Talk:Reparative therapy/Archive 3

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 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 > 4 >>

Contents

Extensive debate within professional literature

In 1997, the American Psychological Association stated “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” [1] In 2000, the American Psychiatric Association issued a statement that said “the issue of changing sexual orientation has become highly politicized” and that there is no scientifically rigorous outcome studies that show whether or not reparative therapy is effective.[2]

Yet despite the reference to extensive debate, this article claims medical consensus on the subject and that the consensus is that the ethics and efficacy are rejected, not under extensive debate as has been stated. As evidence of the claim, the article sites Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation & Youth: A Primer for Principals, Educators and School Personnel. This article advises educators about the aggressive promotion of reparative therapy. They state they “do not support efforts to change young people's sexual orientation through reparative therapy," saying that “the promotion of reparative therapy … is likely to exacerbate the risk of harassment, harm, and fear,” but say nothing of reparative therapy itself. It is the potential for harassment resulting from the aggressive promotion of reparative therapy that educators have the duty to protect their students against, not from reparative therapy itself. Nothing at all is said in regards to reparative therapy for adults.

Fireplace has argued against the existence of a debate, saying “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.” This is not true. First of all, Throckmorton (past president of the American Mental Health Counselors Association) and Yarhouse are members of the APA and there work has been published in peer-reviewed journals. Their opinions are valid, and not ignored. Second, they are not the only ones who have argued for reparative therapy. Here are some other people:

  • Robert Perloff, PhD (previous APA president) charged that APA is "too politically correct, too bureaucratic, too obeisant to special interests." He stated that APA’s view of Conversion therapy is "all wrong. First, the data are not fully in yet. Second, if the client wants a change, listen to the client. Third, you're barring research." Same office, different aspirations
  • Nicholas A. Cummings (another previous APA president) and Rogers H. Wright, Ph.D., Litt.D., wrote a book entitled Destructive Trends in Mental Health, which argues against APA’s current favoritism towards gay groups, arguing “Such efforts are especially troubling because they abrogate the patient's right to therapist and determine therapeutic goals.” [3][4]
  • Dr. Robert Spitzer , who was involved in the original declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder, said "I'm convinced from people I have interviewed...many of them...have made substantial changes toward becoming heterosexual. I came to this study skeptical. I now claim that these changes can be sustained." (Quoted by Dr. Laura Schlessinger on her syndicated radio show, January 21, 2000.)
  • Dr. Brent Scharman, former president of the Utah Psychological Association, said that all homosexual individuals should have the right to pursue change. It is the client who should determine the direction of the treatment. [5]
  • Douglas Haldeman, a gay psychologist defended reparative therapy stating “this is not to say that I endorse these beliefs or share them myself; but neither do I endorse the prospect that we, as gay scholars and activists, should interefere with people's choices… For some it is easier, and less emotionally disruptive, to contemplate changing sexual orientation, than to disengage from a religious way of life that is seen as completely central to the individual's sense of self and purpose.” Gay Rights, Patient Rights, Implications of Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy Presented at the American Psychological Association Annual Meeting, August 7th, 2000, Washington, D.C.
  • S. LeVay said “I believe that we should as far as possible, respect people's personal autonomy, even if that includes what I would call misguided desires such as the desire to change one's sexual orientation.” Sexual Orientation: The Science and its Social Impact
  • Ray Fowler, CEO of the American Psychological Association, states: “The APA’s position on reparative therapy is that those who wish to explore developing heterosexual feelings or behavior have a right to do so as part of every client’s right to self-determination. If an individual is comfortable with homosexuality, it is not the role of the therapist to convince the client otherwise. If one’s feelings are ego-dystonic and there is a desire to talk about changing, that is an acceptable choice and a psychologist may participate if he or she desires.” (The Utah Psychologist, Winter 1998, p. 11)
  • Dr. Martin Seligman, APA president, said that he felt a client had a right to request the type of therapy that he or she wants and receive it. He further states that those who have had fewer homosexual experiences, or who have bisexual feelings, would be most likely to successfully change and those who have had more long term, ingrained homosexual feelings and activity, would be less likely to change. (What You Can Change And What You Can't)

All of this is in addition to Throckmorton and Yarhouse’s work. The APA states that there is extensive debate within professional literature, and there is no evidence of a consensus of the efficacy and ethics, so I think we should represent this as a debate within the medical community.Joshuajohanson 01:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You can also find a handful of prominent scientists who are skeptical about evolution or global warming. Nevertheless, a broad consensus in the medical community exists and that consensus is extensively cited throughout the article. There may be debate (though hardly "extensive") over some smaller questions (e.g., "should ethics codes explicitly forbid the practice?"), but on the larger scale there is broad agreement that the practice is unsupported by empirical data and that there are concerns over the ethics and motivations surrounding the practice. It is therefore incorrect to make a sweeping statement about "extensive debate" over reparative therapy in the medical community. Now, you're right insofar as the previous language ("reject") was inappropriately vague. I've replaced it with "No mainstream medical organization endorses reparative therapy and many have expressed concerns over the ethics and motivations surrounding its practice." Fireplace 03:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
It is the American Psychological Association that uses the words "extensive debate" and the American Psychiatric Association that says it is "highly politicized." Those are not my words. What evidence is there of a broad consensus? It is "extensively cited" throughout the article by refering to Just the Facts, which was aimed at the "agressive promotion" (again, not my words, but theirs) of RT in the schools. I've read "recommendations" to refrain, counsel that therapies directed specifically at changing orientation of young people are contraindicitive, warning not to practice RT without being trained, and an faq page stating that it is ineffective, but most say that there isn't enough evidence one way or the other. The only consensus that I do see is that it should not be treated as a mental disorder, and it doesn't require treatment. You wrote "No mainstream medical organization endorses reparative therapy and many have expressed concerns over the ethics and motivations surrounding its practice." I like the first part, but the ethics are still under extensive debate and I only have only seen LGTB groups complain of the motives. The article is still riddled with comments like "The medical and scientific consensus is that reparative therapy is not effective," when several sources say there is no evidence whether it is effective or not. This puts RT in a different category than evolution and global warming, because there is scientific for those debates.
This is more than just a handful of scientists. Don't forget that NARTH is also composed of professional scientists. They just haven't published as much in peer-reviewed journals, but they are still professional. They also have notable scientists like Nicolosi. How many scientists do you think are studying RT? It is a sizeable enough number to get more attention in the article. They are sizeable enough for the APA to classify it as an extensive debate.Joshuajohanson 18:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Article length

On my last edit, I got a warning that the article is getting too long. There is a lot of information in here about ex-gays and ex-gay organizations. Though I agree that has a lot to do with reparative therapy, I think it would be better placed in the ex-gay page. Here are some of the sections I think would be better placed on the ex-gay page:

  • History and techniques practiced by ex-gay organizations, like Love in Action and Exodus.
  • Ethics guidelines with respect to ex-gay groups
  • Popular culture - most of it is about ex-gay organizations
  • Controversies, criticisms, and scandals
  • The debate seems to be focused against the Christian right and ex-gay movement
  • Scandals involving minors (almost all seems to be about ex-gay camps)
  • Relapses and ex-ex-gays (seems to go better with ex-gays)
  • Financial motivations (the only evidence is for an ex-gay organization)

Again, I am not saying that this doesn't have anything to do with reparative therapy. I think it should be summarized on this page with links to the appropriate section on the ex-gay page.Joshuajohanson 01:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, for the reasons I've outlined at Talk:Ex-gay. In summary: (1) Reparative therapy and the ex-gay movements are inseparably intertwined phenomena, sharing many common motivations, assumptions, proponents, opponents, and criticisms -- some commentators (correctly or incorrectly) do not even distinguish between them, (2) the best way to get across the distinctions and similarities between RT and the ex-gay movement is in a section like Reparative therapy#Distinguishing between the reparative therapy and ex-gay movements, (3) maintaining independent, non-heirarchical articles leads to redundancy problems (see issue (1)), (4) and an unnecessary amount of cross referencing (that gets screwed up every time you adjust the section structures), (5) the pragmatic reason that the reparative therapy article is approaching WP:FAC status, whereas the ex-gay article is an unsourced, self-contradictory mess. Regarding article length, we're currently at 55k (including images), which is long but by no means unusual for Wikipedia articles. Anyways, the thought is to get all the content together under a broad Reparative therapy and the ex-gay movement (or whatever) article, and then to spin off subsidiary sections into secondary articles (another common article style on Wikipedia). This is the motivating thought behind the recent surge of edits. Fireplace 02:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
In response to your reasonings.
  • (1) Reparative therapy and the ex-gay movements are related, not intertwined. We have discussed this, but here we go again. Here are some summary points:
  • Definition: To me, the main difference is reparative therapy is a type of therapy that may or may not be applied towards ex-gays while ex-gays are people who may or may not have had reparative therapy. Not everyone going through RT becomes ex-gay, and not all ex-gays go through RT.
  • Foundation: RT has psychological roots with a strong foundation in Freud. It had been widely practiced in the secular world for years before the ex-gay movement even started. The ex-gay movement has its roots in the bible.
  • Methodology: RT focuses on psychoanalysis, while ex-gays focus on redemption through Christ. Some ex-gays may use RT, but others never ever see a psychologist.
  • Relationship to mainstream medical views: Medical organizations have put out several statements about RT, but the only one about transformational ministries is the Just the Facts pamphlet, in which a distinction is made between them and reparative therapies.
  • Ethical guidelines: Psychologist should obey guidelines. Ex-gay organizations are religious in nature, and so the guidelines do not apply. That would be like saying a padre or a pastor should abide by these guidelines during confessionals.
  • Criticisms: Some critics against RT, such as the procedures against Alan Turing, have nothing to do with ex-gay ministries. Likewise, some critics against ex-gay organizations, such as misrepresenting the fact that all Christians view homosexual activity as a sin, have nothing to do with RT.
  • (2) The section is helpful, but not sufficient. It would be way too easy for a casual reader to confuse the distinctions listed above. The current RT article does not do a good job in this distinction.
  • (3) We will have to be careful about this, but I think it would be better than confusing unrelated criticism.
  • (4) I think the ex-gay page should have one section on its relationship to reparative therapy and the RT page should have one section on its relationship to ex-gays. We can figure something out.
  • (5) I agree, but that doesn’t mean we ignore it. I have created a to-do list that should address these issues.
To summarize, I still disagree that ex-gays and RT should be merged. That will create confusion as to who is saying what to whom. You might be right about article length, but I still stand by these other points.Joshuajohanson 01:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ethics guidelines

Just to be clear, here is a summary of the ethics guidelines from the major organizations:

  • American Psychiatric Association: "In the last four decades, "reparative" therapists have not produced any rigorous scientific research to substantiate their claims of cure. Until there is such research available, APA recommends that ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals' sexual orientation, keeping in mind the medical dictum to first, do no harm." Gloss: At present, don't do it.
  • American Psychological Association: They list a series of general ethical principles which all members should be following. Their tone is generally negative of the practice as it happens in the real world (citing "societal ignorance and prejudice", peer pressure and lack of legal protections for youth, people like Socarides treating homosexuality as a disorder), but they do not say that reparative therapy per se violates its ethics guidelines. [6] Elsewhere, they state that "'reparative therapy,'... is based on an understanding of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major health and mental health professions." [7]. Gloss: Don't do it the way it's currently done by a lot of people.
  • American Counseling Association: "ACA Ethics Committee strongly suggests that ethical professional counselors do not refer clients to someone who engages in conversion therapy or, if they do so, to proceed cautiously only when they are certain that the referral counselor fully informs clients of the unproven nature of the treatment and the potential risks and takes steps to minimize harm to clients." Regarding these referrals, they state "Any professional who engages in conversion therapy is not offering the professional standard of care and would need to include that he or she is offering it not as a professional counselor but is providing counseling within the scope of practice of some other profession (i.e., Christian counselor)." [8] Gloss: Don't do it in your capacity as a professional.
  • American Academy of Pediatrics: "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." [9] Note that contraindicated is a medical term to indicate a situation in which a medication or treatment should not be administered. Gloss: Don't do it to youth.

I'm writing these all down as a point of reference. But generally, in areas that require a gloss on the ethics guidelines (such as the introduction or in related articles) I believe an accurate one is: "The ethics guidelines of major mental health organizations discourage, and sometimes prohibit, reparative therapy," with a link to the Ethics section in reparative therapy. Fireplace 15:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, these aren't ethics guidelines, but position statements and recommendations. Ethic codes are the rules counselors must follow, not the organizations' position on therapies. See [10] Here are my counterarguments:
  • American Psychiatric Association: That is only a recommendation. It states to first, do no harm. Haldeman clarifies this by saying "For some it is easier, and less emotionally disruptive, to contemplate changing sexual orientation, than to disengage from a religious way of life that is seen as completely central to the individual's sense of self and purpose.” If that is not enough, Ray Fowler, CEO, stated “The APA’s position on reparative therapy is that those who wish to explore developing heterosexual feelings or behavior have a right to do so as part of every client’s right to self-determination." Gloss: Refrain from doing it, but respect the client's right to reparative therapy.
  • American Psychological Association: I agree the tone is generally negative, but the fact is that they allow it and have established guidelines on how to do it. Gloss: If you are to do it, make sure you do it the right way.
  • American Counseling Association: They state "any professional engaging in conversion therapy must have received appropriate training in such a treatment modality with the requisite supervision." That doesn't mean they can't do it. What does mean they can't do it is the fact that there is "no professional training .... that would prepare counselors to provide conversion therapy." The objection is not reparative therapy itself or the client's right to self-determination, but simply a lack of research and training. Note that this position is not shared by other professional organizations and is hardly a medical consensus. Gloss: Conversion therapy is okay if the counselor is trained, the only problem is that there is no training available.
  • American Academy of Pediatrics: Conversion therapy should not be directed specifically at changing sexual orientation. Most reparative therapies agree with this. Instead they work on underlying causes, such as sense of masculinity (or feminity), sense of self within one's gender, healing relationships with parents, changing homosexual behavior and lots of other techniques that aren't directed specifically at changing orientation. Their belief is that once these issues are solved heterosexuality may come as a result. Note that heterosexuality may not even be a goal for a client going to a reparative therapist. Gloss: Don't aim your conversion treatments specifically at changing sexual orientation.
I am not arguing that there tone isn't negative, but just that it should be clear that they allow it. I think the gloss should be "Reparative therapy is discouraged by major mental health organizations, but permited under certain guidelines." That also makes clear that it is prohibited when the guidelines aren't followed.Joshuajohanson 17:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The ACA and AAP glosses you suggest don't convey the strong anti-RT positions explicitly made by those two organizations. See above. The American Psychological Association gloss you suggest assumes that the APA thinks there is a "right" way to do it -- and that is not the tone of the position statement. Rather, they explicitly say that there are many wrong ways to do it, and remain silent on whether there is any appropriate way to do it. Regarding your 'overall gloss', three of the above don't "permit" it "under certain guidelines" (APA 1, ACA, AAP) and the third regards it as unethical it under certain circumstances, without stating whether it is unethical in all cases. Fireplace 18:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I agreed that they discouraged it, but they still permit it. Remaining silent on whether there is any appropriate way to do it is in a sense permiting it, especially given the client's right to self-determination. If they didn't permit it, they would have to prohibit it. The fact is that most psychiatrists who practice reparative therapy (such as those at NARTH), do so under the licenses given out by these organizations. If these organizations didn't permit it, how could NARTH "advise its members to provide psychological care in a professional, ethical manner which is consistent with the codes of ethics of the national mental health organizations and state licensing boards."[11] It is true that Richard Cohen was suspended for violating code of conduct, but his methods were also denounced by NARTH. The gloss you suggest doesn't reflect a psychiatrist's duty to respect a client's right to self-determination.Joshuajohanson 18:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Fireplace. I also would like to point out that the ACA statement doesn't necessarily mean that they believe that an appropriate treatment could ever be developed. In light of the following statements from the ACA (both from here), I think Fireplace's interpretation is more true:
"The belief that same-sex attraction and behavior is abnormal and in need of treatment is in opposition to the position taken by national mental health organizations, including ACA."
"To refer a client to someone who engages in conversion therapy communicates to the client that his/her same-sex attractions and behaviors are disordered and, therefore, need to be changed. This contradicts the dictates of the 2005 ACA Code of Ethics."
I think that the guidelines could best be described as a form of risk management. The organizations who signed on have spoken against reparative therapy because they find it at least, ineffective and at worst, damaging. They realize that some are still going to use the techniques, and thus it's better to lay out some guidelines than say nothing. Joie de Vivre 20:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I didn't try to imply that the ACA believed appropriate treatment could be developed (it doesn't state they believe it couldn't either). That isn't what I was arguing. What I was arguing is the client has a right to self-determination and psychiatrists are permited to help them reach their goals. They can do that without saying same-sex attraction is a disorder and needs to be changed. Psychiatrists that operate under NARTH's rules practice reparative therapy without any problems from the APA, ACA, APA or AAP.
As far as effectiveness, they dismiss evidence as antecdotal (together with evidence of harm) and say there is no valid research supporting efficacy.[12] No proof for the effectiveness of RT doesn't equate to proof of ineffectiveness. Neither does proof of ineffectiveness of some techniques previously employed by RT (like aversion therapy or other therapies directed specifically at changing orientation) disprove effectiveness of all techniques.Joshuajohanson 21:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The Utah Psychologist

I've been trying to locate an original of this source: The Utah Psychologist, Winter 1998, p. 11. Neither google scholar nor lexisnexis turns up anything. In the meantime, here is an unofficial copy of that page, which does not include the quote recently added to the article: [13]. Fireplace 20:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The quote is contained in Respect and the Facts: How to Have Both in the Sexual Orientation Debate. This paper was presented at the National Education Association annual convention on July 7, 2004.Joshuajohanson 20:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
So we have two inconsistent secondary sources, and no primary source. My guess is that the language currently in the article was a paraphrase of the Utah Psychologist piece, which itself paraphrased a telephone conversation. It got passed around the internet a bunch of times (just google the language -- there are about 10 instances, often inter-citing) and eventually someone put quotation marks around it. Given the obscurity of The Utah Psychologist (no google scholar presence, no lexisnexis presence), I doubt Throckmorton or PFOX or any of the other people who cite it (except Brent Scharman) have seen the original. Fireplace 22:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I imagine Scharman and PFOX's acoounts are paraphrased, but Respect and the Facts is definately a direct quote. I replaced the paraphrased quote with the direct quote.Joshuajohanson 18:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Once again, here's a replication of the original source [14], and neither the original quote you inserted nor the new quote are attributed to Fowler as direct quotations. Instead, it says "He seemed to feel that..." This is why I doubt the accuracy of Throckmorton's paper, which cites the same source (namely, Utah Psychologist page 11). Fireplace 19:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand. That isn't the original. The original isn't online. The authors of Respect and the Facts: How to Have Both in the Sexual Orientation Debate say it is a direct quote. They don't cite the NARTH article. They don't even mention it.Joshuajohanson 06:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
This appears to include a copy of the original source. In it, the "quote" is clearly not a direct quote, but rather Scharman's interpretation of what Fowler "seems to feel" based on a telephone call. Fireplace 09:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Malleability of Sexual Orientation

A critical argument in the reparative therapy debate is whether sexual orientation is fixed or not. [15][16] Camille Paglia, a lesbian activist, used it in her arguments supporting reparative therapy[17]. In the opening paragraphs, it states that the medical consensus is that sexual orientation cannot be changed, but I can't find that anywhere. Since it is such a crucial element, we need a paragraph to explain exactly what the medical view of whether sexuality is changeable. This is a seperate argument from whether or not reparative therapies are effective, since many people think that sexual orientation changes naturally, and should not be forced.Joshuajohanson 23:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

"Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation? No.... [it] is not changeable." [18], "There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed." (American Psychological Association) [19]. If you want to add concise statement of what the mainstream position is about to what extent a person's sexuality changes outside the context of reparative therapy/ex-gay methods, that's fine -- but let's make sure it's a mainstream position. I have no idea what Paglia's theories are or whether they are representative of the scientific consensus. Same problem with Fritz Klein, and certainly the problem same with "fluid sexuality". Fireplace 23:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I realize that American Psychological Association information page states that homosexuality is unchangeable, but others state there is no evidence one way or the other. I was not trying to represent the idea that orientation can change as the mainstream argument, just as a legitament counter viewpoint that is held by many outside of reparative therapy. The wording on the sexual orientation page that "Most specialists follow the general conclusion of Alfred Kinsey" was not my wording. I really don't care if this concept is called fluid sexuality or not, that is just what Wikipedia has been calling it. The concept still exists. I don't understand why this causes so much problems. I think this is an important issue that deserves to have its own section.Joshuajohanson 07:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
A few points. First, wikipedia articles are not reliable sources (see WP:CITE). Second, the fluid sexuality language you added came from a completely WP:OR article that was written in large part by you. Third, above you argued for a statement of what the view is on whether sexual orientation changes naturally over time. But the language you actually added to the article didn't address that: you merely put some quotes on different topics together without any clear structure. I'll also note that your citation to Paglia doesn't support your claims that she thinks orientation isn't fixed or that she supports reparative therapy. This is a regular issue with your citations. Fireplace 15:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Fluid sexuality isn't WP:OR, and the parts I added all had references. I only "copied" the parts that were references, not the other parats. Simply being unaware of Fritz Klein and Camille Paglia, isn't enough reason to revert my edits. Alfred Kinsey also believes orientation is fluid, and Lisa M. Diamond tracts changes in attractions among women over a two year period.[20] The paper I referenced that quoted Camille Paglia said "Is the gay identity so fragile that it cannot bear the thought that some people may not wish to be gay? Sexuality is highly fluid and reversals are theoretically possible...there is an element of choice in all behavior, sexual or otherwise." How was I misquoting her?
When I try to paraphase what is said, you say I am misquoting, so lately I have been trying to get direct quotes and you say that they are strung together without any clear structure. If you don't like my structure, fix the structure, don't just revert all my edits.
I must admit that some of my additions have come from NARTH, which according to you is not "reliable", but the reliability should at least be that of anti-ex-gay propaganda, from which claims the APA says "create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish". Just the Facts is also horribly misquoted.Joshuajohanson 07:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry -- I was wrong about Paglia and sexuality not being fixed (I missed the quote, which was in a paragraph where her name wasn't used), although the source has other problems (namely, it includes no citation and comes from a highly biased source -- a google search for the quoted language turns up no other hits; if she said this, and it's important enough to include in the article, we should cite to the primary source). Regarding fluid sexuality and original research; yes, it was original research. "Fluid sexuality" is not a category or term widely used by mental health professionals, and the article, by stringing together a series of quotes about sexuality, tried to organize them into a demarcated theory called "fluid sexuality." Regarding the reliability of sources, there is no double standard: if an organization offers a direct quote from an official statement, I tend to accept is as a reliable source (especially absent any contrary evidence); if a speaker paraphrases a telephone conversation, I am not inclined to accept that paraphrasing as a direct quote. This is all straight out of WP:RS. Fireplace 10:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I took out the words "fluid sexuality" and I reworded it so it clear that sexuality being fluid did not mean it could be changed by choice. If you don't like how I presented, how about you change it rather than just out-right deleting it. Funny how in the same response you say "there is no double standard" and a speech to the House of Representatives is unreliable because it comes "from a highly biased source," while 365Gay Newscenter isn't considered biased. Try googling just "Is the gay identity so fragile that it cannot bear the thought that some people may not wish to be gay?" You get 94 hits. I had it properly sourced to her book in fluid sexuality. I didn't ever put it in this article, but I am putting it in now under gay rights supporters. I have it sourced to her book, but if someone wants to look it up online they can see another source (since a member of the House of Representatives aparently can't be trusted to quote a book very well.)Joshuajohanson 02:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks good! Fireplace 03:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge and move

I'm proposing merging ex-gay into reparative therapy, and then moving the combined article to Reparative therapy and the ex-gay movement. Over the past few months I've brought the article from a mess to GA (and approaching FA, in my opinion) status. This merge/move is the next logical step for the reasons below. A little history: the articles were unmerged a month ago on an exploratory basis, and now, having lived with the unmerged articles for a while, I think they are better handled as one (but not, this time, categorizing one as a species of the other).

  • From a structural point of view, maintaining independent, non-heirarchical articles leads to redundancy problems and an unnecessary amount of cross referencing (just look at ex-gay). Not to mention, the reparative therapy article is approaching WP:FAC status, whereas the ex-gay article is a mess. The proper way to structure these articles is in a heirarchy, with secondary spinoff articles used as necessary ala WP:Summary style.
  • From a substantive point of view, reparative therapy and the ex-gay movements are inseparably linked phenomena, sharing many common motivations, assumptions, proponents, opponents, and criticisms -- some commentators (correctly or incorrectly) do not even distinguish between them. From a neutral, "view from nowhere" perspective, they are properly treated as two heads of the same dragon. There are differences, but the best way to get across both the distinctions and similarities between RT and the ex-gay movement is in a section like this (still under development), plus making the distinction in the article intro (like this).
  • Support per reasons above. Fireplace 20:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per nom - well thought out reasons. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose RT is a therapy or set of interventions. It is by meaning quite different from the ex gay movement. A movement is more of a political/sociological body. A therapy is a science/theology/psychology oriented set of recommendations. Length is also relevant here. Both distinct subjects require a lot of specific detail on their elements. RT is actually quite an in depth subject, that relates to psychology, social psych, spiritual ideals, and so on. Ex gay can involve RT, but RT doesn't have to involve gay (according to some views). I personally respect the view to merge, but I see that the subjects and the subject matter are so different/differentiatable that I probably wouldn't agree to the merge at any forseeable time. Docleaf 11:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Support the merge. The two topics are barely different aspects of the same phenomenon. Any differences can be highlighted in the new article. In other words, Ex-Gays are, for the most part, former gays who have gone through some type of RT is a therapy. Linking the two in one article makes sense. I'd like to see a more concise article as well. LiPollis 00:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Consider cleaning up both articles. Ex-gay may have nothing to do with RT; treatments, ministries and scandals may not overlap. I agree with Docleaf. --Knulclunk 16:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with Knulclunk. Heiko Evermann 20:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. RT is only one of many methods used in the ex-day movement. In fact, RT appears to be fading out in favor of newer and more reputable theories and practices. User:richman9 11:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Closed due to lack of consensus. Fireplace 22:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Definition of success

I added references to Haldeman who says success in reparative therapy varies between (1) eradication of attractions (2) ability to function as a heterosexual and (3) being able to refrain from homosexual activity. It was reverted, saying it was repetitive. The current version states "Reparative therapy (also called conversion therapy and reorientation therapy) refers to methods aimed at eliminating same-sex sexual desires". This is only one type of reparative therapy. Please let me add the additional information so the reader can better understand all of the different types of reparative therapies.Joshuajohanson 07:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The article also says "Today... [t]here is often an emphasis on minimizing and not acting on same-sex attractions, rather than eliminating them outright" and "For some ex-gay groups, merely choosing not to act on one's same-sex desires counts as a "success" whereas reparative therapists tend to understand success in terms of actually reducing or eliminating those desires." Also, note that in the Haldeman source, celibacy seems to fit under the ex-gay project rather than the RT project. It's also not clear that he's saying that these are two/three different doctrinal views or whether he's merely criticizing the empirical research methodology. Fireplace 10:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Well that says what the stance of ex-gays groups are, not the goal of reparative therapy. Haldeman doesn't mention anything about ex-gay groups. He mentions that some religious and pastoral counselors might advocate celibacy, but they are still advocating the particular method within conversion therapy. Just because it might be inspired by religious thought doesn't mean it isn't within RT. Also, the religious position is different than the ex-gay movement. Not all religious people who advocate RT advocate the ex-gay movement. This article does not reflect the differences within RT itself and the introductory sentence doesn't even cover the "typical" case. Haldeman says:
"What constitutes sexual orientation change? This basic question is addressed to varying degrees in studies of conversion therapy. In some reports, the eradication of same-sex fantasies and behavior are the criteria for sexual orientation change. In other studies, the criteria are far more lenient. Typically, conversion therapists expect that patients’ homoerotic fantasies may continue but that they will be able to manage the fantasies so that they may legitimately claim a heterosexual identity, or at least function in a heterosexual relationship. Yet another option that some religious and pastoral counselors might advocate is celibacy. This option does not permit any interpersonal sexual expression at all, but it is thought of as preferable to the sin of homosexuality in some religious contexts."[21]Joshuajohanson 16:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
You make a good argument for merging the articles. My original arguments about Haldeman stand. Regarding the first sentence, see [22] ("The term "reparative therapy" refers to psychotherapy aimed at eliminating homosexual desires"), [23] ("Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report that they have been able to change their clients' sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual."), [24] ("...treatments that attempt to change a persons sexual orientation, also known as reparative or conversion therapy."). It's perfectly appropriate to address variations on this theme within the article, and the article does this. I think the Doctrine section would be a good place to add more, if you think it's currently unclear. Haldeman, for the reasons I gave above, doesn't strike me as a good source though. Fireplace 16:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I think its ok to say that some therapists report certain anecdotal views. I also think that should be stated with respect to the majority (science) view. RT is pretty much discredited according to serious psych research. The science view really should get its airtime. Docleaf 11:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Aversion Therapy

Is aversion therapy a type of reparative therapy? If so, it needs to be better explained. It had been used for a long time before the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder. The way it is treated right now it seems like it was never used by mainstream medical associations, which makes it seem like it was made up by ex-gay groups, when in fact they were just following a standard procedure that seemed promising at the time. I notice in general this article tries to disassociate mainstream medical organizations from reparative therapy.Joshuajohanson 10:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

This article really is in pretty good shape. I look forward to seeing it on the main page in the near future. :) This being said, its conclusions are well-sourced and appear to me to be correct. It does report on the techniques and views of the proponents, while making sure not to give undue weight to them, and properly reports that mainstream science and medicine basically consider it to be at the very least impossible and more likely actively harmful. Basically, it's a fringe theory, and is treated well in accordance with both WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. That should continue. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Reaction by reparative therapists

It has been suggested that the section on reaction by reparative therapists was given undue weight. I think a response from all of the accusations presented in this article is necessary.Joshuajohanson 07:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the article isn't to catalog the dialectic, but to provide an overview of the subject from an objective perspective. The language you're inserting has been repeatedly removed from the NARTH article by multiple users -- it's not a clear point-by-point response, but a long series of quotes and a bibliographical references repeating what has already been said in far fewer words. I've integrated the new info from the paragraphs into the previous version of the section. Fireplace 14:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I'd buy that if your "integration" actually was objective. Your "integration" doesn't talk about the criticism received from scaring the pyschologists away from research, preventing NARTH from representing its point of view, or denying data pointing to the effectiveness of reparative therapy. Also, being able to choose to enter into reparative therapy, which is where the pyschologist's purpose is to change the client's orientation, is different than the self-determination argument which is to allow the client to persue a change in orientation. It also obscures who is saying what. Reparative therapists aren't the only ones who think it is heavily politically based.Joshuajohanson 00:59, 2 May 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.