Talk:Conversion therapy

Scientific factors influencing the APA

Could we please get a list of scientific factors which have influenced the APA's changing position on conversion therapy? In particular, which studies have found that homosexuality is immutable?

I'm also very interested in the results of 'therapy' (other than aversion therapy which involves punishments, shaming, and violations of confidentiality) on patients, both those who were committed or 'sectioned' (or otherwise pressured into submitting) and those who are clearly and unambiguously volunteers.

• Is there a difference in the result or effects, between those who were subjected to 'treatment' vs. those who actually sought it out?
• Is there more agreement on the harmful effects on prisoners and people forced into treatment; and more disagreement on the harmful or beneficial effects on those who genuinely volunteer for treatment?
• Do all studies show an utter failure to bring about a change in orientation for those who volunteer for reparative therapy, or are there some peer-reviewed studies which claim a 'significant' success rate?

I'm not advocating one thing or another, although if anyone thinks the fact that I met and talked to Richard Cohen a few times means I could be unconsciously biased in favor of his ideas, I can bow out. I'm simply saying that the article should describe all viewpoints fairly, which should include giving the reasons for various decisions and findings in cases where these are public knowledge. I feel that a summary of the arguments and evidence for each side helps the reader to decide for themselves what's what. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It strikes me, and I have commented on this before, that this is an article more about the politics of conversion therapy than conversion therapy. I have worked on this article for a year now, and nowehere have I come across anything that discusses what conversion therapy involves. For somebody coming to this article for information, they may be able to gauge how some consider it a good thing, but the scientific-medical consensus is that it is a bad thing, but come away having no idea what is actually involved. It could be administering ECT, or aversion, or other things - but nowehere do we deal with what this sort of therapy involves in the year 2010, the techniques, and so on. Unless I have missed something... I would have thought this would be the baseline for such an article - and yet I am not aware of any sources that detail what is involved, only that it is a good or bad thing. One imagines it has something to do with all the names discussed in the historical section, but I am not aware of anything that connects what Bergler did over fifty years ago with what happens today. It appears that what is objected to is the 'idea' of conversion therapy, rather than any actual contemporary documented therapeutic practice. Mish (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I'd like to divide the article into two. One section (or page!) could be Politics of conversion therapy recounting nearly a century of advocacy about ways of "getting" homosexuals to change: who says we ought to, who says we better not, etc. Another section or page could be Techniques of conversion therapy, beginning with the modern techniques that current CT advocates are using (and claiming positive results from).

Whether we make such a split or not, we must not lose sight of the fact that opposition to conversion therapy is frequently based on the belief that CT is harmful, even on volunteers. Arguments for (or against) this belief generally cite either or both of the following:

1. Statements by major scientific or therapeutic bodies
2. Scientific papers describing studies on volunteers and published in (or rejected by) peer-reviewed journals

It will be difficult to clarify the reasons for opposition. I've spent dozens of hours reading various books and articles. A lot of these IMHO mix up outdated, involuntary or unproven attempts at CT (such as electric shock, intended to produce aversion; or "praying for them") with scientific studies on volunteers who participated in talk therapy (with or without hugging or pillow-beating).

A good encyclopedia article clarifies things that may otherwise remain muddled. Let's work together on this, shall we? --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Lancet published some stuff on this a few years ago - but again, this was about what happened to people historically. There was also a documentary on Channel 4 in the 1990s. There is a more recent book I have, can't remember if it was Drescher, Zucker or Cantor who edited it - I'll dig it out. Mish (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Copy Editing

I'm going to do some copy editing to try to clean up and clarify the language in some sections. It is not my intention to change the underlying meaning. If you feel my edits change the meaning unacceptably, I invite you to move the language forward rather than to revert. There are some seriously tortured sentences in here. Viciouslies (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Haldeman issues: I noticed that the sentence in the introduction that starts "Psychologist Douglas Haldeman writes..." was cited as being from a 1991 paper by Gonsiorek. Because of that, I tracked down the Haldeman paper online (and added the URL to the Bibliography section), and found that the list of techniques in the sentence credited to Haldeman included items such as "sex therapy," which are not found in the original text. I've re-written that sentence to reflect what is actually in the cited paper.

I also noticed that several additional instances of work credited to Haldeman in the text are cited as Gonsiorek. Will go through and fix the ones I've found, but please be aware of this as an issue. Viciouslies (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Upon further research, it seems the Gonsiorek/Haldeman issue is the result of misuse of the citation template. Gonsiorek was an editor of a volume in which Haldeman's paper appeared, but was listed as the author in the citation template. I have made Gonsiorek the editor and added Haldeman as the author. This changed all references for Gonsiorek save one, a sentence in the text referring to criticisms of Masters & Johnson made by Gonsiorek in 1981, which is included in Haldeman's 1991 paper. I've also added a link to the chapter on Haldeman's web site. Viciouslies (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Political opposition

• Spitzer's study has been criticized both on political and methodological grounds. Gay activists argued that the study would be used by conservatives to undermine gay rights.[2]

I assume that gay rights is a political issue. Any reason for disagreement here? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

On what basis do you claim it's a political issue? rpeh •T•C•E• 17:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I make no claim. I merely note that "gay activism" redirects to LGBT social movements, which are described in terms of campaigning and activism for gay rights. Don't you agree that opposing something, on the grounds that it may undermine a political right, is a political objection? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You did make the claim, because you added it to the article. Gay activism is rather different to gay rights: someone can believe in gay rights without being a gay activist, so your point there doesn't work. Gay rights is simply a civil rights issue, and there's no need to drag politics into this. You're trying to add your Conservapedia-style POV here. rpeh •T•C•E• 17:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I make no claim and no point. If you don't think civil rights issues are "political", I won't argue with you. You're entitled to your opinion. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Ed, this is a red herring. The fact is that it was a bad study on ethical and methodological grounds as attested by the sources. You're trying to change the focus of the text to opposition from one group, when the real concern is about the study's flaws. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Aspersions & manufactured controversy

In accord with BRDC I have reverted a series of edits by Stepback84 (talk · contribs), because they were each pretty stark violations of Wikipedia protocol. This edit introduced an editorial and unencyclopædic "It should be noted…" remark that cast fatuous assertions on Shidlo & Schroeder's study. This edit aggravated that offence against NPOV by referring to the "openly gay" researchers and reporting a non-published working title of the report, both tactics clearly meant to imply that gay researchers would produce biased research. This edit added the disparaging word "alleged" to the subheading in violation of WP:ALLEGED. None of the edits I reverted added balance or rectitude to the article; each of them inserted or reinforced the editor's own point of view, and in so doing pushed the article away from the NPOV goal. Before any or all of these edits can be reinstated, we'll need to discuss them here on the talk page and see what consensus develops. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C22:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been following the science and the science journalism on various topics related to Homosexuality for the last 10 years. I have not seen any evidence that being gay has affected the scientific objectivity of any researcher. Curiously enough, it was Simon LeVay whose work was distorted by pro-gay journalists, and who had to protest the conclusions the press drew from his work, saying:

• It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain. [1]

I'd be happy to work further with you, Scheinwerfermann, on whatever it takes to make a neutral and comprehensive article on Conversion therapy. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, EP. I am happy, of course, to collaborate with any and all editors who make a genuine effort to contribute in accord with Wikipedia protocol. Perhaps it's because I slept poorly last night and am up late again tonight, but I am having a little trouble understanding your comments here, though; maybe you can help me out. You are…agreeing with me, disagreeing with me, neither, both? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C05:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure whether I was commenting on whether I agree with you, but you sound like a good person to work with on this article. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, t'riffic. So do you. We appear to have attained consensus! ;-) —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Amount and direction of controversy

• These types of therapies have been a source of intense controversy

Are we using the word "controversy" as a synonym for "opposition"? I thought controversy means a dispute between two sides, as when the USA was split in 2000 over whether to elect Gore or Bush. With the exception of a few obscure advocates, I don't see anyone standing up for conversion therapy. The mainstream is adamantly opposed to it, but a one-sided opposition does not make an "intense controversy".

There is no "controversy" in Western academic circles over whether The Holocaust occurred; the controversy is between the largely Christian and Jewish West ("it did") and the largely Arab and Muslim Middle East ("it didn't"). There is no controversy over whether smoking cigarettes increases one's risk of getting cancer; the controversy was in the 1950s and 1960s when the earliest research programs had not yet borne fruit.

Is there any evidence that an intense controversy now exists over reparative therapy, conversion therapy or SOCE? Or is it more a minor matter of advocacy by a few obscure groups, met with opposition by the mainstream? I'm thinking of scientific disputes like that over cold fusion, which is not an "intense" controversy: the mainstream took a long, hard look at the supposed phenomenon, and when no reputable scientist could duplicate it, the scientific world dismissed it.

If there is a controversy, then there must be two sides. Let's not violate our undue weight policy by suggesting that the two sides on conversion therapy have an equal following. If the APA, etc., have dismissed CT as unproven and then pretty much forgotten about it then there is no intensity. It is only if there is evidence of an ongoing anti-CT campaign that we could say there is an intense controversy. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you are right; somebody somewhen along the line put in that "controversy" wording as a (failed) attempt at diplomatically describing shrill, scientifically-baseless advocacy of conversion "therapy" by religious zealots. Per WP:SPADE and the undue-weight policy, I believe we are duty-bound to reword this to reflect that reality. Now: how? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

We need to find out how much support there is for CT, and how much opposition. I mean, how many pro and con articles. If the mainstream is largely ignoring the issue, then it's a case of the fringe kicking up a fuss. On the other hand, if Drescher and Zucker are right, [2] (a source I read only after writing the comments above), then the controversy is not only intense but "vitriolic". *Sigh* I dunno. What do you want to do? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that finding out "how many pro and con articles" would get us anywhere useful. A statement's inclusion in even a reliable source does not necessarily imply veracity, so it is important to evaluate sources' quality, not just their quantity. The process of steady, incremental improvement to an article is not centred around a majority-rules vote or popularity contest to see who can come up with the greatest number of sources supporting his assertion, but rather on an effort to create an accurate encyclopedia entry. The mainstream is not "ignoring" the issue any more than the mainstream "ignores" the veracity of alchemy or the technological promise of square wheels or the notion that the sun circles the earth or the idea that disease is caused by an imbalance of bodily humours. Each of these ideas -- just like conversion "therapy" -- is fatally flawed by dint of utter lack of scientific basis. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I think there needs to be some editing of this line : Mainstream American medical and scientific organizations have expressed concern over conversion therapy and consider it potentially harmful.[3][7][8]

Additionally this one :

Mainstream health organizations in the United States find that conversion therapy is potentially harmful, but that there is no scientifically adequate research demonstrating either its effectiveness or harmfulness.

Mainstream? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to leave out mainstream? Especially since it is highly unlikely that large swathes of the scientific community would assert a treatment as potentially harmful with out studies to back up that assertion. I think this is a case of some bias seeping into the article and it should be reworded to a more neutral position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.5.91 (talk) 05:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't be more appropriate to omit "mainstream", because it is apposite and accurate. It really, truly is only fringe religionist pseudoscientists and quasidoctors who (mis)represent "conversion therapy" as legitimate and/or effective. You're right that the line in question needed editing, but not for the reason you assert. It needed editing because it did not accurately reflect what the APA source stated. I've addressed that deficiency. Per WP:YESPOV and WP:SPADE, we do not manufacture artificial "balance" where an issue is really and truly lopsided. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C07:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting choice of terminology here - religious zealots, fringe religionist pseudoscientists. Not that I'm suggesting any bias exists here, oh no </sarcasm>. 118.208.35.209 (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘:While you may not approve of the terms, they do indeed apply, even if the zealot term is not usable in the article.

• (religious) zealot: A person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious... ideals (such as those with religious doctorates pretending to be medical doctors to further "therapy" they are not qualified to perform. You have to remember, since it's something they claim is wrong/curable, it's indicative of them stating it's medical/biological in nature; thus making them unqualified and solely uncompromisingly pursuing their religious beliefs under the guise of "curing" people.)

• (religionist) pseudoscientists: an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions. - since they largely are not trained in any field of science (or medicine) by any accredited institution, and do not follow accepted scientific principles, methods and peer reviews, their activities do fit the very definition of pseudoscience. They "create" an end result and then find "facts" that support it, while excluding other true facts they do not like. Since their motivation is religious in nature, the appendage of "religionist" seems rather appropriate.

You must remember, Wikipedia isn't about portraying things in a good light - it's about portraying things in a fashion that is supported by valid verifiable reliable sources in a way that does not give undue weight to fringe theories (which this most definitely is, as agreed to by virtually every major accredited medical body in the world) and is balanced with proper (ie: more) weight given to the non-fringe theories and abundance of reliable sources from people/institutions qualified to speak on such matters. It's the same reason articles on Hitler aren't "nice" to the article subject.

That's not POV pushing. If it were, we'd have to rewrite articles such as the Flat Earth article to give it equal or larger weight than the "round" earth "theories", as well as remove everything dismissive from true experts in that area. Reality just is... whether you like it or not. Funny thing, I bet you with effort, I could actually cite those terms - but I do not think it appropriate for the article. Now, for the discussion, that's different, as it's simply a discussion of largely prevalent beliefs of people in the true scientific community. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Past and present

I'd like to change the intro. It says CT "comprises" a whole bunch of things. However, if you read the source, it turns out that the more "cruel" ones were in use (past tense). I wouldn't want the article to give the impression that anyone still uses or advocates these things.

Unless, of course, there is evidence that anyone still uses such cruel methods as "aversive treatments, including the application of electric shock to the hands and/or genitals, or nausea-inducing drugs, which would be administered simultaneously with the presentation of homoerotic stimuli."

Honestly, I thought that sort of thing went out with "A Clockwork Orange". --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

-- Someone needs to add something regarding conversion therapy for asexuality, which is really this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoactive_sexual_desire_disorder. But asexuality is being compared to homosexuality as a sort of "sexual preference" and it's beginning to pick up steam as a movement, even though it's really a disorder.