxiety and lower self esteem, when in fact there is evidence of harm. A couple older papers that contradicts a major, modern review of all literature should not be accepted as fact. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The disputed tag was removed with the explanation "If research shows that people who come out find this enhances their lives, that has nothing to do with whether people denying their sexuality is harmful or not. Two different groups." I agree that those who come find this enhances their lives. I think that a lot of gay people have to go through a period of self-discovery, and learning to be comfortable with oneself does enhance their life. However, I think this enhancement can occur regardless of the ultimate sexual orientation identity. If the text just compared openly gay people before and after they came out, that would be one thing, but the text compares those who are openly gay with those who are not, which is completely different. The current text states: "Various studies report that 'being out' enhances many individuals well-being, and that openly gay people have less anxiety and better self esteem and social support than people who do not, and that openly gay people are more satisfied in their relationships. These studies attribute this to the "negative health consequences of psychological inhibition" found in closeted people" It directly compares openly gay people with those "who do not". If you say that those who embrace their gay identity have less anxiety and better self esteem, by implication that means those who reject their gay identity have more anxiety and lower self esteem. You can't say one group is better than the other group and pretend you aren't putting the other group down. Especially since the text specifically attributes this to the "negative health consequences of psychological inhibition found in closeted people." This is factually wrong, since they found no evidence of harm in denying a gay identity. The other problem is that the following section Effects of not identifying as gay or lesbian, focuses on whether or not therapy is harmful. Not every gay person who rejects their gay identity has undergone therapy. The quote from the WSJ reads: "Dr. Glassgold, of the APA, said there has been little research about the long-term effects of rejecting a gay identity, but there is "no clear evidence of harm" and "some people seem to be content with that path." As you can see, this quote has nothing to do with therapy. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
This relates to a different source than the APA. The APA source deals with research into conversion therapy. This source deals with a different situation - people who do or don't come out. It would be synthetic to transpose the APA findings onto a different scenario. All that is necessary is to see whether this is an accurate summation of the source cited, and that the source is reliable. Does the source report the experiences of people who came out and reported enhancement compared to those who did not - or does it compare them with those who did not try to change their sexual orientation (or identity)? Mish (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I was wrong to remove the reference to people who remain in the closet - it seemed a bit loaded, so, what I will do is restore that to ensure the meaning remains clear. Being closeted covers a lot of things - including people who have same-sex sex who aren't out, people who repress their sexuality through hyper-masculinity/femininity, live in denial, etc. I'm not even sure it would refer to those who have sought to change their orientation or identity, because that would entail some aspect of 'coming out' in its own way. Mish (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
We have been talking a lot about conversion therapy recently, but this is not about therapy. There are people who reject a gay identity without any therapy whatsoever. The role of the task force was to look at appropriate therapeutic responses to sexual orientation. Part of the task was to see if rejecting a gay identity was harmful. While performing this task, they looked into the research of Wolkomir, Ponticelli and Yarhouse. They determined that there was no clear evidence that rejecting a gay identity is harmful. Then, they used that evidence to argue that it was okay for therapists to assist the client in whatever goal the client may have, including rejecting a gay identity. Yes, it is related to therapy, but the implications are much further. Not all of the people studied underwent therapy. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
This is exactly my point. This is not about therapy, but people 'coming out' or being 'in the closet'. So, you know the rules, what is the reference to the page where the APA states this, or the paper(s) that state these findings? To do this, you need to convince that this is not a WP:SYNTH drawn from papers about something different (i.e. SOCE). Mish (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
The paper is about something different, but it addresses all people who reject a gay identity, whether or not they have undergone therapy. The quote from Dr. Glassgold does not address therapy at all. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Which paper? There are nearly twenty by these three researchers covered in the report - and now you introduce another author as well - which paper? And on which page does the APA report discuss the beneficial effects of denying sexual orientation among people who have not undertaken conversion therapy? Mish (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Dr. Glassgold is the one who headed up the task force. The quote does not address whether or not the people have undergone any type of therapy. The exact quote from the WSJ reads: "Dr. Glassgold, of the APA, said there has been little research about the long-term effects of rejecting a gay identity, but there is "no clear evidence of harm" and "some people seem to be content with that path."[5] Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight

The psychotherapy section deals almost exclusively with conversion therapy. I have been working on reorganizing the ego-dystonic sexual orientation page. I think the section should be replaced with a paragraph the summarizes the ego-dystonic sexual orientation page. This will cover more topics, and help to balance the section so we do not give undue weight to conversion therapy. Other ideas of how to resolve the undue weight issue are welcome. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Leave the affirmative stuff, as not everybody who has therapy does so because they can't accept being gay - some do so because of their experiences of growing up gay, domestic issues, dealing with homophobia, etc. Balance this out with a brief paragraph about SOCE and CT with links to those articles to replace what is there at the moment. Mish (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with leaving the affirmation stuff, but ego-dystonic sexual orientation is more broad than just CT and SOCE. I also want to include information on the APA recommendations. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Conversion therapy/SOCE section should be removed

The conversion therapy/SOCE section in this article has been a very confusing and poorly organized mess. I have tried to do what I can to tidy it up. However, it seems to me that this section should probably not be in the article at all. The lead states that "Major psychological research into homosexuality can be divided into five categories". Attempts to change homosexuality are notably not one of those categories. Consequently, everything in the conversion therapy/SOCE section is probably undue for the article, and should be wiped. It might be appropriate to briefly mention conversion therapy/SOCE in other sections, as it does relate to anti-gay attitudes and discrimination, but it does not deserve a whole section to itself. BG 01:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Psychotherapy that is requested exclusively to deal with issues around homosexuality, such as gay affirmation therapy and therapies to deal with stress surrounding same-sex attractions, is an important part of homosexuality and psychology and deserves its own section. If the lead doesn't do a good job in describing what is in the article, then the lead needs to change. I agree it is poorly written. Per my above comment, I think it should deal with the more general topic of ego-dystonic homosexuality (the most common type of ego-dystonic sexual orientation) and only a portion of that section should deal with SOCE, with the rest dealing with the therapy suggested by the APA. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
"Psychotherapy that is requested exclusively to deal with issues around homosexuality, such as gay affirmation therapy and therapies to deal with stress surrounding same-sex attractions, is an important part of homosexuality and psychology". Oh? You need a source for that, I think. Opinions are not good enough. The lead is sourced, and it contradicts you on this. You offer no convincing reason why the conversion therapy/SOCE section should not be removed. BG 20:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
It isn't clear that Standfort was trying to give an exclusive definition of all possible ways in which homosexuality and psychology can overlap. Besides, he isn't the ultimate source. Different psychological organizations view homosexuality differently, so relying too heavily on one source does not seem wise. The American Psychological Association just did a huge report on how to help people who are unhappy with their sexual orientation. If it didn't have anything psychology, why did the American Psychological Association bother with it? Again, I am fine with removing the SOCE/CT section as long as it is replaced with a section on ego-dystonic sexual orientation. Joshuajohanson (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
What the lead defines as being the major topics of psychological research should be the only things that the article covers, if the article is to make sense. Since I can't think of any obvious way to change the lead, it would be simpler and more reasonable to reorganize the article so that it actually follows the arrangement in the lead, which means no section on conversion therapy/SOCE, and I think no section on ego-dystonic sexual orientation either, as it is also not a major area of research by itself. Maybe it would fall under the fourth heading. BG 01:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
You have to have a better argument than that. You cannot base a whole article off one person's breakdown of areas of research. That would give it undue weight. Joshuajohanson (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
What we have at the moment is a source indicating that changing homosexuality is not, in fact, a major area of psychological research into homosexuality. That's a good enough reason to remove most of the information on that subject from this article unless there are other sources stating the contrary; you have so far provided none. BG 22:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I provided my evidence. You didn't accept it. The APA published a huge report after Theo did his division. You have not given a reason to base the whole argument on one person and ignore mainstream medical organizations. There was no indication that was meant as an exclusive list. Besides "can be" divided doesn't mean "have to be". Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
The report is about SOCE, not psychological research into homosexuality, which is what this article is about. "Can be" indicates that these are the important areas. BG talk 23:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
It is Homosexuality and psychology, not psychological research into homosexuality. If they published it, it must have something to do with homosexuality and psychology. On the APA web site Answers to Your Questions For a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality, they list "What about therapy intended to change sexual orientation from gay to straight?" as one of the major questions. Besides, you can't forget the WHO point of view. It seems like Theo follows the APA, not the WHO. And you have yet to show that Theo meant this list to be exhaustive. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
The report is about SOCE, not "Homosexuality and psychology." Saying that the report "must" be about homosexuality and psychology, rather than specifically SOCE, because it was published by the American Psychological Association, is original research. The "questions" the page you linked to are simply questions asked by ordinary people; they have nothing to do with what the major areas of research are, so they're irrelevant. BG talk 00:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think what the APA publishes is irrelevant. Relying solely on one person's list of major research areas is UNDUE weight, does not reflect the WHO point of view and therefore does not reflect a worldwide view. Mentioning only Gay Affirmation Therapy and not any therapy at ego-dystonic sexual orientation is biased towards those who want to be affirmed in the gay identity. Joshuajohanson (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Your response to me is, as usual, irrelevant. You appear not to have a source stating that research into attempts to change homosexuality are an important part of "Homosexuality and psychology", however that subject is defined. Unless the new APA report specifically states that attempts to change homosexuality are an important part of "Homosexuality and psychology", then only a minimal amount of information about them should be here. Gay affirmation therapy is a different issue, and the rights or wrongs of that don't change the fact that the material you want included here is undue. It was pretty tacky of you to go ahead and add that information yet again after you and I were both threatened with being blocked by KillerChihuahua, and I'm glad you were reverted. BG talk 23:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
This isn't Homosexuality and psychological research! Just because one person breaks down research for a book on Gay and Lesbian Studies (not even Homosexual Studies) doesn't mean we can't add anything besides what that guy wrote. I don't even understand what you mean I have to prove that psychotherapy has to do with psychology. I need a source to say that psychotherapy has to do with psychology because our friend Standfort didn't happen to list it? You set stupid rules are expect everyone to play by them. If the lead doesn't accurately describe the content it is the lead that needs to be changed, not the content. But fine, here we are playing by your stupid rules. Our all-knowing Standfort who can do no wrong said very clearly that one of the areas of research (why it has to be research I'm not exactly sure, but that is the game we are playing) falls under the category of "What determines successful adaptation to rejecting social climates in gays and lesbians?" Well, the report says that "Erzen (2006), Ponticelli (1999), and Wolkomir (2001) described these religiously-oriented ex-gay groups as a refuge for those who were excluded both from conservative churches and from their families, because of their same-sex sexual attractions, and from gay organizations and social networks, because of their conservative religious beliefs." and that "such groups built hope, recovery"[6] Therefore, ex-gay groups help these people adapt to rejecting social climates. Ex-gay groups, being of course, listed under SOCE groups. Therefore, the section you deleted on SOCE is a way in which homosexual people deal with rejecting social climate, much in the way that LGB support groups work, and should be put back in. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say that we can't add anything except "what that guy wrote", or anything remotely similar. I said we should stick to those five main subjects, unless there's evidence that other subjects are also important parts of Homosexuality and psychology. You write, "I don't even understand what you mean I have to prove that psychotherapy has to do with psychology." Well I'm not sure what you mean, because the bad grammar of your sentence makes it nearly incomprehensible. Try to avoid heavy-handed sarcasm, please; it doesn't help you make your case. You argue that, "Therefore, ex-gay groups help these people adapt to rejecting social climates." The problem with your argument is that it isn't clear that "these people" are gays and lesbians making attempts to succesfully adapt to rejecting social climates. "These people" may be ex-gays instead of gays, and presumably, that isn't the same thing. From your point of view, I would have thought it was rather crucial that it isn't the same thing. To me, however, it seems that SOCE is not a way in which homosexual people deal with a rejecting social climate, it's a way in which homosexual attempt to stop being homosexual, which places it outside the scope of the article. Therefore, it should stay out. BG talk 01:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
This is about homosexuality and psychology, not people who identify as LGB and psychology. People who undergo attempts to change sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual are homosexual, otherwise they wouldn't try to change it. So it relates because they start off being homosexual. Second, there is no evidence that SOCE changes sexual orientation. Whether they are happy having a homosexual orientation or not the fact is that they still have it. All evidence shows that their sexual orientation is not changed, so therefore they are also in the scope of this article because they still have a homosexual orientation after therapy. So they start off as homosexual and end up as homosexual. Anyhow, I completely disagree with the removal of SOCE, but I am trying to find a reasonable compromise by allowing in ego-dystonic sexual orientation whether or not there is any mention of SOCE. If you accept that compromise, I will drop this thread. I think I am willing to work with you. We can discuss what goes in that paragraph and what doesn't. Joshuajohanson (talk) 02:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Being gay or lesbian is an identity. Someone can be homosexual but reject identifying as gay or lesbian - as I suppose you know perfectly well. So, since the area of research is defined as being, "What determines successful adaptation to rejecting social climates in gays and lesbians?", ex-gay groups aren't part of that. By definition, people who join them don't see themselves as gay or lesbian. Your argument that, "Whether they are happy having a homosexual orientation or not the fact is that they still have it" is unsourced POV. Wikipedia relies on views in reliable sources, not personal opinions (and coming from you, it's a fairly strange opinion). I completely disagree with your position that removing SOCE was a mistake. Ego-dynstonic sexual orientation maybe should be part of an existing section; it shouldn't be a section to itself. BG talk 02:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Then the lead needs to change. This isn't people who identity as LGB and psychology, but Homosexuality and psychology. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Homosexuality_and_psychology/Archive_2&oldid=1079702807"