Talk:Reparative therapy/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Talk archives for Reparative therapy (current talk page)
<< 1 < Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 > 4 >>

Contents

Citation for pseudoscience RT

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html

Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation & Youth: A Primer for Principals, Educators and School Personnel

In text: "Reparative Therapy

The term "reparative therapy" refers to psychotherapy aimed at eliminating homosexual desires and is used by people who do not think homosexuality is one variation within human sexual orientation, but rather still believe homosexuality is a mental disorder. The most important fact about "reparative therapy," also sometimes known as "conversion" therapy, is that it is based on an understanding of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major health and mental health professions. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers, together representing more than 477,000 health and mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus there is no need for a "cure."

So RT ist pseudoscience GLGerman 19:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

At no point does the above text call it "pseudoscience", and the article by Dr. Epstein cited farther above explains what the APA position does mean. Unless you can find a quote using the term "pseudoscience" you cannot justify using that term. Voln 19:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
For Voln..in the text you can read "there is no need for a "cure".GLGerman 19:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Which has nothing to do with the issue of "pseudoscience". Voln 19:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh maybe you think so, but you are wrong. All these organisations say, that RT isn´t good for homosexual people and they all are against RT: more than 477.000 health and mental health professionals and that there is no need for cure. GLGerman 00:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html

In the paper you can also read: "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."GLGerman 00:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

None of which has anything to do with the issue of "pseudoscience". Voln 00:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
That ´s your own oppinion, Voln...read also this part of APA:

"As these statements make clear, health and mental health professional organizations do not support efforts to change young people's sexual orientation through "reparative therapy" and have raised serious concerns about its potential to do harm. Many of the professional associations listed in the Resources section at the end of this factsheet are able to provide helpful information and local contacts to assist school administrators, health and mental health professionals, educators, teachers, and parents in dealing with school controversies in their communities."GLGerman 00:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't make any mention whatsoever of "pseudoscience". Find a quote that uses the term "pseudoscience" and then we can discuss it. Voln 00:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
It s already discussed in article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex-gay (there you can find the category:pseudoscience)GLGerman 22:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
The American Psychiatric Association has stated that:

Clinical experience suggests that any person who seeks conversion therapy may be doing so because of social bias that has resulted in internalized homophobia, and that gay men and lesbians who have accepted their sexual orientation positively are better adjusted than those who have not done so. GLGerman 22:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The "pseudoscience" category was only in the Ex-Gay article because you yourself had added it there on September 20. You cannot cite your own edit there to justify adding it here, nor does the quote you added again above address the subject of pseudoscience. That's enough of this nonsense - you've been given a chance to cite a quote which specifically labels it "pseudoscience" and you have failed to do so. Voln 23:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
RT is pseudoscience and dangerous for homosexual people. See APA
RT is pseudoscience GLGerman 17:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Repeating this again and again does not prove what you say, but only proves, that you have a personal problem. Unless you bring facts you will not find the category in the article. --84.160.17.111 19:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
You should urgently stop inserting this category into the article again and again. This ist vandalism as long as you do not bring any proof for this position, which is opposed by a number of users here. --Hansele 22:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh hy Hansele, so now you show your username after a long time of IP-numbers. We struggle for a long time on german wikipedia. And you should know Reparative Therapy is pseudoscience.GLGerman 05:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Neither the german nor the english wikipedia categorize Reparative therapy as pseudoscience. And neither here nor there you did offer any proof for your categorization. The only tool you use to establish this categorization is called editwar and - if you carry on with this - vandalism. --Hansele 23:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


If the APA supports it, then it's not "pseudoscience" (i.e., universally condemned) but merely a "controversial practice":

the organization would support psychological therapy for those experiencing unwanted homosexual attractions

You might personally object to this upgrade, but our job as contributors is to report what the mainstream of science is saying. --Uncle Ed 15:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The APA supports therapy to help people deal with their sexuality, not to attempt to change it. Our job as contributors is not to twist everything into whatever shape we want it to take. Mainstream science is still saying conversion therapy is unproven and probably damaging. Herorev 01:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
If that's the mainstream position, then the article should say so. --Uncle Ed 19:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to revisit this issue. Wikipedia defines pseudoscience as "any body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific but does not follow the scientific method.[1] Pseudosciences may appear scientific, but they do not adhere to the testability requirement of the scientific method[2] and are often in conflict with current scientific consensus."

RT seems to satisfy that definition. It is (1) a practice that claims to be scientific, (2) criticized by the scientific community for unscientific research methodology, and is (3) in conflict with current scientific consensus. It is testable, but so are other pseudosciences, so testability doesn't seem to be a necessary condition. Looking to other defining characteristics, it (i) makes vague claims lacking specific measurements; (ii) fails to make use of operational definitions ("success"); (iii) doesn't use Occam's razor (repression rather than change; issues with bisexuals); (iv) over-reliance on anecdotal evidence; (v) selective use of data; (vi) evasion of peer review/science by press conference; (vii) proponents and subjects are in tight social groups; (viii) assertion of conspiracy claims on the part of the scientific community; (ix) attacking the motives of critics ("homosexual agenda", etc.). This clearly seems to satisfy the definition, so I've made the change.

(The Koocher quote cited above was an off-the-cuff remark taken out of context and later clarified by Koocher after NARTH people jumped on the quote. Koocher was explicit that the APA's stance on reparative therapy remains unchanged: it is unsupported by science and may be harmful.[1]) Fireplace 16:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Horev said ":The APA supports therapy to help people deal with their sexuality, not to attempt to change it." The question I would want to ask is if people can have gender re-assignment surgery (a friend of mine had this done back in the UK) - radically changing their physical appearance from that of a man to a woman (or visa versa) - why can't people chose to be heterosexual versus homosexual? For a variety of reasons people are "distressed" by their sexuality and wish to be otherwise. What is so wrong with the desire to undergo reparative therapy or some other therapy which would lessen same sex attractions.

The reading I have done around the subject would suggest that there is a great deal of pseudoscience on both sides of the fence. The declasification of homosexuality as a mental disorder in the first place seems to have been surrounded by a good deal of politics and abuses of scientific method. Robert Williams 06:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't think that anyone is saying that there's anything wrong with it, as you say. The opinion of the medical community is simply that attempting to change sexual orientation is (a) unnecessary, (b) usually ineffective, and (c) possibly harmful. eaolson 14:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are 2 reasonable citations I can see that express the view that RT is pseudoscience. There's a chap called Ford who has stated it in a published book [2], and the Doug Haldeman ref as posted in the ref section. Considering RT is also considered to be discredited, its pretty clear the article should state that much at least. Docleaf 15:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If we're complaining that RT is a pseudoscience you can't use terms like "opinion," "possibly harmful" or "considered discredited" without citations to bonafide research. If it is discredited then lets see the research that proves it to be harmful - if it is merely the "opinion" of the psychiatric community that RT is no good then I'm afraid that doesn't wash. I would challenge Eaolson's assertion that "[no one] is saying that there's anything wrong with it". By claiming that RT is pseudoscience you are saying there is something wrong with it - it is not based on good research and is fundamentally flawed in concept. You are attempting to damn by association. I would assert that this is not taking an unbiased line.

There certainly do seem to be things that are scientifically "wobbly" about RT but it would seem that the whole subject of homosexuality, same sex attractions, and various therapies which are offered to deal with them (either in simply coming to terms with homosexuality or in attempting to change sexual orientation) is surrounded by politicisation and questionable approaches to the use of research to justify positions.

I would rather see a less "charged" and more balanced tone in the article. It would be better to keep it to the facts and there isn't enough evidence on either side of the argument to say that RT is harmful pseudoscience. Robert Williams 10:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The mainstream medical view is extensively cited throughout the article. Fireplace 14:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

However, this view like some of RT is not backed up by research. I would contend that the whole subject of homosexuality and within that RT has been politicised. We hear that it is the opinion of the APA that attempting to change one's sexuality may be harmful - but not that having thoroughly researched the matter the APA conclude that ... Do you see my point? The APA cannot point to reliable unbiased scientific research to say categoricallly that RT is harmful. NARTH on the other had cite many examples (all-be-it anecdotal) of men and women who have quite happily changed their sexual orientation using RT. Who is one to believe? Robert Williams 03:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not an encyclopedia's job to evaluate the scientific consensus position. There is unequivocal evidence that such a consensus exists. See article. Fireplace 04:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Can any RT organization point to reliable unbiased scientific research to say categorically that RT is beneficial? As Robert William's points out above; all such 'evidence' is anecdotal, and there are plenty of ex-Ex-Gays who would challenge even that evidence. If we are asking for positive proof from one side then we must also ask it from the other. --ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 05:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Community ban of the Joan of Arc vandal

This article has been targeted in recent weeks by CC80, a sockpuppet of the Joan of Arc vandal. This and similar articles may be targeted again by other sockpuppets of the same person.

A vandal who has damaged Wikipedia's Catholicism, Christianity, cross-dressing, and homosexuality articles for over two years has been identified and community banned. This person will probably attempt to continue disruption on sockpuppet accounts. Please be alert for suspicious activity. Due to the complexity of this unusual case, the best place to report additional suspicious activity is probably to my user talk page because I was the primary investigating administrator. DurovaCharge! 17:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Voln, who has been very active on this article, has also been confirmed as a sockpuppet of the Joan of Arc vandal--the CheckUser case is at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/AWilliamson. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
That´s interesting: i talked the whole time with sockpuppets in this article.GLGerman 07:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
This doesn't change anything about the missing facts for the categorization als pseudoscience you again and again are editwaring into the article. --89.14.68.176 11:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


Article needs work

This article has many positive aspects but could use some work... Only102 11:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate? What you just said could be true of any article, because they're all works in progress. What do you see as needing improvement in this article? Joie de Vivre 23:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Sex and love

Cut from article:

It is worth noting that reparative therapists hold that a propensity for an emotional bisexuality would seem to exist in all men, for example, as is evidenced by the male need for camaraderie and bonding.

I have yet to read anything from a reparative therapist likening men's need for camaraderie and bonding to "bisexuality". This sounds like unsourced gay rights advocacy. But correct me if I'm wrong; I'm no expert, nor do I claim to widely read. --Uncle Ed 15:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Article title - Idea for renaming to "Sexual reorientation therapy"

Should we move this to sexual reorientation therapy due to "connotations" of reparative therapy? --Uncle Ed 18:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No, for a few reasons: "reparative therapy" is what the techniques described in this article are most typically called. Whether their use is "reparative" (or destructive) is a subject of debate between proponents and opponents of the use of these techniques. However, whether it should even be called "therapy" is also a matter of dispute, since The American Psychiatric Association, The American Psychological Association, The American Counseling Association, and The National Association of Social Workers all reject the use of "reparative therapy" (See Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation & Youth: A Primer for Principals, Educators and School Personnel 1999, American Psychological Association). The name used for the techniques could be considered problematic, but the article title is currently an accurate reflection of what the techniques are most commonly called. Changing the article title to sexual reorientation therapy would not be an improvement. Joie de Vivre 19:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's a relief. I didn't really want to move it. But somebody keeps changing Richard Cohen's article to remove the term "reparative therapy" on pretty much the grounds you just outlined. --Uncle Ed 19:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know enough about Cohen or his actions to say whether that change is appropriate.
Rereading what I wrote, I would like to say that I personally believe the term "reparative therapy" to be inherently POV: it assumes that homosexuality is something to be "repaired", when whether or not it is is a matter of opinion. However, it is the term most commonly used. I am not sure what Wikipedia's responsibility is, as far as newly-invented terms. Wikipedia does have an article on the word "Nigger", although, where I come from, to even speak the word aloud is astoundingly offensive. However, that word has a historical basis... not so with "reparative therapy". Joie de Vivre 23:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
"Reparative" isn't the only POV word in "reparative therapy". Wiktionary defines "therapy" as "Treatment of disease or disability, physical or mental." Webster defines it as "therapeutic treatment especially of bodily, mental, or behavioral disorder". If the article is moved, I suggest moving it to sexual reorientation. Herorev 01:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the term reparative has a slightly different meaning.

  • Moberly saw homosexuality as a "reparative drive" to meet the heretofore unmet needs of the child for love and bonding and thus "identification" with males.
  • Nicolosi elaborates here.
  • The theoretical basis of RT is that homosexuality is a symptom of the client's "drive to fulfill unmet homo-emotional needs". (Cohen)

Whether the theoretical basis is right or wrong, there are at least three sources who roughly agree and use the term reparative in the same way.

The article will be much improved when we add to the statements of disapproval by explaining WHY the various sources disagree with RT. I'm looking for examples like:

  • People do not have homo-emotional needs; therefore, the theory underpinning RT is false on its face.
  • Attempts to change volunteers' sexual orientation have been shown by clinical research to be ineffective and/or harmful {cite needed}

It's hard for me to write neutrally here, since I am quite obviously an advocate. But I do my best. :-) --Uncle Ed 16:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Coercive techniques vs. therapy for voluntary clients

Some of the techniques used in the past to "convert" or "cure" homosexuals seem (to me, anyway) to have been forced on unwilling people. Kind of like clitoris amputation to "prevent" a girl growing up with adulterous tendencies. (If that link is red, try female circumcision.)

Should the article on RT include the coercive techniques? Maybe the history sections can make a distinction between actions foisted upon victims, and counseling sought out by "those willing to change" (as Cohen puts it). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 16:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

That's a slippery slope. Who could "force" an independent adult into therapy? My guess is that most of the adults who enter this sort of programming are Christians who were taught from an early age that homosexuality is immoral. In order for us to accept that a person's decision to enter the program was made absolutely, definitively without coercion, we must disregard that individual's childhood indoctrination into a particular belief system. Not everyone will be willing to do that.
A more interesting distinction to make might be between those who enter the program out of religious convictions that homosexual behavior is immoral, and those who enter the program for different reasons. Can such a distinction be made? Are there any documented cases of people whose decision to enter the program was informed by a reason other than religious devotion? I would be interested to know. Joie de Vivre 20:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm also interested in the ethics of this. Here's something I just googled:

  • APA Ethical Principle E: Psychologists respect the dignity and worth of all people, and the rights of individuals to privacy, confidentiality, and self-determination. A client may very well determine that a non-GLB lifestyle is more dignified and fitting of her or his values and goals. [3]

Considering that I just revised a section of the article, maybe you'd do me the favor of checking whether I made it more neutral or (*sigh*) accidentally introduced pro-RT bias. I'm not very good on discerning whether my own writing is neutral. --Uncle Ed 20:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Who says what

  • The National Association of Social Workers in its Policy Statement on Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Issues: endorses policies in both the public and private sectors that ensure nondiscrimination; that are sensitive to the health and mental health needs of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people; and that promote an understanding of lesbian, gay, and bisexual cultures. Social stigmatization of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people is widespread and is a primary motivating factor in leading some people to seek sexual orientation changes.11 Sexual orientation conversion therapies assume that homosexual orientation is both pathological and freely chosen. No data demonstrate that reparative or conversion therapies are effective, and in fact they may be harmful. [4]

I found this quote by NASW at the APA website. Perhaps we should attribute this view to the social workers, not to the psychologists. --Uncle Ed 22:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If the article misrepresents a source, you're absolutely right. But I don't think there's anything the NASW says above that isn't also said by psychologists elsewhere. Fireplace 22:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not disputing anything, just trying to keep the sources straight. There seem to be slightly different "flavors of disapproval" from psychiatric, psychological and social work organizations. All sources, including RT proponents, agree that there's no science supporting RT, right? --Uncle Ed 22:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Yep. Fireplace 22:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism and controversy

This quote seems to sum it up:

  • Supporters of reorientation try to present it as a valuable service for distressed lesbians and gay men who freely seek their services, but the therapists’ implicit acceptance of sexual orientation as the cause of distress, and the associated agreement to attempt sexual orientation change as a cure, exacerbates distress and reinforces and confirms the internalised homophobia that is in fact the root of the problem [5]

Where's the best place to put it? And should it left in the form of an anti-RT argument, or should it be broken up into its 2 parts?

  1. Supporters of reorientation call it a valuable service for people who freely seek their services
  2. Opponents say that internalised homophobia is the root of the problem:
    • Therapists implicitly accept sexual orientation as the cause of distress.
    • The agreement to attempt sexual orientation change as a cure exacerbates distress.

Science doesn't support RT, and the major organizations oppose it. Yet hundreds of people swear by it. Sounds like an interesting controversy. --Uncle Ed 13:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh that the curious reader of Wikipedia could find a "balanced" perspective on the topic of reparative therapy. Such is not the case in the Wikipedia article, which appears to be another casualty of the pro-gay propagandist of my generation. If one is truly secure in his or her position, he or she will not be threatened by a fair and adequate presentation of the most compelling evidence to the contrary.WarriorLeo 06:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  • If you have reliable, sourced, information, go ahead and add it. But reparative therapy isn't accepted by the mainstream medical community as effective or necessary, and the article does and should reflect this. eaolson 14:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

See discussion here. Fireplace 17:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


Hi there I have never entered a discussion on Wikipedia like this before. But I came across this APA article on reversion therapy and thought it should get a mention.

I also note leading UK gay rights spokesman Peter Tacthell says he knows many gays who have gone straight. Kinsey also found many men who did the same.

So my points are twofold;-

1) The APA paper which advocates therapy for those that want it. 2) That many gay people do actually go straight without therapy.

I dont want to be rude and barge right in, but I think these facts should be considered. I will come back in a few days to see where we go from here.

sincerely Phragellion

Should Reorientation Therapy Be Available? -- APA Journal Article Says Yes A 2002 article published by the American Psychological Association journal "Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training" defends the ethics and effectiveness of sexual reorientation therapy. The paper is entitled "Ethical Issues In Attempts To Ban Reorientation Therapies," by Mark A. Yarhouse, Psy.D. of Regent University and Warren Throckmorton, Ph.D. of Grove City College.

The article's published abstract reads as follows:

The purpose of this article is to identify the ethical issues in efforts to ban reorientation therapies. The 3 primary arguments cited in the literature in favor of such a ban are discussed: (a) homosexuality is no longer considered a mental illness, (b) those who request change do so because of internalized homophobia, and (c) sexual orientation is immutable.

The authors present three arguments in favor of providing reorientation and related services: (a) respect for the autonomy and self-determination of persons, (b) respect for valuative frameworks, creeds, and religious values regarding the moral status of same-sex behavior, and (c) service provision given the scientific evidence that efforts to change thoughts, behaviors, and feeling-based sexual orientation can be successful.

Psychotherapy: Theory/Research/Practice/Training, Vol. 39, No. 1, 66-75, Copyright 2002 by the Educational Publishing Foundation. (http://www.apa.org/journals/copyrite.html)


What you have written sounds sensible. We only must be careful not to violate the neutrality policy of this website.
We must make it clear that reparative therapy is condemned by the mainstream, and that it is only a minority of professionals who endorse it. As long as we don't try to make it seem like the APA has no objections, then your idea is fine.
An interested, related question is why the groups voted 3 decades ago to change their position. Was the vote a reflection of scientific work? Or is the "scientific position" of the organization mostly the result of political lobbying? This is a significant question, because advocates point to the APA position as "proof" than homosexuality is normal and that therapists should not offer (or even agree) to "help homosexuals transition" to heterosexuality.
It's like the global warming controversy. One side says there's a mainstream "consensus" favoring the theory that most modern warming is manmade. This has the result that very few people look into the science of the matter. Even at Wikipedia, the views of Harvard and MIT scientists (and some NASA scientists) is considered "opposition to the consensus". --Uncle Ed 15:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
By the way, the link Phragellion provide is outdated. The article is available here. --Uncle Ed 15:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Is RT coercive?

Here is a quote from the article's main source (NGL Task Force): Shidlo and Schroeder outlined the various reasons why their study participants decided to change their sexual orientation through conversion therapy. Some, who were already out of the closet prior to therapy, reported that they did not feel connected to the gay and lesbian community and sought conversion to find a group to which they felt they could belong. Participants who were not “out” prior to therapy were primarily motivated by guilt and fear based on their religious faith. A number of participants also were motivated by a desire to save their marriage and relationship with their children. Those participants who attended religious universities were coerced into treatment by the threat of expulsion. Strikingly, nearly 25 percent of conversion therapy interventions were initiated by the therapists whom study participants were already seeing after disclosing their sexual orientation.238 [6]

Apparently clients have various reasons for seeking RT, and less than 1/4 are prompeted by their therapists.

What have the professional societies said about the ethics of self-directed efforts to do RT? Do they condemn it even for "those who want to change" and go looking for a therapist to help them with this? I'm looking for a statement like this:

  • RT is bad, and we condemn any therapist who tries it even if his client comes to him, requesting it
  • RT is ineffective and usually harmful, but if the client initiates the request, then a therapist is not ethically bound to refuse.
  • RT is usually ineffective and often harmful, but [our organization] has no other objections provided therapists do not pressure clients to do it.

Which is it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs) 15:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC).


Phragellion again here;-6

1) I dont see how inclusion of this article would violate the neutrality of this entry??? 2) I think it should stand on its own right as an APA article which apparently endorses freedom of choice in sexuality. You cant suggest that all RT is coercive. People must have a civil liberty to choose their own sexuality. If you want to cite cases of coercian fine, but to question to right to choose RT is not sustainable. This is the APA journal's point. 3) I think you raise some valid questions about the APA and its actions in the 1970s but I am not sure this is the right entry for them. I think it should be documented on Wikipedia but not ncessarily here. 4) Most importantly, this article seems to focus almost exclusively on ex-gays but only in relation to conversion therapy. But Kinsey found in one of his studies that 10% of American males surveyed were "more or less exclusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55";- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Behavior_in_the_Human_Male UK gays rights campaigner Peter Tacthell also knows many gays who have gone straight;- http://www.petertatchell.net/gay%20gene/borngay.htm 5) So I think the conversion therapy is a bit of a red herring in the broader picture; There are obviously many ex-gays who never had any therapy, according to Kinsey and Tatchell. 6) Ed, you say you are "looking for a statement like this". To me that suggests you have a preconception of what this entry should say regardless of what research you come across. Should not this APA stand on its own merits? It says people should be free to choose, so why cant you grant it any credibility? Is the APA journal not trustworthy? 7) The fact that many people change sexuality without intervention shows it can happen apparently without any harm. It does not appear to be a huge leap to believe that some of these people might benefit from a guiding hand as they are doing so??? 8) Finally I dont see that the NGL Task Force is an accurate quote from this article, i cant find it there. Are the comments you supplied about the article as they are not in the article itself.

Where do we go from here?

sincerely Phragellion

Re: your #6, I would suggest that Ed is actually looking for clarification. He knows that generally the APA disagrees with RT, but would like to know which of his three statements most accurately reflects their position with regards to patients who seek this option. These statements are different from one another, and it would be useful for the article to have one of these (or something similar). --ΨΦorg 20:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
With respect to this point, I believe the second paragraph of the article does precisely that: "Their stance is that sexual orientation is unchangeable, and that attempts to do so are often damaging to the person's well-being. The American Psychiatric Association states that "ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals' sexual orientation."" (citations omitted) Fireplace 20:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


Fireplace You have only addressed two points and the APA journal article I quote exists and should surely be mentioned in context of everything else. But I think the most important point I made was perhaps in points 4,5 & 7.

Phragellion

Getting this article to GA status

With the help of others, I've substantially rewritten a lot of this article over the past month. It used to be a total mess; now I think it's clearly organized, not too redundant, very well sourced, and avoids weasel-words and soapboxing (a big problem in these types of articles). I've also tried to avoid the "Proponents say X, but critics say Y" dichotomy as much as possible, to avoid WP:Undue weight problems. The intro paragraph also provides stock language for other articles mentioning RT.

I'd like to get the article up to Good article status, and maybe even beyond. Major to-do items include:

  • Filling out techniques section, with sources
  • Adding more information on the impact of RT in political debate (I've recently added some introductory info on this).
  • Writing a history section. Including well-sourced information on Freud's influence on the historical development of these ideas.

Fireplace 17:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Just some points I vaguely noticed:

  • Images need to alternate (left, right, left, right).
  • References need formatting properly, see WP:REF.
  • All inline citations should be after the exclamation point. If you'r eplanning to take this to FA they can get quit emoody about this.
  • There are very short paragraphs, only one sentence in some cases. These ideally need to be expanded, merged or deleted.

Just thought I'd mention that to give you something to work on. I'm sure this can make FA, though I'm sure you want to jump the GA hoop first! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 05:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think to get it up to GA standard you'd need to remove some of the bias particularly in the opening paragraph. It would need to fairly present the point of view of the proponents of RT like NARTH and remove emotive terms like "christian right." Quotations from groups like LGBT Taskforce need to be more clearly identified as quotations rather than part of the body of text.

I'm glad to see work has been carried out to remove outdated techniques like avertion therapy which are irrelevant these days. I wonder if they are even worthy of mention if the last documented cases were in 1992. It is a life-time ago for some!

Photographs of RTs failures are shown - but there are undoubted sucesses - these should be shown too.

Robert Williams 04:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Introductory Paragraph

The introduction is mainly saying how RT is viewed by groups like the APA and AMA, and listing its fallacies rather than talking about RT itself. It seems to me like propaganda pushing. 68.19.164.87 05:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

CNN image in the "Techniques" section

Where's the fair use rational for that image being there? Also, how is the copyright status of the youtube video linked at the end of the section? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The image's fair use rationale is listed here. I'm less sure about the YouTube link. There's also some suggestion that the video clips are taken out of context. I'll remove it for now. Fireplace 19:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The image page (which you linked to), has the standard {{tv-screenshot}} template, but it doesn't specifically say how the image is acceptible for use in this article, and I'm inclined to think that it probably isn't. How is that image fair use here? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Just going off the tag, the issue is whether the image is used "for identification and critical commentary on the station ID or program and its contents." Here, the image is used to show that reparative therapy has entered far enough into popular culture to be featured on one of CNN's more popular programs. This amounts to "commentary on the... program and its contents." Fireplace 20:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"Children" vs. "Minors"

I don't think it's accurate to label 16 and 17 year olds "children", so I've renamed the section "Scandals involving minors." --Lode Runner 09:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Electroconvulsive therapy

ECT is not used with reparative therapy (to change homosexual behaviors). I'm leaving in a verify request tag on this statement for a couple days unless someone can find a source. I highly doubt (HIGHLY) that this was ever used. Remember, ECT is used as a last resort (at least in the US) to deal with severe psychiatric disorders and sends the patient into a seizure, by sending electricity through the brain. Undergoing classical conditioning (i.e. aversion therapy) by administering a shock to an individual's hands, genitals, or other body part to change behavior is not ECT (as unethical as that might be). Chupper 23:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right that the old citation did not extend to include ECT (due to my own misunderstanding of what ECT is, which you've helpfully clarified). I added a citation which seems to support the claim: "Treatments included behavioural aversion therapy with electric shocks, oestrogen therapy, religious counselling, electroconvulsive therapy, and psychoanalysis, and often had a negative impact on patients' sense of identity and place in society." Fireplace 00:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Good source, I learned something new as well. This is the first time I've heard of ECT being used. They are rather vague about it, I wish there were more specifics. But, a great reputable source. Chupper 00:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Passed GA

Congratulations! You article has been granted Wikipedia:Good Articles status. Very nicely researched, well-written, fair, neutral tone, a particular achievement. To reach FA status, I suggest slightly more work addressing the "pro" viewpoint of reparative therapists. Though the article does not have too much POV, the movement is a large one and a little more time explaining the religous angle may actually strengthen the article. To do this, consider bringing material from external sources you've already listed at bottom into footnoted sections and shortening the external links list. But overall well-sourced, well-written, and nice handling of a delicate subject. Well done! Montanabw 05:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and comments! Fireplace 11:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

POV

The entire introduction to the article is nothing but why the topic is bad, fought against, disliked, unapproved, etc. In fact, the intorduction closes with a long quote about how the entire subject is wrong and part of a grand right-wing conspiracy.

It's well within Wikipedia policy to label minority/fringe views as such. The intro needs more content about what RT is, but it's not an NPOV problem. Fireplace 01:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
You can hardly call the Christian right a minority view anymore than the LGBT left, and the claim that the sole reason for the ex-gay movement is to role back legal protections for LGBT is unfounded. Christians are morally opposed to sexual relationships outside of marriage, not legal protections for the LGBT community. I think part of the problem is how the ex-gay movement is presented. It doesn't represent the view of the Christian right at all, or Jewish and Muslim communities for that matter. Most people in the ex-gay movement do not teach that your orientation changes, just that you are able to deal with your attractions without having sex with your own gender. Mainstream medical organizations do not say because you are attracted to your gender you HAVE to have sex with them. They don't say you have to have sex with anyone. Many people in the ex-gay movement have never had sex with their own gender, so it mostly comes down to dealing with emotions, which doesn't contradict mainstream medical organizations. There are ex-gay organizations throughout the world with major conferences. It isn't some fringe view.
So one of two things needs to happen, either:
  • Reparative therapy is a fringe view that doesn't represent the view of the Christian right. This article would then need to be reworded so it doesn't sound like all ex-gays support reparative therapy.
  • Reparative therapy is the view of the Christian right and therefore not a fringe view. Significant work would then need to be done to acurately represent the Christian viewpoint.
Until one of these two things occur, this article violates NPOV. Joshuajohanson 18:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't fully understand your concerns. Your first bullet is particularly confusing to me -- what does reparative therapy's relationship to the Christian right have to do with the percentage of ex-gays who support reparative therapy?" Joie de Vivre 20:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess I should separate the goals of the Christian Right from the goals of ex-gays and RT from the ex-gay movement. Part of my confusion stems from the article itself, since the ex-gay movement redirects to RT. Much of the article talks about how RT is pushed forward by the Christian right, but many of the priciples talked about in the article are not endorsed by either the Christian Right or the majority of ex-gays. So I don't know if the definition of RT needs to be changed to properly reflect the mindset of ex-gays and the goals of the Christian right, or if another article needs to be written to properly characterize the ex-gay movement.
I also think this article violates NPOV. Fireplace's argument was that RT was a fringe view, but according to this article it is the view of the Christian right, which cannot be called a fringe group by Wikipedia's definition. I would just like a fair, unbiased representation to both sides of this issue.Joshuajohanson 02:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

/\ The above section to the previous contributor's section appears to be unsigned.

I have to say that I agree with Joshuajohanson I feel very uneasy about the obvious bias in the article towards the "Gay Lobby" or LGBT POV. There is little attempt to sympathetically treat the RT proponents be they Christian or not (and not all of them are Christians - though it seems to me that they are predominantyly so). There is a clear attempt to "demonise" the Christian point of view (forgive the pun) with the frequent use of the term "Christian Right" as if being a Christian and on the Right automatically invalidates what you say. Christians like the rest of the population are divided between those who are politically conservative or to the right and those who are more liberal and to the left. I'm sure that there are many Christians who would not think of themselves as "right-wing" on a lot of topics. Also the article largely ignores the POV of those who have been through RT and had good experiences with it and are now living "straight" lives. What do they think? I get no impression of this at all.

In any event all this talk of "left" and "right" ignores the fact that what ever our politics we all have POVs which are equally valid. We might not like what someone else thinks but this does not make their POV less valid. Where views are extremist then certainly we need to estew them, but reparative therapists views do not seem to me to be extreme - just not popular. Not being popular doesn't mean that I can discount their views.

I disagree with Fireplace when he implies that the "Christian Right" or "Reparative Therapists'" Views are "minority/fringe". The ex-gay movement may not be as big as the LGBT movement but they seem to be a lot of groups offering RT (not clear how big they are but judging from the number of organisations that offer RT there must be a few thousand at least) - possibly you could call ex-gays a minority group but it would be extremely offensive to label them as such. Extremist of all colours have treated the views and humanity of numerous minorities in this way. LGBT's themselves would protest strongly (and in my view rightly) at such treatment. To imply that Christians (whether right or left) are a minority group is questionable in the extreme. Even if we just confine ourselves to the evangelical / pentecostal / charistmatic wing of the church who are probably the most vocal in their opostion to the LGBT lifestyle they comprise a far bigger group in most Western countries than LGBTs (1-2% according to the latest Canadian survey identify themselves as Gay as oposed to approximately 12% protestant in Canada). This is not to ignore the Catholics who comprise an even larger percentage of the population in Canada (using Canada for the sake of comparison) and are equally vocal in their opposition of the LGBT lifestyle. Similar percentages can be quoted for many other Western countries.

I think that the assertion that ex-gay / RT / Christian POV are interchageable terms is supurious. From the limited research I have done it would appear that most of the mainstream Christian churches are completely ignorant of the ex-gay movement and of reparative therapy and have politicised the issue in much the same way that the LGBT movement seems to have. The LGBT movement and many Christian denominations / churches have adopted opposite ends of the spectrum and become very polarised.

One could argue that ex-gays are persecuted by both the LGBT and straight communities. Straight people reason that "once-gay-always-gay, how can this person have changed their orientation?" The LGBT community seem to treat ex-gays with similar contempt. They deny the possbility of change even if someone stands infront of them as evidence: "this person hasn't really changed willingly - they were cooerced." As a persecuted minority they deserve respect, protection and at least an attempt to understand their POV. This article should present much more of the POV of ex-gays and their experience of RT.

I would argue that this article strongly violates the NPOV and am extremely surprised that it has managed to get GA status.

I notice that some people contributing to this discussion have not signed their contributions. Robert Williams 09:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Several points.
  • I'll just note that the objecting editors are new accounts, both with <50 edits almost entirely focused on reparative therapy. RT-related pages are regularly subjected to aggressive editing by "new" editors with an ax to grind.
  • More substantively: no one is claiming that Christians are a fringe group. The proposition, which is extensively sourced throughout the article, is that the claims made by reparative therapists and ex-gays are widely rejected by the mainstream scientific and medical communities.
  • One of the editors is correct: there are many sets of beliefs by reparative therapists and ex-gays out there, and the article does not capture the full range of them nor their disagreements among themselves (there's a footnote about NARTH condemning Richard Cohen, but that's about it). This part of the article needs to be expanded.
  • I agree that the intro needs retooling to say more about the doctrine and less about listing who opposes it. This is on my own to-do list.
Fireplace 00:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
If you are not implying Christians are a fringe group, are you implying that ex-gays are a fringe group? They do not fall under that category according to Wikipedia policy because they have a prominent adherents. I understand that mainstream scientific and medical communities reject claims by reparative therapists. It is superfluously repeated throughout the article. That makes RT a pseudoscience, of which it is properly labeled. However Wikipedia policy is to not take the scientific view (which this article does), but a neutral point of view, because "Pseudoscience can be seen as a social phenomenon and therefore significant." Christians and ex-gays represent a significant viewpoint and should be fairly represented and "proportional to the rest of the article". If you say "no one is claiming that Christians are a fringe group", then you should represent their viewpoints. Evidences that their viewpoints are not fairly represented are as follows:
  • The only reason given for why the Christian Right supports the ex-gay movement is to "roll back legal protections", which is completely unfounded in Christian literature and represents the LGBT point of view, not the Christian viewpoint. This is repeated twice.
  • Other theories as to why some people support the ex-gay movement, such as financial and political, are all negative and largely speculative. The reasons the groups themselves claim to be for it are not represented.
  • No major Christian group is quoted as to why they support the ex-gay movement.
  • The viewpoint of those participating in the movement is not represented at all, only science claiming they are only there because of social pressures.
  • There is no section on ex-gays, only ex-ex-gays, even though many people have claimed to be ex-gay. This would be akin to only writing about people from AA that returned to being alcoholics.
  • There is a list of gay rights organizations and some religious organizations that oppose it, but no list of organizations that are for it. There should be a summary about what they believe.
  • The See Also section is entirely composed of links to the opposition.
Joshuajohanson 03:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Joshuajohanson makes some well considered and good points. The article is heavily biased and as I've stated before ignores the POV of exgays themselves. The article does make a good representation of the views of the LGBT community. Whilst one respects this POV it isn't balanced at all. Fireplace makes the comment "It's well within Wikipedia policy to label minority/fringe views as such". One wonders what other axes are being ground? We need to see a lot more balance here. I would suggest some changes but as has been pointed out I am inexperienced. I take it anyone can make alterations to the article? Could I suggest that the three of us start making some improvements?

Robert Williams 07:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Joshuajohanson and Robert Williams. This article has a heavy POV slant, and should be improved, or else the Good Article rating should be put up for review.R.E.S.A. 20:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Nota bene, another "new" account who quickly jumps into POV disputes.
Thanks, Joshuajohanson, for your helpful bullet points. I've started to address some of these, but more content should still be added (this has been the plan all along). The quality of the article is pretty good, so I'm trying very hard to avoid falling into sophomoric prose typical on Wikipedia where each issue is binarily surrounded by "supporters" and "critics" who always have to get a word in at each paragraph. Fireplace 02:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you're right that there should be a subsection on prominent ex-gays. Any nominees? Fireplace 17:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Fireplace, I should like to know how being "another "new" account who quickly jumps into POV disputes" disqualifies someone from making a contribution on this subject? I can't speak for the others who are making contributions on this topic - but I do have an interest in RT and that should be qualification enough.

The article is heavily skewed and only properly gives one side of the story. It violates NPOV on a number of scores see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial.

You insinuated that some recent contributors have an axe to grid - what is yours? Robert Williams 04:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

  • The sudden appearance of multiple new editors weighing in on a POV discussion brings up legitimate suspicions of sock puppetry and whether or not someone has asked others to come here. It's the sort of thing that's seen more often in AfD discussions than on Talk pages, though. I'm not saying that's what's going on in this case, just that noting it isn't entirely out of line. eaolson 05:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Reviewing statements made by major medical organizations I take back what I said about this article representing the scientific point of view. The article makes it sound like no one should ever try to change their orientation or seek to diminish same-gender attractions. From my understanding, medical organizations reject therapies that force people to change, that believe homosexuality is a mental disorder, that have bias against homosexuals, that use guilt as a mechanism, or that make unfounded claims that therapy can change one's orientation. I see no evidence that therapies that do not make any of these claims are rejected by the science community, as this article seems to imply.Joshuajohanson 22:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
"Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation? No... It does not require treatment and is not changeable." [7].
"Therapy directed specifically at changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation." [8]. Fireplace 22:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Didn't say that homosexuality required treatment. I still do not think this fairly represents the scientific point of view, let alone a neutral point of view that Wikipedia is supposed to represent. See below.Joshuajohanson 00:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No sock puppetry involved - at least not that I'm aware of. This is a legitimate debate. I freely confess to having an interest in the subject born out of personal experience. This article is totally un-representative of modern RT - certainly as it is practiced in Australia and probably as it is practiced in many other countries including the States. It is a contravertial subject which means that it must be handled carefully and sensitively with a proper respect for NPOV. As I read this article I get no impression at all of the position of the RT movement only that the LGBT movement think it is horibly wrong. The science quoted in support of both sides is shakey because it has become a political hot potato and few serious independent studies have been undertaken. Therefore the whole matter, which boils down to the question of whether or not it is possible for a homosexually oriented person to change their orientation is still a matter of opionion. Therefore this opionion (backed up by much anecodtal evidence) is worthy of being aired fairly especially in an encyclopedia article which is not the place to berate one section of the population over another.

I really feel that we should place a "The POV of this article is under dispute" banner at the top of this article until we can come to some agreement on NPOV. Robert Williams 01:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Internet polls as unreliable sources

This material fails WP:ATT because it does not come from a reliable source. "People Can Change" is a minor group that runs an internet chat board. They sent out a survey to everyone who had signed up, and got 189 usable responses. Then, they put it together in a pdf and uploaded it to their webpage. Prima facie, any pollster or statistician will tell you that these "results" are meaningless. Try getting it peer reviewed or published in a mainstream source. Regarding specific Wikipedia policy, this survey fails WP:ATT#Using_questionable_or_self-published_sources because there is no independent editorial oversight or fact-checking process, and because it was self-published with no independent entity standing between the author and publication. Fireplace 17:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That only means in falls in the category of self-published sources. However, WP:ATT#Using_questionable_or_self-published_sources gives the following instance where self-published sources can be used:
Wikipedia Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as:
* it is relevant to their notability;
* it is not unduly self-serving;
* it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
* there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
* the article is not based primarily on such sources.
This was not an online poll. This was done by members of a group through identifiable moderators to make sure no vote was counted twice. [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples#Use_of_electronic_or_online_sources Wikipedia policy firther states:
An Internet forum with identifiable, expert and credible moderators with a declared corrective moderation policy may, exceptionally, be considered reliable for some topics. In this sense, where moderators act as editors to review material, and challenge or correct any factual errors could have an adequate level of integrity. This exception would only be appropriate to fields that are not well covered by print sources, where experts traditionally publish online.
The ex-gay point of view is not covered by print sources, because RT is rejected by mainstream medical organizations. Therefore, this falls into the above exception.
This section violates NPOV. An unpublished thesis and a sole paper are claimed to represent mainstream medical organizations, while a sole paper by Narth is identified as just one therapist. Nowhere is it documented why ex-gays themselves volunteer for this treatment, nor is the paper presented at NARTH given as much weight. Joshuajohanson 18:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The first policy exception you cited only applies to "Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves" (e.g., People Can Change). The second guideline exception you cite only applies where there are "identifiable, expert" moderators and in a field where experts traditionally publish online. Here, there are no such identified experts, and RT experts do not traditionally publish online (see NARTH, Throckmorton, etc.). Fireplace 18:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
You're right about the mainstream attribution, I went in and fixed it. Fireplace 18:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I still think it provides valuable insight as to the ex-gay point of view. Something needs to be said from their perspective. Could we reword it so that it doesn't seem like a scientific survey, maybe something like People Can Change have said, or something like that? Why is this not permissible, but the damaging quote that the sole reason for this movement is to "to roll back legal protections." That seems to be self-published and does "involve claims about third parties." You need to apply the same standard to both articles. Joshuajohanson 20:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd be much less opposed to using the source if the article's language didn't try to infer from it sweeping claims about "the top reasons for people wanting to change". If it's simply being used for the banal and uncontroversial claim that "Some people want to change for religious reasons," (etc.) I won't fuss (under the theory that exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and weak claims require weak sources). On the other hand, there are probably better sources out there. Fireplace 19:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I've put some stuff in with a cite to a pretty good newspaper article. The article doesn't hit everything I listed, but it can be supplemented as people stumble onto sources. Again, it's not controversial that some people seek RT because of, say, fear of rejection, so a great source isn't necessary. Fireplace 19:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Your arguments were fair, and I really like that particular section now. I would like to see all sections like that. I wasn't trying to disagree with the fact that social pressure played a part, just that it wasn't the only part, as it seemed to me that the section previously implied. As you mentioned before, I am new to this, so I am a little unfamiliar as to what can be expected. I just want to make sure that the article is NPOV. I still think it is POV, but we are working together to provide a solution, so I won't argue that you took the flag off. You seem to know more sources than me. I am doing research and finding out all that I can and am working on beefing up related articles. My main source is personal experience, which I obviously can't write about, and does give me a little bias. However I will argue when something outright contradicts what is happening in the ex-gay community.Joshuajohanson 20:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Good show! Fireplace 20:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Major organizations reject reparative therapy

In the joint statement denouncing reparative therapy for youth, they stated that the most important fact about reparative therapy was that it rejects the understanding that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. That is the view that the whole article is combating, so I think it is very permissible to say that is why they reject reparative therapy. They define reparative therapies as one that believes homosexuality is a mental disorder, but the fact is that this article talks about a variety of treatments to alter one's orientation or diminish same-gender attractions, many of which would not fit into reparative therapy according this definition. We should not make it sound this council is rejecting those treatments, since they fall under a different category. The exact statement from Resolution on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation is as follows:

“ The term "reparative therapy" refers to psychotherapy aimed at eliminating homosexual desires and is used by people who do not think homosexuality is one variation within human sexual orientation, but rather still believe homosexuality is a mental disorder. The most important fact about "reparative therapy," also sometimes known as "conversion" therapy, is that it is based on an understanding of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major health and mental health professions. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers, together representing more than 477,000 health and mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus there is no need for a "cure." ”

Maybe we shouldn't call therapies that do not believe homosexuality is a mental disorder as reparative therapies. In any case, it should be clear that these other therapies are not being rejected.Joshuajohanson 21:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No. The mainstream medical view does not reject reparative therapy because it views homosexuality as a mental disorder, but because it tries to change people's sexual orientation in spite of all the usual problems (lack of empirical evidence, potential for harm, etc.). See throughout [9], [10], [11], [12]. Fireplace 22:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I am still not seeing your justification. The fact is that they do allow physcologists to treat or refer clients to treatments that are aimed at altering sexual orientation. That just doesn't jive with the claim that they reject it. Your links don't help either. This is all I gather from the links:
  • Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation & Youth says these organizations do not support reparative therapies, with the most important fact about reparative therapy being that it rejects their understanding of homosexuality. It does not make a statement on their support for transformational ministries and other therapies aimed at diminishing same-gender attraction that do not fall under their definition of reparative therapies. They only say that public schools should be aware of potential risks, which they outline. Even so, not supporting something doesn’t mean they are rejecting it. If so, they wouldn’t allow for therapeutic treatments to alter sexual orientation at all. Besides, this statement is aimed at how untrained faculty at schools approach kids about it. Their advice to trained professionals dealing with adults is different.
  • ACA in the News again limits their statements to counselors that “view same-sex attractions and behaviors as abnormal and unnatural and, therefore, in need of curing." Still, they allow counselors to refer their clients to these therapies, giving them a list of things to watch.
So yeah, there are doubts to their effectiveness, concerns about potential harm, and a lack of support for some (not all) of these therapies. Medical organizations still allow therapists to practice or refer clients to reparative therapies, so it shouldn’t sound like an outright rejection of reparative therapies. There are also statements saying it should be offered because of "(a)respect for the autonomy and self-determination of persons, (b)respect for valuative frameworks, creeds, and religious values regarding the moral status of same-sex behavior, and (c) service provision given the scientific evidence that efforts to change thoughts, behaviors, and feeling-based sexual orientation can be successful." [13] So don't make it sound like all statements about reparative therapy are negative. I am not against listing out concerns, risks and the fact that these claims are not verifiable.
Again I reiterate that this article talks about a variety of therapies, not all of them claiming that homosexuality is a mental disorder or that they are able to change sexual orientation, which are the therapies that these statements are about. I am against making it sound like these organizations are unsupportive of all of these therapies.
To summarize, the article should not imply:
  • medical organizations prohibit all forms of reparative therapy
  • statements against reparative therapy are also directed against all therapies aimed at diminshing same-sex attractions, such as transformational ministries.
Joshuajohanson 00:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
With respect to the first summary point, the article does not say or imply that mainstream scientific and medical organizations "prohibit" any or all attempts to change sexual orientation.
With respect to the second summary point, the mainstream medical and scientific view is that attempts to change sexual orientation are not effective and are potentially harmful. See [14] ("Therapy directed specifically at changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation.", "NASW discourages social workers from providing treatments designed to change sexual orientation or from referring practitioners or programs that claim to do so."), [15] ("Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation? No.... homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable."), [16] ("The report... rejects the theory that homosexuality is a reversible lifestyle."), [17] ("most mainstream mental health professionals dismiss attempts to eradicate homosexual desires or to change someone’s sexual orientation as quackery that is potentially harmful."). No distinction is made between whether the attempt involves psychoanalysis (e.g.) or prayer (e.g.).
Finally, Yarhouse/Throckmorton do not represent the standard scientific/medical view. They are both outspoken advocates of the ex-gay/RT movement(s). Fireplace 05:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say medical organizations don't view attempts to change orientation as ineffective and potentially harmful. I didn't say some organization discourage it. I only said I haven't seen anywhere were they have said “we reject treatments to alter orientation.” Present the facts about what they said. Nothing more. Say American Academy of Pediatrics say it is contraindicated. Say medical organizations told high school faculty members that they do not support it for high school students. Don't say they reject it. Don't say their objections to reparative therapy carry over to transformational ministries. That is misleading. Exercise is "potentially harmful", and there are warnings on all of the exercise equipment. It doesn't mean medical organizations reject exercise. How can you say they reject treatments to alter orientation if they give guidelines on how to do it? Journalists don't completely understand what is happening in medical field. I want to see it from the medical field itself.
Finally, Yarhouse may be an advocate for reparative therapy, but that article was published by the APA. (Psychotherapy: Theory/Research/Practice/Training, Vol. 39, No. 1, 66-75) Throckmorton has also published in the APA. Don't dismiss them because they don't express your point of view.Joshuajohanson 23:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi all. The Norcross reference has reparative therapy classed as a discredited therapy. Thats a survey of the American Psychological Society (101 respondents). I think that could be clarified in the article. Just stated as it is in the paper. Docleaf 05:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
PS, I think it may be more clear to the reader if various therapies used for RT are outlined. For example, I remember reading that Buddha therapy, back manipulations, and acupuncture are sometimes used for RT. Docleaf 05:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

All this is very well but continues to ignore the fact that there has been very little serious research into the origins and nature of homosexuality - Major organisations may reject RT but they do so on the basis of politics not research. Show me the research that conclusively proves that homosexual orientation can't be changed and I will change my tune. Anecdotal evidence shows that it can and some studies I have read suggest that some "spontaneously" change their orientation with no intervention at all. Little of this gets documented making it very hard to study. The truth is that nearly all research surrounding the subject is compromised in one way or another largely because the subject is so politicised. If we are dealing with politics of sexual orientation then the views and opinions of the reparative therapists are just as valid as anyone else's and should be fairly represented in an article dealing with the subject.

If you were to write an article on liberalism - it would be grossly unrepresentative just to talk of it in terms of a socialist response to liberalism. You'd want to talk about differing perspectives on liberalism but this wouldn't be the main focus.

Let's see both / all sides of this argument fairly reflected in the article. The way it reads at the moment makes it sound as if it is seriouisly dodgy and as safe as wiring up your home with bare wires. Now from your POV you may feel that it is about as safe as wiring your home with bare wires, but to many others (myself included) it has been a lifeline. There is room for both opinions to be fairly represented within the article.

More balance please!Robert Williams 07:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made some changes that I think begin to address these concerns. Fireplace 16:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Fireplace, yes I think this is definitely a step in the right direction - it needs beefing up a bit but it's a good start. I think a critical thing is to change the opening section (this has been mentioned by others) so that it gives a more balanced introduction to the subject. The reader needs to understand that there are two strongly held and diametrically oposed POVs on this subject and that it is controvertial. This is the essence of the story we must tell about RT - rightly or wrongly people have taken sides in this debate but the job of an encyclopedia article is not to be partial - we must simply present the facts and allow people to decide one way or the other.
I did think that the third paragraph which includes mention of "the Christian Right" was rather extreme and perhaps a little bigoted (as I have mentioned before by no means are all Christians are right wing) - but this is obviously their view (and again needs to be fairly represented) - perhaps you could reorganise the two quotes in this paragraph so that they are more obviously quotes. The second paragraph should be balanced with the RT view perhaps the NARTH view of the matter. Thank you, with this improvement and with a few other more minor ones, I think we could drop the NPOV dispute. Perhaps we can then look at getting the article upto A class? What do others contributing on this subject think? Robert Williams 01:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I should just point out that I am Down Under and that it will take a day for me to respond to posts. Robert Williams 01:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This article needs to distinguish position statements on all therapies to diminish homosexual attractions/behaviors and those directed at the ones that are based on the assumption that homosexuality is a mental disorder and that sexual orientation is reversible, like Richard Cohen and NARTH. References to statements that orientation cannot be changed do not discredit all theories. Statements prohibiting practicing treatments that say homosexuality is a mental disorder should not be applied to all treatments. This article is about all treatments to alter one's orientation, including transformational ministries. A previous version of this article reads "The ethics guidelines of these organizations discourage, and sometimes prohibit, its practice." I see nothing in the ethics guidelines that ever prohibit treatments like transformational ministries that don't work on the assumption that homosexuality is a mental disorder. Instead of saying "sometimes prohibits it" say when it prohibits what.Joshuajohanson 22:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The American Psychiatric Association's position statement

Here is the position statement. The appendix, a 1998 publication, states that the organization hasn't issued a formal position statement on reparative therapy. The publication itself, released in 2000, is titled "Therapies on Attempts to Change Sexual Orientation (Reparative or Conversion Therapies): Position Statement." There's been an edit controversy over whether the 2000 document constitutes a formal position statement on reparative therapy. I don't understand why this is controversial. Fireplace 00:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The 2000 statement "augments, rather than replaces the 1998 statement." It "expands" and "elaborates" the previous statement. It doesn't "outdate" it. So in essense, the 1998 statement is a part of the 2000 statement. They are very clear on that. The 1998 statement says "The American Psychiatric Association does not currently have a formal position statement on treatments that attempt to change a persons sexual orientation." It makes lots of other positions statements, including opposition to certain therapies that are based on the fact that homosexuality is a mental disorder. Its not void of statements. The 2000 statements also adds additional statements and recommendations. I didn't mean to imply it wasn't a formal statement. It just doesn't make a statement on those treatments. It "recommends" "refraining" from attempting to change a client's orientation, while keeping in mind to "First, do no harm". Refraining? Keep in mind to do no harm? What does that mean? What harm? I don't know. Maybe it is in reference to the 1998's statement of appropriate clinical indications for attempting to change sexual behavior (maybe deeply held religious beliefs?) Maybe the fact that there are "no scientifically rigorous outcome studies to determine either the actual efficacy or harm of "reparative" treatments." I think it is purposely ambiguous in order to avoid making a formal statement. It doesn't undo, outdate or any way counter the 1998 statement that there is no formal statement on treatments that attempt to change a persons sexual orientation. The 1998 statment is a valid one.Joshuajohanson 00:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
You're jumping through interpretative hoops to create ambiguity where there is none. The APA makes a very clear argument: there is no reliable evidence in support of RT and, in light of anecdotal evidence of harm RT causes and the general rule not to do harm, they recommend that ethical practitioners not attempt to change people's sexual orientation.
Even if you could argue that the APA is implicitly drawing a mysterious distinction between a "position statement" and a "formal position statement", that distinction isn't relevant to the article itself. Their "position" (whether you want to call it "formal" or not) is explicit. Fireplace 04:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
That is POV pushing. You could just as easily say that the APA makes a very clear argument: there is no reliable evidence showing any harm caused by RT and, in light of anecdotal evidence of potential efficacy of RT and the general rule to respect the client's right to self-determination, they allow ethical practitioners to offer treatments to alter people's sexual orientation. It is true, but that is POV pushing the other way. This article should be NPOV. The statement puts the evidence of both harm and efficacy on the same playing field, calling both antecdotal. Another statement by the APA reads "the ethics, efficacy, benefits, and potential for harm of therapies that seek to reduce or eliminate same-gender sexual orientation are under extensive debate in the professional literature and the popular media".[18] Again, the efficacy, benefits and potential harm are all on the same field. To the casual reader, the current article seems to imply at a first glance that the evidence supporting harm is proven and evidence supporting benefit and efficacy are disproven. I have tried to write quotes showing the debate in professional literature, but these changes have been undone and modified so it sounds like there is no debate in professional literature. There is a debate and the article should reflect that.
I quoted a segment from the position statment that said "there may be appropriate clinical indications for attempting to change sexual behaviors." Fireplace reverted it and said that it was taken out of context. I fail to see how it was taken out of context. How should it be interpreted?Joshuajohanson 19:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Responding to the first paragraph: the "debate" in the professional literature is limited to the one or two articles that Throckmorton and Yarhouse have published, and which have largely been ignored. The article already discusses those articles. The article also makes clear the mainstream medical position on reparative therapy. And to the second: A natural reading of the 1998 language in context would be to take the phrase you quoted as cautioning that the disapprobation the APA expressed toward RT in the immediately preceding sentences shouldn't be taken so broadly as to condemn all attempts at changing sexual behaviors (e.g., I imagine, sex addiction and other unhealthy sexual behaviors in same-sex contexts). Fireplace 00:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The NARTH website has this reference (http://www.narth.com/docs/available.html) to an APA Journal article which suggests that it would be un-ethical to with hold therapy from those requesting it. Even within the APA camp there are differing opinions on the issue. Attempts to have Reparative Therapy banned by the APA have, so far at least, not been sucessful. I don't know how to reference the original journal article - if either of you can get hold of a link I'd be interested to read it. For my part at least I am glad that attempts to ban RT have been unsuccessful.  :) Robert Williams 08:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Fireplace - I can't access the position statement you reference. Robert Williams 08:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the article Fireplace (and I) referenced: http://www.psych.org/edu/other_res/lib_archives/archives/200001.pdf http://www.psych.org/psych_pract/copptherapyaddendum83100.cfm (non-pdf)
Here is the article NARTH references: http://psych.umb.edu/faculty/perez/Psych215/Yarhouse%20sex%20conversion%20tx%202002.pdf
Joshuajohanson 18:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Ill have a read (sorry the apostrophe is misbehaving on my keyboard!) Robert Williams 23:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: be careful not to confuse the two APAs. The position statement discussed above was from the psychiatrists, whereas the NARTH reference you cite is from the psychologists. Fireplace 04:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Where does the new banner leave us? - Can we continue to edit this article make / comments about it or should we wait? Robert Williams 03:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we can keep editing it. That is a very mild banner. All that means is that there has been some discussions that neither side really knows the answer to and we would like some help. There is still plenty to be done on the article that we don't need an expert for.Joshuajohanson 04:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.