Talk:Kenneth Zucker

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kenneth Zucker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update on lawsuit.[edit]

Editors following this page may wish to update the section on Gender_Identity_Clinic_for_Children_at_CAMH section, as Zucker has been entirely exonerated. In their statement on their website, CAMH "apologizes without reservation to Dr. Zucker," and they are paying him damages for the claims: https://www.camh.ca/en/camh-news-and-stories/camh-apology

I appreciate that primary sources are not generally appropriate as RS's; however, the mainpage here still contains claims about Zucker that are now legally determined to be false (and libellous). I'd prefer that someone other than me corrected/updated it.— James Cantor (talk) 21:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


My recent edit[edit]

I recently made an edit to this page to try to make it more NPOV, and given the history of this page I thought I'd add a justification in here. I made three changes to the page:

  • I changed "Zucker's views are controversial among some mental health professionals and many advocates." to "Zucker's views are controversial among many advocates and mental health professionals". The some/many characterization is not backed up by the citations. In its previous state, along with the other sentences I changed, it served to create a POV presentation of the controversy as "activists" versus "scientists".
  • I removed the unsourced sentence "Considerable disagreement exists between academic sex researchers, who say the sciences supports Zucker's approach, and activists who compare it to conversion therapy attempting to change gay men and lesbians into heterosexual men and women.". This claim has had a CITENEED tag for over six months, and per BLP it shouldn't have even remained on the page for that long.
  • I changed "Activists have compared Zucker's approaches with reparative therapy." to "Critics have compared Zucker's approaches with reparative therapy". There is no basis to classify all the critics in this section as "activists", and to do so only furthers the POV slant of this article. (I also bluelinked reparative therapy, which I can't imagine being controversial but I'll list it here anyway). SreySros (talk) 05:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edits are just as POV and WP:Weasel word-ish. And like I did before, I will ask again: Where do the sources state "many"...other than "many activists are outraged at Zucker’s approach"? Fix the POV, or I will. And I can't image why you have suddenly forgotten to sign your post, like actual newbies forget to do. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC) [reply]
I see your point regarding the characterization of both activists and mental health professionals as "many". I originally thought that changing the order would help reach a more neutral expression (where many is more strongly modifying advocates than it is professionals) but it seems I was wrong.
Also, I'm sorry I didn't see that you had made a contradictory edit before, if I had I would have brought it up here in the talk page rather than making a bold edit. When I was looking at the article originally (with the other two changes I noted) this sentence seemed unnecessarily POV, but I see your point.
How would you feel about changing it to something that doesn't try to count the number of criticisms from either group? Perhaps "Zucker's views have attracted controversy from mental health professionals and advocates alike"? I guess that has "alike", but that seems more like a turn of phrase than a characterization of relative number. Also, I'm not sure from your message, but do you think my other two edits are POV?
Sorry about the signature, I've added one now.
As for your allegations that I am a sockpuppet, maybe it'd be best to keep that discussion on my talk page and focus on the content of the article here. SreySros (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding whether or not we have a reliable source which characterizes the medical professionals who object to Zucker's methods as many: I think this rests on whether or not we accept Winters et. al.'s 2018 characterization of Zucker's methods as gender conversion therapy (i.e. with an a priori goal for the gender identity of children), which as Winters notes is considered unethical by several professional organizations. AFAICT there is certainly MEDRS consensus against gender conversion therapy, but making the jump that Zucker performed such gender conversion therapy might not be well-sourced enough to state in wikivoice. SreySros (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The current timestamp for your signature makes it seem like that is when you made that post. It's not.
"Zucker's views have attracted controversy from mental health professionals and advocates alike" makes it seem like it's 50/50 regarding both sides. It's not.
"Gender conversion therapy" is not standard terminology. And like I've noted before on Wikipedia, Zucker does not consider himself a conversion therapist and there are various others who do not consider his practices to resemble conversion therapy. As relayed by the source I just linked to, Zucker and his defenders state that because most prepubescent children with gender dysphoria will cease to want to be the opposite sex by puberty/adolescence, he encourages prepubescent children to feel comfortable with their assigned sex. They argue that if the child still wants to be the other sex by puberty/adolescence, Zucker is not against then looking to assist the child in socially and medically transitioning.
I did not call you a sock, although, yes, I do not believe that you are new. And, sure, I have more to state to you about that on your talk page. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the timestamp, I'll update that. Regarding the first sentence, I guess I could see interpreting "alike" as insinuating equality, it seemed like a good compromise to me but if you see it as equating the two criticisms then I agree that that phrasing is no good. Re Zucker's denial: that's exactly my point. We can't say in wikivoice that his work is conversion therapy unless the RSs do and we regard his denial as MANDY, and those both seem like a stretch to me. Is there some phrasing we can use that doesn't make claims about the relative strength or numbers of critics from the two spheres? What if we cut "alike"? "Zucker's views have attracted controversy from mental health professionals and advocates" (or "advocates and mental health professionals" if you prefer) doesn't flow quite as well but it's not terrible. SreySros (talk) 03:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Going with that would be better. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It should say "some" before the phrase about mental health professionals and advocates, otherwise "all" is implied. Crossroads -talk- 05:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like some minimizes it a bit, even the original version said "some mental health professionals and many advocates.". Several feels like a nice middle ground between some and many, how do you guys feel about "Zucker's views have attracted controversy from several mental health professionals and advocates" (or "advocates and mental health professionals")? I'm not sure if the order changes the emphasis but if you have a preference I'm fine with either. On a side note, do things "attract controversy"? Perhaps we should say "attracted criticism", that feels more accurate. Also I wonder if it is his views, per se, that are being criticized or rather his work, his theraputic approach, his clinic, etc. I also don't mean to prolong this discussion, especially since my original wording is currently in place. If you like we can get to a quick consensus on the quantity wording and make that edit before discussing rest of the sentence. SreySros (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Several" is fine. I'm neutral on the rest. Crossroads -talk- 02:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll change the order since the sources focus on advocates. And, yeah, we maybe should remove "views." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

“Preventing homosexuality”[edit]

Hist9600: regarding your edits. Zucker’s earliest writing which has been used to suggest he endorsed preventing homosexuality are questionable or more ambiguous than presented.

This 2003 article makes this misrepresentation quite clear: ”In none of our publications have we ever endorsed prevention of homosexuality as a therapeutic goal in the treatment of children with GID, although we note that this might have been a goal of some therapists and also of some parents. We have simply pointed out that there is no empirical evidence at present that the extant treatment approaches are related to whether or not a child with GID later on differentiates a homosexual or heterosexual sexual orientation.”

And from Zucker in 2020 (p. 408): ”Although much less visible in the contemporary treatment literature, some clinicians who have adopted this approach vis-à-vis GD (particularly in the 1960s and early 1970s) have also advocated treatment with the expressed goal of preventing homosexuality (see Zucker, 1990; as an aside, in my entire clinical career, I have never agreed with or endorsed this goal). In this regard, it should be noted that there is little evidence that treatment of children with GD alters their eventual sexual orientation (see Green, 1987); nonetheless, the contemporary clinician should be mindful that parents, even in the contemporary era of so much greater tolerance and acceptance with regard to sexual diversity, vary tremendously…” and then goes on to state parents should be educated on the possibility of the likelihood of a non-heterosexual orientation eventually emerging in their child.

Zucker, K. J. Children and adolescents with gender dysphoria. In Y. M. Binik and K. S. K. Hall (Eds.), Principles and practices of sex therapy (Sixth ed.). New York: Guilford Press, 2020

This quote in the WP article Zucker wrote that preventing homosexuality may be justified because, "a homosexual lifestyle, in a basically unaccepting culture, simply creates unnecessary social difficulties" appears as blatant quote mining.

Given WP:RS/QUOTE the two sources I cited are more reliable on Zucker’s view here. He also cites his own 1990 work in the 2020 chapter, indicating that this earlier writing was a discussion of others ideas and rationale for treatment by parents, but not necessarily his own rationale for treatment. Reading the full 1990 chapter also makes that clear, so the quote mining on "preventing homosexuality" appears rather misleading.

I have updated the text to be a precise reflection of his writing per WP:RS/QUOTE. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should know by now that WP:DUE does not allow you to delete well-sourced material based on secondary independent sources, just because you have some new interpretation of a WP:PRIMARY source. Per WP:DUE: Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. A later source also does not nullify earlier sources, or the interpretations and views found therein. Since the quote mentioned previously (which you deleted) is mentioned in secondary reliable sources, the selection of the quote is not something that I have done. That was already done by secondary sources, and its inclusion is giving due weight to what secondary reliable sources say on the matter. On the other hand, the quote that you have given is based only on a User:Zenomonoz interpretation of a primary source, and it can be considered WP:OR, and also not WP:DUE, because no other sources mention it. Hist9600 (talk) 03:30, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my "interpretation of a primary source". I've directly quoted Zucker and Bradley quite clearly. Glad you did not include the quote, sorry. I have restored your secondary source here for due weight, agree on that.
Zucker's quotes are useful alongside Tosh, especially given one of them (2003) predates Tosh (2006). The quote you highlight about due weight doesn't conflict with this. Not everything needs to be secondary. For example, the frequently used Template:BLP primary sources states "This biography of a living person relies too much on references to primary sources". That is because articles are based upon secondary sources, but not everything needs to be secondary. The primary sources in this case (2003, 2020) provide clarity against secondary sources which may be presenting a less than generous interpretation of his 1990 writing.
Finally, Zucker's chapter in a textbook is not "original research", nor is his 2003 letter to the editor. I suggest reading WP:OR to clarify that. And no, I have not included any of my own analysis per WP:RS/QUOTE. Hope this clarifies things. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since well-sourced content was inappropriately deleted, that will need to be restored as well. Prevention of homosexuality is part of the therapy rationales published in 1990, 1995, and repeated several times since then, in reliable primary and secondary sources. You should know from reading this article that: (1) Parents helped to set the individual therapy goals. It was acknowledged and defended by Zucker that parents may wish for their children to become heterosexual because the life of a heterosexual person is easier (consistent with statements from 1990 and 1995). (2) Zucker's treatment was for gender non-conformity, which he considered to have a potential outcome of adult homosexuality or adult transsexuality. (3) The findings of the external review in 2015 state that the optimal outcome for patients at the clinic was to be cisgender and heterosexual. Hist9600 (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The current version of the article already states "Tosh stated that Zucker considers the prevention of homosexuality a rationale for treatment " so we aren't missing anything. And from Zucker: "we note that this might have been a goal of some therapists and also of some parents". It's easier understood by the reader to have all of this in the single paragraph as it is now.
In contrast, your previous version stated: "Zucker has stated that children with gender dysphoria should be treated for four primary therapeutic and ethical reasons" (one being homosexuality), which is misleading. Zucker did not state children "should" be treated to prevent homosexuality. He discussed this as a rationale of some parents. This was selectively analysed by a Wikipedia editor (you?) and put in WP:WIKIVOICE, yet with no quotes in which Zucker endorsed treatment to prevent homosexuality (i.e. "should"). It included a secondary source (Lev, 2019) with no page numbers.
You also re-wrote my addition of Tosh to say "In 2006, Zucker considered the prevention of homosexuality to be a rationale for treatment, but he also considered that rationale to be somewhat problematic." This is misleading, as it is not Zucker's view as of 2006 (which was implied). This is merely the date and which Tosh wrote the paper.
One other source (Shannon, 1999) was cited for a quote, but which you did not to use elsewhere. It is a more accurate representation of his views, and includes a quote from Zucker 1990: "there is no strong evidence either way as to the effectiveness of treatment on later sexual orientation".
Also, to further clarify (and I know you did not add this quote, but you did add a secondary source to support it), WP previously stated this: In 1995, Zucker wrote that preventing homosexuality may be justified because, "a homosexual lifestyle, in a basically unaccepting culture, simply creates unnecessary social difficulties."
However the full quote makes it clear this wasn't his own view or justification at all: "The treatment rationale for more secular minded clinicians, who, if they set out to prevent homosexuality at all, would probably do so with the view that a homosexual lifestyle, in a basically unaccepting culture, simply creates unnecessary social difficulties" – i.e. he was discussing the rationale and views of others.
Zucker 2003 and 2020 was clear about the distinction between parental motivation, and his own personal beliefs. That is accurately covered in the page now. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So whose views are these about the four rationales for treatment? You say those are the views of families. Then later you attribute them to some clinicians somewhere, except of course for the clinician writing the passage, even though we have secondary sources attributing these views to him. This type of back-and-forth between, "It's some other clinician" and "It's the families" (as well as the frequent conflation of therapeutic rationales with individualized therapy goals) is part of the reason why having secondary and tertiary sources for analysis and interpretation is important. The same types of sources that have been deleted recently.
Some of the changes you have made I don't even disagree with. After all, there are different ways to write similar things. However, I think some of these sources are being misused. There are also errors recently introduced by your edits. For example, you claim that Tosh attributed the rationale to Zucker in 2006. Tosh's paper was written in 2011, and the quote gives the date for Zucker's own source (2006). Even though the full quote was given to remove ambiguity and provide the needed clarification and the date of Zucker's publication, that quote was deleted from the reference.
Zucker and Bradley (2004) emphasise homosexuality as a common 'psychosexual outcome' of childhood GID and Zucker (2006) states that the prevention of transsexualism and homosexuality are both rationales for its treatment (although he considers the prevention of homosexuality somewhat 'problematic').
Then there are just weird comments that have really nothing to do with anything... OK, so Kenneth Zucker wrote in 1990 that there is no strong evidence that therapy changes sexual orientation. OK, and what does that have to do with anything? That doesn't contradict anything else, and it's consistent with his other statements.
This is why it's important to consider the context rather than just latching onto one word that you like from a sentence. Some of this also shows the ways in which statements can be misunderstood and items can be conflated. It's almost like secondary and tertiary sources are important for analysis and interpretation. Huh... if only there were Wikipedia policies and guidelines related to that... Hist9600 (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've fixed the Tosh comment – you are right. I've considered your other comments. If you think I have trimmed things too much, it would be great if you could you propose what should be reincluded or added. My principal belief is that all writing regarding a rationale of 'preventing homosexuality' should be included in a single paragraph so as to make Zucker's view clear (this is his BLP, after all). I think the previous versions included too much primary analysis based on a stringing together of statements in his 1990's work. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kenneth_Zucker&oldid=1209189698"