Talk:Conversion therapy/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Is the current lede supportable?

The lede currently reads as follows.

Conversion therapy (also known as reparative therapy) is any treatment that aims to change sexual orientation (homosexual to heterosexual).

Now I will begin to review the sources referenced in this article, in numerical order. SocraticOath (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

1a)http://drdoughaldeman.com/doc/Pseudo-Science.pdf 'As a result of a high-profile advertising campaign promoting treatments for unwanted homosexual orientation, the term “reparative therapy” has become widespread....the more accurate term for therapeutic efforts to change homosexual orientation is sexual orientation conversion therapy, or simply, conversion therapy.'

1a_comment) This is to show that "reparative therapy" can be classified as "conversion therapy". It does not do the reverse and make the terms out to be synonyms (which is what "also known as" would mean).

1b)http://drdoughaldeman.com/doc/Pseudo-Science.pdf 'This author’s fifteen years of clinical experience with gay men who have gone through some form of conversion therapy suggests a wide variability in the way people are affected.... Some—but not all—conversion therapy clients are harmed. In particular, those who have undergone treatments such as electric shock or drugs inducing vomiting while homoerotic material is presented are likely to have been harmed the most.... In recent years, however, refugees from such cruel therapies have become less common in this author’s practice as these treatments have fallen into disfavor.'

1b_comment) The author uses the phrase "some form of conversion therapy" to indicate that there is a wide range of practices under the category. He does not imply that the "cruel" aversive methods are going on now, or that "reparative therapists" do them. This does not support the thought that the words are synonyms. SocraticOath (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

2) http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2002-04977-010 'Reparative therapy has become a generic term for any process that purports to facilitate a shift from homosexual orientation to heterosexual orientation. The author shares his own process as a survivor and former practitioner of reparative therapy. The religious mind-set and presuppositions that support reparative therapy are explored. The history of the grass roots ex-gay movement and the political ramifications associated with claims of healing are exposed. The author concludes that the pseudo-scientific claims of reparative therapy are suspect and warns of the risks and potential harm associated with these experimental therapies.'

2_comments) As of the writing of this article, reparative therapy had transitioned into the name for "any process that ..." The author does not say that reparative therapy involves aversive therapy like the kind he was treated with himself as a student at Bethel College by the "Christian counselor" (see http://thewildreed.blogspot.com/2008/03/debunking-narth-part-ii.html), though he would have certainly brought it up if it had. Thus this article says that "reparative" describes any process currently. But it does not say that "reparative describes any process in the past". Thus it doesn't place "aversion therapy" in the category "reparative therapy". SocraticOath (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

3) http://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/covering

3_comments) The word "reparative" does not seem to appear in this. SocraticOath (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

4) I can't access this. SocraticOath (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

5) http://web.archive.org/web/20110407082738/http://www.psych.org/Departments/EDU/Library/APAOfficialDocumentsandRelated/PositionStatements/200001.aspx 'The potential risks of reparative therapy are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient.'

5_comments) This statement uses "reparative" interchangeably with "conversion". But it does not allow for "reparative" or "conversion" to include any kind of aversion therapy. If it did, this would be mentioned as a reason they thought that the therapy was harmful. SocraticOath (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

6) http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/just-the-facts.pdf 'The terms reparative therapy and sexual orientation conversion therapy refer to counseling and psychotherapy aimed at eliminating or suppressing homosexuality.'

6_comments) This is very clear. The terms do not apply to aversive therapy in this article, and there is no mention of any of the aversive methods in the text. SocraticOath (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

7_comments) http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf See Appendix B for a list of the studies used in this report. The report separates aversive treatment (and its relatives) from "conversion therapy". Apparently, anything "reparative" has been classified as "conversion", but nothing aversive is classified as "conversion". Shidlo & Schroeder, 2002 might seem to be an example of the types mixed together, but this was a "Qualitative retrospective case study" rather than one study by one doctor or researcher. Nothing here says that the aversive treatments happened after McConaghy, Armstrong, & Blaszczynski, 1981. SocraticOath (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

8)http://www.psychotherapy.org.uk/UKCP_Documents/policy/MoU-conversiontherapy.pdf '‘Conversion therapy’ is the umbrella term for a type of talking therapy or activity which attempts to change sexual orientation or reduce attraction to others of the same sex. It is also sometimes called ‘reparative’ or ‘gay cure’ therapy.'

8_comments) The word "reparative" only appears marginally in this article. The note I copied above does not specify when "reparative" is used, or whether the word is to be taken as the umbrella term or the term for some sub-category of the overall category. This is not a definition of reparative therapy and is not sufficient for making the two words out to be synonyms. SocraticOath (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

9) http://www.gmc-uk.org/news/26043.asp

9_comments) The word "reparative" does not appear in this source. SocraticOath (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

10) http://www.professionalstandards.org.uk/footer-pages/news-and-media/latest-news/news-article?id=db1f5a9e-2ce2-6f4b-9ceb-ff0000b2236b

10_comments) The word "reparative" does not appear in this source. SocraticOath (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment "This is to show that "reparative therapy" can be classified as "conversion therapy". It does not do the reverse and make the terms out to be synonyms" the Abstract of this paper states "Conversion therapy, also known as reparative or reorientation therapy" - they are synonyms. Aversion used here "Those who have gone through “reparative” therapy and have been

involved in “ex-gay” ministries speak of the medically unsound methods employed by these therapists and organizations, such as behavioral therapy, electrical shock therapy, chemical aversive therapy, drug and hormone therapy, surgery, and psychotherapy.40" and here "religious faith healing, aversive behavioral conditioning and even electroshock therapy" -- Aronzak (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• also Time "aversion therapy, during which pictures of men touching men would be accompanied by the application of heat or ice. “It was pretty much mental torture,” Brinton says. “To this day, I still have light pain when I shake hands with another male.”

More than a decade after leading medical organizations abandoned the idea that homosexuality was something that could be cured or corrected, the concept of conversion therapy remains a particularly charged issue for LGBT advocates. Two states outlaw the practice and legislation is pending in another. But not all the momentum is against reparative therapy." -- Aronzak (talk) 20:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to recuse myself from the rest of the discussion unless my opinion is asked directly because (1) I've already made my position as an editor responding to multiple RFCs clear, and (2) I feel I'm in danger of this becoming a personal, rather than an editorial, discussion for me. I'm still going to WP:AGF, but I'm also going to point out that it may seem that the edits in question, promoted by a single editor, are being done to make "reparative therapy" look like it's less harmful, or not at all harmful. This position, if it's the one being promoted, is very solidly against the medical evidence and the scientific consensus: "reparative therapy" done even with the best intentions does cause an enormous amount of psychological and social damage to a person, and is widely considered to be incredibly harmful in and of itself, even when removed from the physically harmful aspects of some flavors of conversion therapy. Arathald (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

User:SocraticOath If you intend to keep pursuing this line, I highly suggest that you post on The dispute resolution noticeboard WP:DRR/DRN. I took another look though the talk page history, and you've managed to get a total of two uninvolved editors to comment on the topic through your RFC (in part because it wasn't a particularly well-put-together RFC). Based on your previous comments, I'm even more convinced that you have a specific view you're trying to promote in the face of scientific consensus, but either way, more editors' eyes are clearly needed, especially since it's looking as if it's no longer appropriate for me to continue this discussion with you. Arathald (talk) 23:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this has seemed like a personal dispute with any person who has interacted with me in this format. I recognize that promoting a specific view is a way of requesting criticism from other editors and I hope that my work here can be taken as, "I don't get it... doesn't it say this other thing?" ...rather than "[personal affront] so do it my way!!!" SocraticOath (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's walk through the articles you brought up. The article here, from the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, makes "reparative" a synonym to "conversion", but this is only in the context of counseling. The paper describes practitioners as "therapists", "family therapists", and "counselors" interchangeably; the article doesn't mention electroshock methods or aversion. Clearly in this context "Conversion therapy" is counseling only.

The paper here, Hicks 1999 from the American University Law Review, is all about reparative therapy. She puts the word in quotes to indicate her disagreement with the word's ideological implication. The abuses described are really serious, and they stem from the well-publicized story of Lyn Duff at Rivendell of Utah. This is the best example of the not-my point, that "reparative" is used as a generic term. From the article:

'For purposes of this Comment, the form of “reparative” therapy under examination is that type imposed by parents on their minor children in an attempt to change the child’s perceived sexual orientation. To avoid any legal ambiguity that may be presented when adults consent to undergo this therapy, this Comment focuses on children, specifically those subjected to “reparative” therapy against their will.'

and see this as well:

'The word “reparative” will remain in quotation marks throughout this Comment to make the point that it incorrectly presupposes that a gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender identity is one that needs to be repaired. similarly, the word “ex-gay” will remain in quotes because whether someone can actually be converted to heterosexuality is highly debatable given the low success rate discussed below.'

So this is the definition that Hicks gives for "reparative", as a synonym for "conversion", inclusive of aversion therapy, surgery, kidnapping of children into institutions, and all other actions taken to this end in addition to counseling. Now we can see that the word is used this way in a paper cited by 69 papers, according to Google Scholar, whereas the APA Task Force Report by Glassgold et al is only cited by 5.

First of all, thanks everybody for helping me find facts about terminology. I believe this settles the question of whether it's a synonym. Still, the words are given different treatment in the literature. I'm going to change my recommendation to the following: Wikipedia should adopt Hicks' convention of putting "reparative" in quotes to demonstrate this disagreement with the premise from Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Does this sound like a sensible change? SocraticOath (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@SocraticOath: I didn't mean to imply that you were making personal attacks. Rather, I need to be very careful that I don't inject a personal bias into this discussion. Having more eyes on this would help, since there seem to be at most 4 of us here, and I'm going to intentionally limit my involvement. Arathald (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Quotes for "Reparative"

I propose the following revision to the lede.

Currently: Conversion therapy (also known as reparative therapy) is any treatment that aims to change sexual orientation (homosexual to heterosexual).

Proposed: Conversion therapy (also known as "reparative" therapy) is any treatment that aims to change sexual orientation (homosexual to heterosexual).

Is there any issue with this change? SocraticOath (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@SocraticOath: Note - Refactored your talk addition by moving the subsection here.

See WP:SCAREQUOTES - putting a word in scare quotes turns the sentence into Loaded language. Do you have any reliable source using scare quotes? What does your change achieve? You seem to be the only editor who proposes changes to the first sentence that would change its meaning or tone. -- Aronzak (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@Aronzak, I am proposing the scare quotes based on the 1999 Hicks article which provides the literature's best link between reparative therapy and aversion therapy. This article states explicitly that the scare quotes are there for a reason which is discussed above. SocraticOath (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I think I can safely comment on this point. I see what you're trying to do, and, in any editorial context, I think this would be a good way of handling it. Wikipedia, however, is explicitly meant to exclude editorializing, and it's very hard to make a case for scare quotes even if they're in a reliable source. Just because a source uses loaded language doesn't make it appropriate for inclusion in an article - the most we can do with that is comment on the source's usage, rather than adopt it (and that comment would probably be too distracting in the lede itself). Edited to add: The section on Reparative Therapy might be an okay place to add that kind of note - again, mentioning the source's use of the term, rather than adopting it. Arathald (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV these types of things can be added in exact quotes that state the source of the quote - as happens in the second paragraph " American Psychiatric Association opposes "any psychiatric treatment, such as 'reparative' or conversion therapy" - using single quotes around reparative as it appears in the source, with attribution for who said it. -- Aronzak (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I am opposed to this change. Adding scare quotes around "reparative" would only have the effect of confusing readers. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Different word for reparative as synonym: "Also called" instead of "Also known as"

I propose this revision to the current lede:

Currently: Conversion therapy (also known as reparative therapy) is any treatment that aims to change sexual orientation (homosexual to heterosexual).

Proposed: Conversion therapy (also called reparative therapy) is any treatment that aims to change sexual orientation (homosexual to heterosexual). SocraticOath (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment WP:ALLEGED specifically suggests "called" as an alternative for "so-called". It doesn't make any recommendations about "known as", but I do think it's at least more concise and perhaps, arguably, every-so-slightly less weaseley (weasley?), in that it doesn't purport to make any kind of judgment as to the accuracy of the term. That said, I don't see "known as" as particularly problematic either. In my opinion, this is minor enough that the change could just be done, except that the lede has already been the subject of considerable discussion, so that wouldn't necessarily be appropriate. Can someone else comment on this? Arathald (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment I am not sure that it makes the least difference whether the lead says "also known as" or "also called". I would not revert such a change if it was made. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Recent addition

Arzonak added the following: "The American Medical Association's Journal of Ethics includes the following scenario: a pediatrician learns that his 12 year old patient has revealed a crush on another boy to his parents, who plan on taking him to a conversion therapy camp. His mother says “We’re a religious family" and "We want to save him from this sinful lifestyle... we are ready to make him work hard at this." The authors argue that the 12 year old does not yet have the capacity for informed consent, and that the clinician's duty to avoid harm and put the best interests of his patient first requires him to advise "against the ineffective and potentially harmful intervention that the parents favor." They emphasize "culturally competent care and religious sensitivity do not imply that the clinician fails to be a strong advocate for his patient whose well-being is his first responsibility." They argue the doctor should confidentially provide "reassurance and support" to the boy, advising him about youth mental health services, as well as "sensitively educating the parents" about "the importance of parental acceptance of their children’s sexuality". The authors argue that the boy's "apparent comfort in revealing his crush to his parents reflects a generational shift in views of sexual orientation" due in part to increasing acceptance of LGBT rights and same-sex marriage."

Per WP:UNDUE, I believe that is simply too much unnecessary detail. The key point here seems to be that someone is arguing that children cannot give informed consent to conversion therapy. It ought to be possible to summarize that point in a sentence or two; detailed scenarios about an imaginary twelve-year old are not needed here. I am not in a position to produce a shortened version of that information myself as I have no access to the sources used. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a more condensed version that focuses on the ethical considerations for the clinician (852 characters, less than the 892 characters on the American Counseling Association paragraph above it in the article):

Extended content

An article in the American Medical Association's Journal of Ethics includes the following scenario: a paediatrician who believes conversion therapy is harmful to teenagers learns that the mother of a 12 year old patient intends to take him to a conversion therapy camp for religious reasons, without the boy's informed consent. The authors argue that the clinician must strike a delicate balance between culturally sensitive treatment of the mother, and medical ethics that put the interests of the patient first - recommending counselling the mother against an "ineffective and potentially harmful intervention" and confidentially counselling the boy. They conclude "culturally competent care and religious sensitivity do not imply that the clinician fails to be a strong advocate for his patient whose well-being is his first responsibility."

In medical ethics, there is sometimes a disagreement between autonomy and beneficence/non-maleficence for a patient capable of giving informed consent. This ethical scenario is different - the balance is not against autonomy of the patient, but the morals, values, beliefs and culture of the parent (Cultural competence in health care) - and this balance between religious beliefs and the interests of the patient underpins the arguments about the legality of interventions for patients under 18.

Note, an article in the Yale Law Journal argues that a ban on conversion therapy for under 18s "risks fostering political backlash by playing into a persistent and politically powerful narrative that frames LGB rights in opposition to “parental rights.”"

Extended content
Because SB 1172 operates as a direct ban on parents’ ability to seek SOCE therapy for their children, it has already been criticized for undermining a parent’s right to control his child’s upbringing. Immediately after the legislation was passed, conservative activists began accusing the California legislature of privileging gay rights over “parental rights.”

This source addresses the perceived conflict between parental prerogatives, and the patient's interests - which is a common feature of the debate.

This is not purely that "someone is arguing that children cannot give informed consent to conversion therapy" - this is about how doctors approach patients requesting information on how to deal with gay children - and the appropriateness of doctors to provide factual information that contradicts claims made on anti-gay websites, and potentially offends parents. The source states

A parallel may be drawn with vaccine-hesitant parents: recent evidence shows that well-intentioned efforts to convince them to vaccinate their children often have counterproductive effects

- this is an important issue where emerging evidence is suggesting that some doctors have offended parents by too quickly brushing off their concerns. Patients have access to misinformation on the internet (see Cyberchondria) and doctors may have difficulty when "culture wars" issues are involved. -- Aronzak (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator:

refs

I have access to the sources and performed a shortening (essentially removing the scenario details). Seems not to have gone down well. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. As I said, it's necessary only to get an author's main point across; there's no reason to give all the details of their arguments. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• Reply: I may not have explained - the first author is Philip Zachariah, who is on the American Academy of Pediatrics Provisional Section on Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Health and Wellness - and the second author is the current chair of the AMA Advisory Committee on LGBT Issues.

The AAP gave Zachariah a grant to study "awareness among pediatricians about resources available for LGBTQ adolescents" (AAP newsletter - last page) his project found "a low level of awareness among pediatricians about resources available for LGBTQ adolescents" - despite those resources being mentioned in the 2009 APA report (eg PFLAG).

The 2009 APA task force report recommends "acceptance and support" for LGBTQ adolescents - this is cited by a 2011 Institute of Medicine book which states on page 146 "The task force concluded that evidence is lacking for the effectiveness of efforts to change sexual orientation and that conversion therapy may cause harm to LGBT individuals by increasing internalized stigma, distress, and depression (American Psychological Association, 2009). Instead, the task force expressed support for the use of affirmative, culturally competent therapy that helps those facing distress related to their sexual orientation cope with social and internalized stigma and strengthen their social support networks"

The IOM book is cited by the Committee on Adolescence from the American Association of Pediatrics in their journal article in the official AAP journal Pediatrics which states "Referral for “conversion” or “reparative therapy” is never indicated; therapy is not effective and may be harmful to LGBTQ individuals by increasing internalized stigma, distress, and depression"

This is then referenced by the source in question, which cites Pediatrics (the AAP's official publication) to argue that best practice for pediatricians is LGBT inclusive/affirming care - and that the medical ethics of AMA doctors require them to practice care for LGBTQ youth as outlined in Pediatrics (which is among the 18 citations in the paper, which you should read) - while considering the risk of offending the parents because of their religious beliefs.

I propose adding these two paragraphs:

A 2013 article by the Committee on Adolescence of the American Association of Pediatrics stated "Referral for “conversion” or “reparative therapy” is never indicated; therapy is not effective and may be harmful to LGBTQ individuals by increasing internalized stigma, distress, and depression."

An article in the American Medical Association's Journal of Ethics argues that if a pediatrician learns that parents of a 12 year old patient seek conversion therapy, the pediatrician can advise against "the ineffective and potentially harmful intervention" while being culturally sensitive of their religious objections to homosexuality. The authors argue that the doctor's medical ethics means they should place the interests of the patient above the cultural sensitivities of the parents, and confidentially counsel the patient about resources for LGBT youth facing bullying, and advise the parents about resources for parents of LGBT children.

The second paragraph here is only two sentences and 648 characters, which I don't think is excessive. @FreeKnowledgeCreator: have you read the source? Would you object to the paragraphs above being added? -- Aronzak (talk) 04:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I haven't read it. I have made some effort to follow the literature on this subject, but I can't and don't read everything. I have no objection to the proposed addition in the above form. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment The shortened version makes the situation described sound less hypothetical. If you remove the specific age (which is mostly irrelevant - "minor" or "adolescent" is likely sufficient), it may do a better job of illustrating the source's point concisely without misrepresenting it. Arathald (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Transsexualism

Why there is there no discussion of transsexualism as a form of conversion therapy? Many homosexual men do it under the premise they can become heterosexual women. And they all believe they are converting to the opposite sex regardless of sexuality. In some places like Iran they even force 1/2 of all homosexual couples to become transsexual.

If you can find a reliable source that describes transsexualism as a form of conversion therapy, then by all means add this information to the article. I very much doubt that any such source exists, however. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Transgender conversion therapy

This has come up previously in the archives, but it may be past due for the article to include therapies to change gender identity. Ontario now bans conversion therapy used on trans youth and President Obama has called for an end to conversion therapies for transgender youth as well (this last fact is already mentioned in the article, with no comment for the difference in definitions for conversion therapy.) Since a major portion of this article covers the legal aspect of conversion therapy and the links provided are from good sources, it is worth mentioning in the article that conversion therapy can be meant to include therapies to change someone's gender identity. On the the medical side of things though there are also articles by developmental psychologist Dr. Diane Ehrensaft and bioethecist Alice Dreger referencing conversion therapy for transgender youth. Rab V (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

It's probably true that some sources identify attempts to alter the development of transgender people as conversion therapy. It's important, however, that the article be based on the highest-quality sources possible. I believe that it would be necessary to find a statement from an official mental-health organization such as the American Psychiatric Association. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 10:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you point to a wikipedia guideline supporting that this change would need to be backed up by an organization such as the APA? Looking over guidelines for reliable sources in this situation it seems like any of the links I shared would fit the criteria. In a case like this it is simply up to the editors of the article to point out how different sources disagree. Anyway, please let me know if such a guideline exists since it's not up to us to make these rules. There are statements though by the American College of Physicians, American Psychoanalytic Association and the National Association of Social Workers, but I'd still like to have a clarification on wikipedia's rules in this situation. Rab V (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think it's simply common sense. Can you think of a good reason why the article's definition of conversion therapy should not be based on statements by mental health organizations such as the APA? With all respect to Alice Dreger, her commentary doesn't carry the same degree of reliability as a statement from the APA. WP:RS states that, "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." I've looked through the three sources you provided; it's only the third, the statement from the National Association of Social Workers, that really comes close to supporting your position. What it says, however, is "The term sexual orientation change efforts (or SOCE) include any practice seeking to change a person’s sexual orientation, including, but not limited to, efforts to change behaviors, gender identity, or gender expressions, or to reduce or eliminate sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward a person of the same gender." You will note that it refers to Sexual orientation change efforts rather than conversion therapy. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

It'd be easier to back up your contention by pointing to specific guidelines than something fuzzy like common sense. I think it can further understanding of the topic if it mentions that some people use conversion therapy to refer to attempts to change gender identity if sources are verifiable and have enough weight. A statement from president Obama would fit that criteria, especially since a large portion of this article is about legal opinions as opposed to medical. This quote is mentioned in the article and can lead to some confusion for the reader as the article then refers to conversion therapy for gender identity while the articles definition earlier precludes such a thing. It seems cleaner to mention some sources use somewhat different definitions here of conversion therapy. This goes along with the point in the guidelines for verifiability that "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view."Anyway, here is a quote from that NASW statement that supports my position. "There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether or not SOCE or conversion therapy can modify or change sexual orientation or gender identity or expression." This statement from APsyA more explictly supports my position and is cosigned by 13 other medical and psychiatric organizations. Note the statement also points out in the beginning that SOCE is also referred to as conversion therapy, to avoid confusion. This statement from APsyA also makes clear that their position statement I posted earlier applies to conversion therapy. Rab V (talk) 01:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

President Obama stating that "some people use conversion therapy to refer to attempts to change gender identity" would not be an appropriate source for the definition of conversion therapy. Flyer22 (talk) 07:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Even if not for citations posted showing conversion therapy is a term used for gender identity conversion efforts occasionally on the medical side, this article covers the legal and political side of conversion therapy as well. Since the statement from the president is already in the article, and since there exists laws like in Ontario that ban conversion therapy aimed at gender identity, I think it'd be more consistent to mention there is more than one definition used for conversion therapy and be clear about what sources go by which definition. The other definition is already being used in the article, making the article inconsistent as is. Rab V (talk) 09:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Ref

Oct 2015 US gov review states the same as much of this article [1]. May be used for updating. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I noticed a slight but meaningful difference in the two definitions given for conversion therapy in the report... in Appendix A it's a list of x, y, or z qualities that makes it conversion therapy, but in the endnotes it's x, y, and z. This wouldn't be important except that in the "and" form of the list, it's not conversion therapy if it's not toward stereotypical patterns.... but in the "or" form of the list it can still be conversion therapy if it's from, let's say, homosexual to heterosexual through a medical change in gender identity. 146.23.3.250 (talk) 20:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Is Intervarsity Press a reliable source?

One editor has claimed that Intervarsity Press is a "low-quality source."

The following Wikipedia articles have citations to Intervarsity Press:

• Reconciliation (theology)
• Cane Ridge Revival
• New Friars
• Canons of Dort
• Primeval history
• Bibliography of justification (theology)

For the sake of consistency, please don't remove scholarly studies from this page just because they were published by IVP. 164.58.98.2 (talk) 22:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

It's irrelevant what other articles do or do not use books published by Intervarsity Press as a source. I stand by the reason I gave for removing that content. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@FreeKnowledgeCreator: And what, pray tell, is that reason? I did not see any reason you gave as to why IVP is a low-quality source, when other pages cite IVP sources as reliable. 164.58.98.2 (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Intervarsity Press is not a "low-quality source", that's a strange thing to say. It is however a *religious* publisher, and not a peer-reviewed science publication. Hence, it is not a reliable source when it comes to scientific claims. The paper claims to have been presented at a symposium at the APA Convention in 2009 which would lend it credibility. However, APA's own programs about that Convention does not mention any "Sexual Orientation and Faith Tradition Symposium", and searching for that symposium yields only results that refer to this paper. I suspect that this paper may have been presented at a non-APA endorsed event in conjunction with the 2009 APA convention, in order to add a false credibility to the paper.

We have to conclude from this that this paper is not a reliable source on the topic, and can't be used in this article. --OpenFuture (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

In the Wikipedia page on Conversion therapy, under the subsection: Reparative Therapy, it states:

“Nicolosi’s intervention plans involve conditioning a man to a traditional masculine gender role. He should "(1) participate in sports activities, (2) avoid activities considered of interest to homosexuals, such [as] art museums, opera, symphonies, (3) avoid women unless it is for romantic contact, (4) increase time spent with heterosexual men in order to learn to mimic heterosexual male ways of walking, talking, and interacting with other heterosexual men, (5) Attend church and join a men's church group, (6) attend reparative therapy group to discuss progress, or slips back into homosexuality, (7) become more assertive with women through flirting and dating, (8) begin heterosexual dating, (9) engage in heterosexual intercourse, (10) enter into heterosexual marriage, and (11) father children".(82).

(82) Bright, 2004, pp. 471-481. Bright, Chuck, (December 2004) “Deconstructing Reparative Therapy: An Examination of the Processes Involved When Attempting to Change Sexual Orientation,” Clinical Social Work Journal, 32, (4) 471-481,

The Bright reference is incorrect. It is not 2004 but 2001.

The correct reference is: Bright, Chuck, L.C.S.W. (2001). Deconstructing Reparative therapy: An Examination of the Processes involved when attempting to change sexual Orientation, Clinical Social Work, Journal, December 2004 vol. 32, Issue 4, pp 471-481.

In his article, Bright repeats Nicolosi’s 11 interventions and attributes them to Haldeman’s article: Haldeman, (2001). Therapeutic antidotes: Helping gay and bisexual me recover from conversion therapies. In A. Shidlo, M. Schroeder, and J Drescher, Sexual conversion therapy: Ethical, clinical, and research perspectives. New York, NY: Haworth Press.

When we look at Haldeman (2001) we see that there is no such article title by Haldeman in that book. Rather, the Haldeman article is entitled: Sexual Conversion Therapy: Ethical, Clinical and Research Perspectives.” That article contains no such pages as Bright references. Further, there is no such quote. In fact, Haldeman never mentions Nicolosi at all and neither does the Haldeman article reference Nicolosi.

It is apparent that this attribution is incorrect and deserves to be removed.

DavidCPruden (talk) 19:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to make any necessary changes. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Having looked more carefully, I find DavidCPruden's comment confusing. Shidlo, Schroeder, and Drescher's book Sexual conversion therapy does contain a chapter by Haldeman entitled "Therapeutic antidotes: Helping gay and bisexual men recover from conversion therapies". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Bisexuality in the lead

IP 64.184.141.9 added a mention of conversion therapy being used to treat bisexuals to the lead. I removed this, but to be clear about it, I did that only because there is no mention of bisexuals in the source the lead currently uses for its definition of conversion therapy, which is an article by Douglas Haldeman. I agree in principle that it would be a good idea to mention bisexuals in the lead, but the proper way to do this is not to add uncited material (or material that actually contradicts the source used), but to employ a different source, using a different definition of conversion therapy (one that does mention bisexuals). I will post more about this shortly. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

64.184.141.9, if you want the lead to specifically mention bisexuals, then you could alter the definition of conversion therapy to that used by The National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce, now known as the National LGBTQ Task Force: "Psychological treatment and/or spiritual counseling designed to change a person's sexual orientation from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual." A source for that should not be difficult to find; I'll look it up. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Lead

Although it is not an issue of vast importance, Flyer22, I would not have added links in exactly the way you did here. Linking "sexual orientation" is helpful, but linking "homosexual", "bisexual", and "heterosexual" maybe not so much. Rather than linking "homosexual", which redirects to homosexuality, I would have preferred to link the first instance of the word "homosexuality" - and I'd apply the same principle to "bisexual" and "heterosexual". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Because it is extremely relevant to link those articles in the case of this article, none of those links are a WP:OVERLINK violation. If I were to start a WP:RfC on this, I'm certain that consensus would be for linking all of those terms. I also don't see what issue you have with linking to "homosexual", "bisexual", and "heterosexual" as opposed to "homosexuality", "bisexuality", and "heterosexuality." There is no harm in linking those terms without the "ality" aspect, and WP:NOTBROKEN applies in the case of those redirects; we usually are not supposed to "fix" redirects. Articles should also be linked at first occurrence; linking to homosexuality later on, as you did here, does not make sense to me.

On a side note: WP:Pinging my old username does not work. But since this article is on my WP:Watchlist, I do not need to be pinged to it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, the link you added is within a quote; per MOS:QUOTE (the linking section of it), we should usually avoid links within quotes. That stated, I see no harm with the link being there; I simply see it as unnecessary and as unnecessarily late. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I doubt that anyone able to read the article at all would not have a basic understanding of what "homosexual", "bisexual" and "heterosexual" mean. "Sexual orientation", being a somewhat more technical term, is a more likely candidate for linking, and if anyone is in doubt as to what "homosexual", etc, mean then sexual orientation covers that ground. Revert me if you are at all inclined - I wouldn't revert back, as this isn't a issue of huge importance - but I didn't link as I did without reason. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

When it comes to linking to articles, we link to a lot of things that readers have a basic understanding of. WP:OVERLINK is about terms that are especially relevant and not getting carried away with linking. Adding links are more so about what is beneficial to our readers. It is beneficial to our readers to get a better understanding of what homosexuality and bisexuality are; even the Heterosexuality article can be beneficial to our readers. The Sexual orientation article does not cover those terms in as much depth; otherwise, we wouldn't need the individual articles. As for re-adding the links, I might do so later. Either way, I don't like "homosexuality" being linked where you've linked it. First occurrence links are usually better, unless the first occurrence is a quote and one is strictly following MOS:QUOTE. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:57, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Leaving these essentially minor matters to one side, do you have any comment on the lead, and the article, in general? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Not at the moment. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Transsexualism

One of the main forms of gay conversion therapy all around the world is transsexual surgeries. It is sometimes done under pressure for instance in Iran the country with the second highest number of transsexuals in the world and homosexuality outlawed http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29832690 and of course scientific consensus in the psychiatric community is that early onset cases of gender dysphoria are "almost always" homosexual and that it is the reason for the majority of transsexuals in the west as well. The other main triggering factor is of course transvestism (DSM Edition V). This obviously needs to be in the article. I suspect the voluntarily transsexuals will not get in due to politics but surely the people in Iran pressured into it should. 97.91.188.153 (talk) 13:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Dispute over lead

Somedifferentstuff, please be aware that if you want to make changes to the lead, you need to persuade other editors that they are an improvement. If you cannot get agreement for your change, the article will remain as it was before your edits. I am not convinced that the change you made here, and repeated here, after I reverted you, is an improvement in any way. If you believe it is an improvement, you need to give a detailed explanation of why you consider it an improvement. Simply saying "It is an improvement; nevertheless", is not good enough. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Transgender conversion therapy in light of the CAMH GIC closure

I should note that there is a wealth of information in the report and appendices of the review of the CAMH GIC that led to its closure. Of note is the fact that even research from CAMH found that gender conversion therapy against children was ineffective, even as the head of the GIC there, Kenneth Zucker, was engaging in it. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I notice the article mentions Leelah Alcorn, who had to undergo conversion therapy for being transgender, but the article does not at any point mention the subject of transgender conversion therapy outside the use of Alcorn as an argument against conversion therapy. I don't think the case of Leelah Alcorn says anything about the subject of gay/bi conversion therapy, and I think the article would be much richer if it included discussion of transgender conversion therapy. This way, the use of Leelah Alcorn would also be more valid and relevant. Jan sewi (talk) 09:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Noting that a considerable number of the article's sources (for example, the ones about Leelah Alcorn) already include transgender people in their discussions of conversion therapy, and owing to the lack of comment from anyone else on this subject, I have attempted to change the language of the article to make it more congruent with the article's sources. More sources on transgender people need to be added and sexual orientation should probably be further de-emphasized, especially in the statements whose sources mention transgender people. Alternatively, the article could eliminate all sources that mention transgender people, eliminate mention of Leelah Alcorn and Leelah's Law, and move these things to a new article on trans conversion therapy. Jan sewi (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

(If you read the article on her you'll see that Alcorn received conversion therapy in lieu of hormone therapy, which means it was specifically for being trans. She also seems to have been exclusively attracted to men, which would make her straight, though obviously not in the eyes of conversion therapists.) Jan sewi (talk) 10:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The change you are making fundamentally alters the definition of conversion therapy, and I am going to revert it. The article has several times previously been modified in this fashion, and it has in the end been reverted back to previous versions on each of these occasions. Please do not repeat the change until or unless there is consensus on the talk page that it is appropriate. You may be able to find some sources that identify attempts to change someone's gender identity as conversion therapy, but to my knowledge that is not how high quality sources, such as official statements from scientific and medical organizations, define the topic. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Transgender conversion therapy has played an enormous role in the movement to get conversion therapy banned; it was the catalyst for the first ban. I have hence gone and corrected some claims that cities have banned your definition of "conversion therapy," since they actually apparently banned something else. Jan sewi (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Beyond that I think that the article cannot have it both ways: if it's not going to say that transgender conversion therapy is a form of conversion therapy, then it shouldn't cite articles that mention transgender conversion therapy (a considerable number of its current sources). This is not only intellectually dishonest but also a form of erasure (and yes, both intellectual dishonesty and erasure can happen without bad faith). Jan sewi (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Conversion therapy. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910045820/http://www.psych.org/Departments/EDU/Library/APAOfficialDocumentsandRelated/PositionStatements/200001a.aspx to http://www.psych.org/Departments/EDU/Library/APAOfficialDocumentsandRelated/PositionStatements/200001a.aspx
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.professionalstandards.org.uk/footer-pages/news-and-media/latest-news/news-article?id=db1f5a9e-2ce2-6f4b-9ceb-ff0000b2236b
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/health/dr-robert-l-spitzer-noted-psychiatrist-apologizes-for-study-on-gay-cure.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150115011537/http://www.dcregs.dc.gov/Gateway/NoticeHome.aspx?noticeid=5259066 to http://www.dcregs.dc.gov/Gateway/NoticeHome.aspx?noticeid=5259066
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910045820/http://www.psych.org/Departments/EDU/Library/APAOfficialDocumentsandRelated/PositionStatements/200001a.aspx to http://www.psych.org/Departments/EDU/Library/APAOfficialDocumentsandRelated/PositionStatements/200001a.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 09:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Nicolosi and reparative therapy

Since KiwiTruthBeliever has recently removed some material relating to Joseph Nicolosi and reparative therapy, giving as a reason comments made by Nicolosi himself on an external website (see http://www.josephnicolosi.com/collection/wiki-and-me-my-battle-with-wikipedia), I think it would be helpful to note some of what Nicolosi himself states. Here is a selection:

"In the Wikipedia page on “Conversion Therapy,” under the subsection: Reparative Therapy, it states:

“Nicolosi’s intervention plans involve conditioning a man to a traditional masculine gender role.

He should—

(1) participate in sports activities,

(2) avoid activities considered of interest to homosexuals, such [as] art museums, opera, symphonies,

(3) avoid women unless it is for romantic contact,

(4) increase time spent with heterosexual men in order to learn to mimic heterosexual male ways of walking, talking, and interacting with other heterosexual men,

(5) Attend church and join a men's church group,

(6) attend reparative therapy group to discuss progress, or slips back into homosexuality,

(7) become more assertive with women through flirting and dating,

(8) begin heterosexual dating,

(9) engage in heterosexual intercourse,

(10) enter into heterosexual marriage, and

(11) father children" (footnote #82).

Wikipedia Footnote #82: Bright, Chuck, (December 2004) “Deconstructing Reparative Therapy: An Examination of the Processes Involved When Attempting to Change Sexual Orientation,” Clinical Social Work Journal, 32, (4) 471-481,

(Note: The Bright reference is incorrect. It is not 2004 but 2001. The correct reference is: Bright, Chuck, L.C.S.W. (2001) “Deconstructing Reparative therapy: An Examination of the processes involved when attempting to change sexual Orientation,” Clinical Social Work Journal, December 2004 vol. 32, Issue 4, pp. 471-481.)

The description of my work is wrong— but even beyond the false content, we see that there is no traceable source for the false content.

In the Clinical Social Work article, Bright does indeed describe the 11 interventions as wrongly stated in Wikipedia, but he attributes them to someone else— Haldeman, (2001). Haldeman’s article is entitled “Therapeutic antidotes: Helping gay and bisexual men recover from conversion therapies,” referenced as being in A. Shidlo, M. Schroeder, and J. Drescher, the book “Sexual conversion therapy: Ethical, clinical, and research perspectives,” New York, NY: Haworth Press.

When we look at Haldeman (2001) we see that there is no such article in that book, by that title written by Haldeman. Rather, the Haldeman article is entitled: “Sexual Conversion Therapy: Ethical, Clinical and Research Perspectives.” That article contains no such pages as Bright references. Further, there is no such quote. In fact, Haldeman never mentions Nicolosi at all and neither does the Haldeman article reference Nicolosi.

Even if the “11 Interventions” were accurate descriptions of my therapy, it is apparent that the Wikipedia source attribution is incorrect and deserves to be removed. You would assume that Wikipedia would want to correct the error, if accuracy were a concern. I will continue to battle Wikipedia to set the record straight."

I should note that I have not looked up the references myself, and cannot comment as to the accuracy or inaccuracy of Nicolosi's assertions. I would encourage editors to do the necessary research rather than respond in a knee-jerk fashion to this issue. Nicolosi could possibly be right in his claims, and if so the article does need correcting. If Nicolosi himself happens to read this, I would suggest to him only that however frustrated he may be over the way the article describes reparative therapy, it is not helpful or likely to improve anything to talk about waging a "battle" with Wikipedia. You might get better results through respectful engagement. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Doing some quick research on this supposed more-than-a-year battle: the web post by Nicolosi appears to have been added this month, as it isn't listed on the front page of his website as of October 1, but is by October 10, so we should be talking some activity over the past year (looking at his post, he says he's been "battling" for "almost a year now", so we'd expect to find any relevant edits sometime since October 2015.) The sole discussion in the past year of this page regarding Nicolosi appears in Talk:Conversion_therapy/Archive_21#Is_Intervarsity_Press_a_reliable_source.3F - ignore the top part of the discussion, which is a different topic; a new user started a new discussion without adding a header. The user posting did no other edits to the talk page or to this article; the account's only other contributions were some edits to NARTH's page. Checking the edit summaries for the past year, I don't see anything that was clearly trying to address this concern; certainly nothing that mentions Nicolosi. None of this is to suggest that the concerns raised may not be valid, but if folks representing Nicolosi are here, I encourage them to involve themselves in this talk page, and engage cooperatively. A "battle" has not occurred nor is one called for; a discussion might be useful. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Surely Nicolosi does not know how the Wikipedia contributor community functions, but I do. I also have a number of friends on both sides of the controversy; my gay friends acknowledge me as "gay-friendly" despite knowing the stance of the church I belong to.

Nicolosi is probably thinking he can "make" us correct our article, as if we were paid writers working for a managing editor, who in turn is responsible to a board of directors. That's not how it works here, but he can be forgiven for not knowing that. A specialist in one field may often be totally clueless in another field.

I see a number of problems with the article - none insurmountable. I have worked with other articles where there is a singularly unpopular point of view, which is not described accurately by its opponents. The Bell Curve comes to mind. Nearly every critic of that book misrepresents its contents: for example, one opponent (a famous author) asserted that there are four "assumptions" Murray and his co-author supposedly made, even though (1) the opponent cites no quotations to support his assertion and (2) Murray has repeatedly denied making those assumptions.

This doesn't bother me at all. I understand that there are strong feelings on the other side. The book touches on a huge elephant in the room, and the natural reaction is to start by blaming the people who dare to point at the elephant.

Like The Bell Curve, modern conversion therapy - the talk and prayer kind, not the misguided savagery of the pre-1980 era - has shown a certain amount of success. This goes directly against the narrative (or talking points) of partisans who who have declared that homosexuality is immutable (even it were bad) and also that it's not bad. This gives them two grounds on which to oppose any efforts to change it: don't change what isn't bad, and don't try to change what can't be changed.

There is tremendous political pressure not to study this, which is similar in type and degree to the pressure not to study

1. why so few women academics go into STEM fields - a Harvard president lost his job when he suggested they look into anything other than sex discrimination (like individual inclination or aptitude)
2. the role of intelligence in American life - especially, (a) "smart people do better" - and (2) we don't know why some races "seem" more or less smart

I am not suggesting we conduct original research here. Our policy specifically forbids this. What we can do, however, is to report neutrally on both sides of the controversy over conversion therapy. It has its supporters and its opponents. It has been labeled pseudoscience. There are sporadic reports of success of the modern, non-coercive techniques on volunteers (1980-2015).

There are also ways we can describe someone's work, when he claims that opponents have mischaracterized it. For example, instead of saying, "Y says Z" we take a step back and say, "X says that Y says Z."

Sorry for a long rambling comment, but there's a lot of background pertaining to why it's so hard to write clearly about this issue. --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Header change proposal

Currently, the heads reads " Conversion therapy is psychological treatment or spiritual counseling designed to change a person's sexual orientation from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual. Such treatments are controversial, ".

I would like to propose the following change to the header to:

Conversion therapy is an unsupported treatment or "spiritual" counseling designed to change a person's sexual orientation from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual. Such treatments are controversial

Due to the fact that this "therapy" is totally unsupported by the APA (American Psychological Association) nor is it supported anywhere, except as a Fringe belief. I believe this change more accurately reflects the fact that this is a fringe belief and is unsupported, so what does the consensus say?  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  12:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The article already explicitly states that Conversion therapy is controversial, a form of pseudoscience, and opposed by the APA. Putting spiritual into scare quotes is both bad style (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#How_not_to_apply_emphasis) and a way of expressing some kind of vague disapproval, presumably based on your own personal understanding of spirituality, which isn't appropriate to an encyclopedic article. PepperBeast (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I like "controversial" rather than "unsupported". Clearly the scientific and social mainstream are opposed:

1. it's not proven scientifically to work; thus, branded pseudoscience
2. it's terribly unpopular; a favorable mention will ruin a politician's career

But I'm not so concerned about the lead as much as the article body. Once everything in the body is covered well, the lead can be revised to reflect the actual contents to follow (to introduce it). --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not believe that the addition of either "controversial" or "unsupported" in the first sentence of the lead is necessary or helpful. The article explains these points well enough as it is. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Points of contention

The mainstream view is that conversion therapy (CT) is reprehensible - on a par with Christian attempts to convert Jews, I suppose (see Jews for Jesus). But the article should give all the main reasons opponents are against it, and at least some of the more significant reasons supporters are for it. Also, if there are any old forms of CT that modern supporters oppose - such as the use of aversion therapy (even on volunteers) or the subjection of non-volunteers to CT - then we ought to mention this.

I note that the article on reparative therapy (RT) no longer has any independent existence, so a substantial section on RT ought to be here. Perhaps it got lost during or after the merge?

I've read several books and countless articles about the research, opinions, and recommendations of a few prominent advocates of CT in general and RT in particular. The present article does not explain any of these adequately, although it does a great job of presenting the mainstream view that CT and RT are bad enough to be outlawed. I'm not saying that the mainstream is wrong, but I do think that we should pay some attention to why the other side holds the views it does. (Only if this can be done in a way that doesn't violate our policy on "undue weight" or "equal validity", of course.)

Probably the main point of contention is whether a prospective client who seeks out CT, with full knowledge of what it entails (see informed consent), ought to be allowed to hire a CT therapist. This is a moral and legal question, as well as a scientific one. Obviously, if a U.S. state has banned CT (for minors, or for everybody), then it's illegal there. That's easy to describe, and it is generally because of moral or scientific reasons that such a law would be instituted. Harder to describe is whether there is a scientific justification.

Usually, the scientific appeal is to say that a major authoritative body recommends against it. For example, the APA says it is harmful and/or futile. An argument by CT supporters, that I don't recall being in the article - at least in a way that stands out and is easy to find - is that the APA never presented any scientific reasons as the basis for its recommendation, but caved into political pressure. These supporters have suggested or hinted that CT opponents have set up a circular argument something like this:

1. CT is bad, because that's what the science says
2. We know that the science says CT is bad, because the APA (a scientific body) said that CT is bad.
3. The APA said CT is bad because that's what the science says.

Then there are the various peer-reviewed articles in reputable journals describing scientific studies which have found that same-sex attraction is mutable. We might mention these, along the mainstream rebuttal that SSA is immutable. A central scientific and moral argument against CT is that

• SSA is immutable
• any attempt to change what is immutable is always futile and often harmful

Supporters of CT (and particularly of RT) claim that, when done their way, it doesn't cause harm and sometimes succeeds.

What I don't want is to change our exposition of the mainstream view, and certainly not to say that it is wrong or - yikes! - that CT is "equally valid". Perish the thought! I just want our article to point out some of the arguments made by CT supporters in favor of it.

Is this okay? --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

My view is that the article needs to stay clearly focused and on topic. You say that, "there are the various peer-reviewed articles in reputable journals describing scientific studies which have found that same-sex attraction is mutable." That is as may be, but you have to remember that it is one thing to say that same-sex attraction can change under some circumstances and another thing to say that it can change specifically because of conversion therapy. Maybe the sources describe situations where people's sexual attractions changed spontaneously rather than because of therapeutic interventions. If the sources don't show that attraction to the same sex can change because of conversion therapy they are not relevant. Furthermore, one should be careful not to presume that there is a single "mainstream" view to the effect that same-sex attractions are immutable and that this is the key argument against conversion therapy. You would find a range of different views in scientific and academic journals. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)