Talk:Ex-gay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class.

/Archive 1: beginning - Feb 2006

/Archive 2: Feb 2006 - Feb 2007

Contents

[edit] Merge with reparative therapy? (again)

I propose merging this article into reparative therapy. Almost all of the content on the two articles is duplicative. A user above argued not to merge them, citing an ex-gay group that merely encourages celibacy, not reparative therapy. But such a group is a small minority within a small minority, and can be dealt with in a section in the article. Fireplace 16:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Just curious, why would this article be merged into reparative therapy and not the other way around? I could be mistaken but I believe more people have heard of Ex-Gays than know the name for the specific therapy involved.-- ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 23:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
As Aristotle might say, ex-gay may be first in knowledge, but reparative therapy is first in nature. That is, even though more people have heard the term "ex-gay," ex-gays are a byproduct of reparative therapy. Reparative therapy is also broader, as most subjects don't become ex-gays. Fireplace 23:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll go along with that, very sound reasoning. I assume that anyone searchiing for 'Ex-Gay' will get a redirect to reparative therapy anyway, so it's all six-of-one... I say go ahead with the merge.-- ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 23:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

With three supporting and none opposing (and I know a lot of you have this on your watchlist), I'm going to go ahead with the merge. I've already moved most of the non-duplicative, sourced content over the reparative therapy. Fireplace 01:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions & Suggestions

As someone mentioned above, I think the opening line in the article should explain first what an ex-gay is and then address the movement. Sorry if I'm asking something already answered here but is the ex-gay movement really synonymous with Exodus? I'd like to see a reference for that, it seems POV. Not trying to be difficult, I'd just like to help the article.-- ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 23:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Restoring Original Article

I have not come here in a while, but I oppose the merge with reparative therapy and urge that the original article be restored. The primary reason why I believe this is that one need not have had any involvement in reparative therapy in order to be considered "ex-gay." One of the most important thing to consider with ex-gay groups is the usage of terminology. The definition of an ex-gay, as the ex-gay groups understand it, is "a person who once identified as gay and engaged in homosexual behavior, but now no longer identifies as gay and refrains from (or seeks to refrain from) homosexual behavior." One need not have even attempted reparative therapy in order to adopt an "ex-gay identity." The distinction between sexual attractions on one hand and sexual behavior on the other is regarded as paramount, and change in the latter is usually considered "change" even if the former is unaltered. Although the "ultimate goal" of ex-gay groups is to change people to a completely heterosexual orientation with no experience of homosexual attractions, ex-gays are sometimes remarkably frank about the infrequency with which that goal is attained. By merging the article with reparative therapy, all of the vitally important information about those distinctions and definitions--without which one really cannot understand ex-gay groups--has been lost. Reparative therapy is frequently employed by ex-gay groups, but fundamentally it is not integral to the concept. The original article should be restored. Person 1485 05:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The distinction between RT-based ex-gays and non-RT-based ex-gays may exist in the theories of some RT-advocates, but in practice I'm not aware of any significant ex-gay groups that aren't grounded in the reparative therapy movement. Perhaps your point should be made more clearly in the rt article under the doctrine section. Fireplace 09:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the problem is more structural than that. I think it is inaccurate to say that there is any kind of a "reparative therapy movement." Reparative therapy is just a collection of (mostly secular) theories and techniques that purport to result in changing a person's sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. One can talk about reparative therapy using the same lexicon as regular people use, speaking of sexual orientation and change in sexual orientation. The ex-gay phenomenon, however, is not just about changing people's sexual orientation, it is an entirely different way of thinking about and responding to homosexuality. Conceptually, reparative therapy is a "tool" of ex-gay groups--among other tools, such as prayer, bible-reading, etc. My point is not that there is a hypothetical difference between RT-based ex-gays and non-RT-based ex-gays, but rather the "ex-gay" concept itself really has very little to do with reparative therapy. That is, even a person who has just begun reparative therapy is still defined as "ex-gay," regardless of the status of of the success of his reparative therapy. Even if a person has been in reparative therapy for years and freely admits that he has experienced no change, he can still classify himself as "ex-gay" without any difficulty or contradiction (as the term is defined by ex-gay groups). By subordinating "ex-gay" to "reparative therapy" we have fundamentally confused these definitions and concepts, such that I doubt it would be possible to adequately clarify the situation within the reparative therapy article itself. We have also lost all of the brief descriptions of ex-gay groups that led to further articles. I think the ex-gay article should be restored, with "reparative therapy" acting as as a subsection of the old second section that leads to a detailed description of reparative therapy itself. Person 1485 00:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I've done a fair bit of research on this topic (for what that's worth), and as far as I can tell the view you put forward doesn't reflect reparative therapist or ex-gay views (both of which are extensively cited in reparative therapy). It is certainly false that there is no RT movement; bible-reading and prayer are often put under the RT heading; RT is not "mostly secular"; and the definition of "ex-gay" you attribute to reparative therapist and ex-gay groups is unfamiliar to me. Finally, all the ex-gay groups' articles are still around, most of them are linked to on the RT site (and the major ones, such as NARTH and Exodus, are described in the article) and there is a category devoted to ex-gay organizations. Fireplace 01:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Another point is that "reparative therapy" and its article seem to be largely based in secular thought. The ex-gay movement seems to be largely (but not entirely) religious in motivation and philosophy. eaolson 01:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
RT is mostly a religiously based phenomenon (see Exodus, Love in Action, Refuge, etc.). As far as I know, NARTH is the only major group that tries to keep it purely secular and doesn't involve bible-reading, etc. So, any secular leaning in the RT article is a failing of the article, and more religious information should be added. (This is difficult, because most online literature doesn't go into more detail than listing "group prayer" or somesuch).
Note that NARTH people also use the "ex-gay" language, so again it's not clear that there's any disconnect between the religiosity of RT and ex-gays. Fireplace 01:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd say they're distinct. Reparative therapy isn't necessarily religiously-based. For example, what was done to Alan Turing. It seems that, historically, RT was largely medical and psychological in origin. Nowadays, however, most of the ex-gay organizations are religious in nature. eaolson 03:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
There are religious ex-gays and RTs (Exodus, Love in Action, Refuge) and secular ex-gays and RTs (NARTH people). RT may (or may not) have historically been secular, but historically the phrase "ex-gay" wasn't even used. You're right that most ex-gay organizations are religious today, but so are the RTs. Fireplace 04:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
People Can Change, PFOX, IHF, German Institute for Youth and Society and PATH aren't religious. Jonah isn't Christian.Joshuajohanson 22:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Fireplace, I have also studied this in great depth. Your central error is, I think, in categorization. I think that Exodus, Love in Action, Refuge, etc. are properly considered "ex-gays organizations that make use of reparative therapy." Although the ultimate goal is to change people's sexual orientations and they often use reparative therapy in seeking to advance that goal, the adoption of an "ex-gay identity"--regardless of any change in sexual orientation--is regarded as sufficient and as a "success." From a reparative therapy viewpoint, however, that outcome would be seen as a failure.

I have never seen the phrases "reparative therapy organizations" or "the reparative therapy movement" anywhere before you employed them in this discussion thread. Looking at the google search results for "reparative therapy groups" versus "ex-gay groups," "reparative therapy movement" versus "ex-gay movement," and "reparative therapy ministries" versus "ex-gay ministries" confirms that observation. The only organization that I would possibly classify as a "reparative therapy organization" is NARTH, and even that usage feels strange. I would probably prefer to say that the organization is "a dissident pyschological organization that studies and advocates reparative therapy for homosexuals."

I think the widespread understanding is that "ex-gay groups" and "ex-gay ministries" refer to the religious organizations under discussion, while "reparative therapy" refers to a set of secular/"scientific" techniques and theories that ex-gay groups frequently employ. That is, reparative therapy is something that someone does with a therapist, not the broad religious/political movement. The formulation that most people would agree with would be that "ex-gay groups promote the use of reparative therapy" and I think the structure of the articles should reflect that. Person 1485 00:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A really good piece of evidence on the usage of "reparative therapy": http://www.exodus.to/content/view/426/37/ Person 1485 00:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless I have further objection sometime soon, I plan to go ahead and reverse the merge with reparative therapy shortly. Person 1485 21:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've already lodged my objections. See, e.g., the recent NY Times article ("Mental health experts say there is no proof that sexual reorientation therapy, as it is often called, works.... Nevertheless, these efforts, commonly called the “ex-gay” movement, have become increasingly visible..."; "...the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, a prominent secular organization in the ex-gay movement."). Furthermore, to the extent that some people try to draw a conceptual distinction between the two, it strikes me as better handled as a subsection in the RT article, to avoid what would otherwise be largely duplicative articles. Fireplace 22:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If you insist on having the two articles as one, I think it would make far more sense for RT to exist as a subsection of the ex-gay article. I do think, however, that it would make more sense for them to be separate. The ex-gay phenomenon is a complicated one that few people truly understand. That a New York Times reporter would conflate the two ideas as one doesn't really surprise me. But you never really responded to the points I made. I don't think the evidence could be any clearer than the link I gave: that a former homosexual condemns reparative therapy as an unbiblical approach makes absolutely no sense without the conceptual distinction I've outlined. See also this post by Warren Throckmorton, a conservative but scientific voice on ex-gay issues: "Montel had confused Exodus as a ministry with a reparative therapy organization." Or this quote of Elaine Berk: "FYI, Exodus doesn’t do reparative therapy." This distinction is often muddled, but it is one that is frequently used and understood--and it is, fundamentally, a distinction that is useful. Reparative therapy focuses on changing sexual orientation. The recent changes that you have made to that article reinforce that emphasis--an emphasis that I think is appropriate. But as Dr. Throckmorton--and so many others--have noted "many evangelicals do not see terms such as 'liberation' or 'freedom' from homosexual attraction as meaning that those attractions are gone." The ex-gay phenomenon is fundamentally about sexual identity, not sexual orientation. People call themselves "ex-gays" all of the time despite the fact that, from a reparative therapy standpoint, their efforts at sexual re-orientation have failed. Former homosexual Randy Thomas describes receiving the "gift of celibacy." Former homosexual Mike Ensley speaks of 30 percent of Exodus' clients living "a successful life of heterosexuality or celibacy" and advises people to "quit letting your temptations dictate your identity."

Trying to explain this in the reparative therapy article does not make sense. Saying that reparative therapy is about changing people's orientations from homosexual to heterosexual but then backing up and saying that some religious ex-gay organizations say that changing identity is more important would be confusing. There needs to be a place where the extremely confusing ex-gay approach to homosexuality--not just the attempts at sexual reorientation--can be explained. That place should be the ex-gay article.Person 1485 19:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

All mainstream medical and mental health associations that have taken a position on the topic, including the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Counseling Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Association of School Administrators, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Education Association have made the following distinction: "While "reparative therapy" relies on secular approaches, "transformational ministry" takes the approach that "freedom from homosexuality is possible through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.". See Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation & Youth: A Primer for Principals, Educators and School Personnel. I think we should go with the major organizations on this one. A lot of the reparative therapy article is muddled with transformational ministries. I think that is one reason why the articles are largely duplicative. I would suggest creating a separate article on transformational ministries. A separate article for the ex-gay movement would then be needed to explain the relationship between the ex-gay movement and each of the seperate approaches.Joshuajohanson 19:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that's a very accurate observation. However, I think it might be more appropriate to either (1) have the article that you propose on "tranformational ministries" actually be the "ex-gay" article (as it essentially was before), with a section within the article to explain the relationship with reparative therapy, or (2) essentially do number one but instead create a new article called "ex-gay ministries" to which "ex-gay" would redirect. Although I do think that two articles are necessary, I don't think the relationship is sufficiently complicated to warrant three. One can simply explain the relationship within the two articles--something like, "Reparative therapy is sometimes employed by ex-gay ministries (see Ex-gay Ministries)." and "Ex-gay ministries sometimes employ secular psychological techniques that are called 'reparative therapy' (see Reparative Therapy)." Person 1485 23:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
See also NARTH article ("people who modify orientation through counseling are known as "ex-gays.") An underlying problem is that reparative therapists and ex-gay organizations operate largely independently from one another and outside the domain of the scientific and medical communities, and as such the meanings of terms used by these people and the theories they have are often not precisely defined and are often inconsistent with what other reparative therapists might say. The issue of whether "ex-gay" is a "sexual identity" (whatever that means -- good luck finding any ex-gay scholarly discussion of sexual identity comparable to what queer theory people have done) or merely a term describing people who say they used to be gay but are now straight (see NARTH, supra) is a good example.
The redundancy problem of having two articles is a real one. Just looking at the current reparative therapy article, most of the history section would appear in both, much of the scientific information too, and much of the controversies as well.
An alternative would be to rename the current article "Reparative therapy and ex-gays" (or "Ex-gays and reparative therapy"). This would eliminate the redundancy problem while not making assumptions one way or the other about conceptual distinctions between the two. Fireplace 00:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
First, the problem with the NARTH citation is that it gives an inclusive, not an exclusive, definition for ex-gays. All people who modify orientation through counseling are ex-gays, but not all ex-gays are people who have modified their organization through counseling. By "sexual identity," I meant simply that--what a person calls him or herself. Today, we typically understand the terms "gay" and "homosexual" to be terms of description, not identification. One can say "oh, he's gay, he just hasn't admitted to himself yet," and everyone understands what is meant. For ex-gay groups, however, you're only "gay" if you take on a gay identity--that is, if you call yourself "gay" and thus become "gay identified." To become "ex-gay," all you have to do is renounce a gay identity take on ex-gay identity--something that requires nothing more than that you publicly identify yourself as "ex-gay." See for example: here. I don't know why you're so dismissive of this idea, given that it isn't that complicated and is at the core of these ex-gay groups. Granted, on a personal level, I think that looking at sexual orientation in this manner is pretty stupid, but this idea is key to understanding ex-gay ministries.
I really think that you're over-concerned about duplication. First, I really don't think the duplication between the two articles is as serious as you suggest. Before the two articles were merged, there really wasn't that much, and I think that the duplication problems that there are now have arisen largely as a result of your recent changes to the reparative therapy article. For history, RT would focus on NARTH and the changes in techniques, while the ex-gay ministries article would focus on the emergence of Exodus and similar such groups. Only the old "dissenting views" section in the ex-gay article was largely duplicative, and its contents should probably be reduced significantly in favor of a link to the reparative therapy article. Whatever minimal levels of duplication might be necessary (and I think it's far, far less than you imagine) are outweighed by the benefits of having two separate articles. When you have an Exodus spokesperson saying that Exodus "does not do reparative therapy" and then you lump Exodus in a reparative therapy article, that is inherently problematic. The pyschological community makes a distinction between "transformational ministries" and "reparative therapy," and we should too. Person 1485 14:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Just as you're concerned about wikipedia failing to draw a conceptual distinction where some RT or ex-gay groups do, I'm concerned about wikipedia drawing such a distinction where RT and the ex-gay movement are so closely intertwined and where most of these terms do not admit of broad, consistent usage. I'm very open to the idea of a single article ("Reparative therapy and ex-gay groups" or "Sexual reorientation" or something) that lays out all the issues. Fireplace 15:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Much of the argument Fireplace and I are having in the reparative therapy section is applying critism of reparative therapy to transformational ministries. I think splitting the two would solve a lot of those issues. The distinct is clear in mainstream medical organizations (of which NARTH does not belong, as has been made clear). Exodus' website says it "does not conduct clinical treatment of any kind", only saying repartive therapy can be a beneficial tool. [1] Reparative therapy operates under the viewpoint that homosexuality is a mental disorder and complete sexual reorienation is possible. That is "the most important fact" medical organizations have against reparative therapy. Though they have been vocal about it in the past, many transformational ministries now do not see homosexuality as a mental disorder, but a spiritual struggle. In a joint coalition of major transformational ministries, they have said "We have no desire to try to convince people who are happy living a gay life that they should be dissatisfied." With regards to a complete 180 degree shift, the same coalition said "So, unlike those who argue that nothing less than a 180 degree turn "counts" as change, the men and women who actually seek change are often quite content with a much subtler shift. To be free from the constant pull of homosexual desires, to have a happy marriage, to have children, and to live a life they believe to be in line with God's will for them -- many ask for nothing more." [2] Medical organizations don't disagree with that. Many people are just trying to live in accordance with their beleifs and do not make a claim that orientation can be changed, just lived with [3]. There are arguments within the transformational ministry as to whether or not this is nature or nurture, whether it is 100% curable, whether it is necessary, and whether or not it is a disorder. In a separate article, these can all be discussed. This can't happen in a reparative therapy article, since it is defined to be one that operates from the belief it is a mental disorder. Now I am sure you can find lots of quotes aligning these ministries with reparative therapy and the claims that homosexuality is a mental disorder and 100% change from homosexuality to heterosexuality is possible. That is because the most extreme viewpoints are the ones being vocal about it.
In regards to the religious nature of reparative therapy, both the American Psychological Association and the American Counseling Association have published guidelines for approved treatments to alter one's orientation. Those organizations are completely secular and mainstream. Reparative therapy and religion aren't married.Joshuajohanson 21:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
If you're referring to the work of Throckmorton and Yarhouse that was published, that's a very inaccurate reading of their scholarhip. No such "guidelines for approved treatments" exist. They wrote about the importance of patient autonomy, such that if a patient makes an informed decision to pursue reparative therapy, he or she should not be precluded from doing so. There are no "approved treatments" with respect to reparative therapy, and it is a fringe phenomenon. That said, the observation that "reparative therapy and religion aren't married" is one I believe to be accurate. Person 1485 05:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to the APA's Resolution on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation.Joshuajohanson 21:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay. But just for clarity's sake, those are guidelines for how to deal with people who want to change their orientation. There aren't any actual approved treatments or techniques for how to do it. Person 1485 20:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I understand that there is a (frequently extremely close) relationship between reparative therapy and the ex-gay movement. The reason why two articles is best is fundamentally due to the radical differences in the underlying philosophy. Reparative therapy has a very specific conceptual underpinning. Homosexuality is a mental disorder, a "reparative drive" to make up for developmental abnormalities. One then engages in reparative therapy with a "trained" therapist, employing a series of secular "scientific" techniques. To "change" means to change sexual orientation.
Ex-gay ministries, on the other hand, are explicitly religious and place their emphasis on sexual behavior and identity. To "change" usually means to stop having sex with people of the same gender (with fewer numbers claiming more than that).
Look, I abhor reparative therapy because I think it is unscientific, unproven, and potentially dangerous. I also abhor ex-gay ministries because I find their use of terminology to be so misleading and poorly explained that it becomes dishonest. Encountering ex-gay speak is like disappearing into a parallel universe where the precise meaning of words is almost impossible for regular people to make sense of without a great deal of familiarity beforehand. (I'd note that one of your primary arguments for the merge was that "even though more people have heard the term 'ex-gay,' ex-gays are a byproduct of reparative therapy," but that's just not true if you really understand ex-gay speak.) The fundamental purpose of these articles needs to be more than just helping people understand that they're fringe phenomena. It's need to be to help people figure out exactly what the hell it actually means when a person says that he "has found freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ." Or what the hell a person is really talking about when he starts referring to "reparative drives" and other mostly-discredited features of Freudian pyschology that characterize reparative therapy.
The reparative therapy article really isn't in that great of shape in just explaining reparative therapy. It's current treatment of ex-gay ministries doesn't explain them at all. But the first and third sections of the old ex-gay article explained the basic underlying ideas and terminology of ex-gay groups in extremely clear, neutral terms such that no one had any objections to them. It explained the concept of "change" as ex-gay groups actually understand it. If you want to add those sections to the reparative therapy article, I would probably stop bothering you. But I just don't think that they fit there. Trying to explain the two different underlying philosophies in the same article would be confusing. Telling people that change for reparative therapy means one thing, and change for ex-gay ministries means a different thing within the same article cannot not be confusing. I think you need two different articles to really explain it, and that the drawbacks of having two are far exceeded by the benefits. Person 1485 05:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

So what is the next step? It has been awhile since there has been any discussion. Should we take a vote on it?Joshuajohanson 21:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. There has been no response to my last postings. If there aren't any further objections, the merge should be reversed.Person 1485 20:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, I've been away/busy. Your arguments are pretty persuasive. I'm still unsure whether an objective/"view from nowhere" look at these movements (verses the inconsistent and agenda-motivated discussion within the movements) would draw a conceptual distinction here, but so long as the two articles are heavily interrelated, I'm fine with a split for now.
(Note that changes are not made by vote.) Fireplace 22:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree they should be heavy interrelated.Joshuajohanson 17:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Having lived with this article for a few days now, I'm again skeptical about its separate status. Besides the fact that the article is an unsourced/inconsistent/uninformative mess, redundancy problems are popping up. For example, I was going to add a paragraph about ex-gay/RT advertising practices and media responses to them (to broadcast or not to broadcast), but it's not clear which article this should go into. I'm back to leaning towards a heirarchical structure with a central article ("Reparative therapy and the ex-gay movement" or "Therapeutic and religious attempts to change sexual orientation" or whatever) and if/when the article gets too long restructure it with article spinoffs ("Reparative therapy and the ex-gay movement in the media", or whatever). Fireplace 19:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

See Reparative_therapy#Distinguishing_between_the_reparative_therapy_and_ex-gay_movements, which hopefully makes some inroads toward this goal. Fireplace 23:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Another update: I'm pretty sure all the sourced content from this article is in reparative therapy, along with a lot more ex-gay info not found here. And, I'm continuing to add ex-gay stuff over there regularly. I'm verging on officially proposing a re-merge, along with moving Reparative therapy to Reparative therapy and the ex-gay movement. Fireplace 00:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transformational Ministries

I would still like an article on transformational ministries. These ministries are for a variety of people who want to diminish homosexual attractions and/or behavior. They include people who are married and have never been sexual with their own gender, people who are bisexual, people who have never identified themselves as gay, and people who were openly gay. From my experience (no I don't have any evidence) most people in these transformational ministries (including myself) would not fall in the category of ex-gay. PATH, a coalition of various transformational ministries is directed towards those with same-gender attractions, which would include "closeted" gays as well as bisexuals, which ex-gay doesn't cover. Maybe ex-gay should be a subsection under transformational ministries.Joshuajohanson 21:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Most people understand what is meant by "ex-gay ministries," and would use that name to describe PATH and similar such groups. "Transformational ministries" is less clear. The only difference between the classes of people you speak of and "ex-gays" is that the ones you're talking about never "identified as gay." Less than consistently, some people who never became "gay identified" nevertheless identify as "ex-gay." Given that the concepts, wording, terminology, etc. are exactly the same, I think it would be more appropriate simply to note in an ex-gay ministries article that some persons with homosexual orientations in these groups do not consider themselves "ex-gay" because they never "identified as gay" to begin with. (Note that trying to explain this in the context of a reparative therapy article would be almost nonsensical.)Person 1485 05:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] article title

It seems like it should be "Ex-gay movement". "Ex-gay" is just a label. Fireplace 00:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Fireplace. The article is talking about ex-gays, ex-gay organizations and many other aspects of the ex-gay movement. A name change would better reflect what is in the actual article.Joshuajohanson 01:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to see a few sources about the so-called movement before anyone changes the title, if it's possible. Too many citation tags. I can see several individuals (ex-gays) and specific orgs claim change is possible, but I don't see proof of an organised big-scale movement just by reading the article. Raystorm 12:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Raystorm. There needs to be more evidence of some kind of organized movement for the article to be changed. For instance, one wouldn't change the AA article to anything like "The Sobriety Movement" or "The Ex-Alcoholic Movement" The analogy being only apt in that the respective organizations effort to treat a perceived problem. Only, the ex-gay groups seem to be places to hook up! lol. --David Shankbone 13:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Raystorm/DavidShankBone. (lol @ "Sobriety Movement") :P Mentality 16:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
hehe - and we all know how well The Sobriety Movement worked. PS- I wasn't advocating Ex-Gay groups as the best place to go to meet guys, though wounded, struggling butchies hold a special place in my heart. --David Shankbone 17:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/x/-/Talk%7EEx-gay_ed3f.html"