Talk:Conversion therapy

Putting the ex-gay and ex-ex-gay material into the appropriate sections.

There is a long list of ex-ex-gay people in this article, but a short list of ex-gay people. Most of the ex-gay people are on the ex-gay page. To be balanced, shouldn't there just be a short summary of ex-ex-gay people on this page and put the longer, more detailed list on the ex-ex-gay page, as is done for ex-gay? I also noticed that the section on scandals in ex-gay camps is duplicated both on this page and on the ex-gay page. Could there be a summary here and leave the main section on the ex-gay page? Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I am reiterating this request. Joshuajohanson (talk) 08:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Be WP:BOLD. Jclemens (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Moved Germany section from article

Moved from article. It's unclear what this means and what the legal effect of this is, and an English-language source should be provided if possible. I googled this but didn't find much.

In Germany all parties of the german Bundestag are against Conversion therapy. The german executive wrote, that Conversion therapy is dangerous and that homosexuality is no reason for conversion therapy. German Bundestag: Answer of CDU/SPD against conversion therapies

Fireplace (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I included a paragraph in this article about the study that was conducted in the US and the results that found that reorientation therapy does make a change in the majority of patients. 75.181.81.251 (talk) 00:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

A client interested in conversion therapy has the right to seek it

The following was removed from the lead: "a client interested in conversion therapy has the right to seek it." Why? It follows what all major medical organizations have said:

• From the American Psychological Association: "Mental health professional organizations call on their members to respect a person’s (client’s) right to self-determination." The President clarified this in saying "The APA has no conflict with psychologists who help those distressed by unwanted homosexual attraction."
• From the American Counseling Association: "It is of primary importance to respect a client's autonomy to request a referral for a service not offered by a counselor."
• From the American Psychiatric Association: "Psychologists respect the dignity and worth of all people, and the rights of individuals to privacy, confidentiality, and self-determination."
• From the World Health Organization: "The gender identity or sexual preference (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or prepubertal) is not in doubt, but the individual wishes it were different because of associated psychological and behavioural disorders, and may seek treatment in order to change it."

I see no evidence anywhere where a client does not have the right to get conversion therapy. I know from personal experience that you can legally get it from licensed psychologists with full approval of the APA. All they have ever done is officially express concern. The way it is currently written is misleading and either needs to be fixed or removed from Good Article Status. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

None of the sources you mention refer to a "right to seek" conversion therapy -- you're making an interpretative leap. It is true that conversion therapy is legal and that the American Psychological Association does not say that conversion therapy is per se unethical (in contrast, the American Psychiatric Association "recommends that ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals' sexual orientation"). The article can and should say as much. Fireplace (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The WHO source does. "the individual ... may seek treatment in order to change it." As for the other sources, how do you think would be non-POV way to put it? All of these quotes are from documents that are specifically addressing conversion therapy and are related to them. Psychologists are called upon to respect a client's right to self-determine their goals to change their sexual orientation within therapy? It is of primary importance to respect a client's autonomy to request a referral for a service not offered by a counselor such as conversion therapy? You also removed the direct quote "Mental health professional organizations call on their members to respect a person’s (client’s) right to self-determination." saying it was taken out of context. How was that taken out of context? Could we just have that sentence? Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

First, I'll respond specifically to each of the sources you cited:

(1) The ACA language is taken out of context: the ACA goes on to say that "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" and that "Considering all the above deliberation, the 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..."

"if they do so" implies that they can. They go on to say "The responsibility of counseling professionals at this juncture is to help clients make the most appropriate choices for themselves without the counselor imposing her/his values. To do so respects a client's request and leaves open the possibility that the client can return to the professional counselor if the conversion therapy is ineffective and harms the client." and further "if clients still decide that they wish to seek conversion therapy as a form of treatment, counselors should also help clients understand what types of information they should seek from any practitioner who does engage in conversion therapy. The Committee members agree that counselors who offer conversion therapy are providing "treatment that has no empirical or scientific foundation." I'm not saying they don't advise against it. I am saying they allow counselors to practice it and they respect the client's right to seek conversion therapy, and after all the other conditions they have outlined, it is that right to seek it that "is of primary importance." Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(2) The American Psychiatric Association specifically "recommends that ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals' sexual orientation."

Recommendation to refrain does not nullify "rights of individuals to privacy, confidentiality, and self-determination." You cut off the addition "keeping in mind the medical dictum to First, do no harm." Going against a patient's autonomy is harmful. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(3) The WHO language is, as we and other have discussed before on this talk page, exceptionally confusingly written. It is not clear whether "may" is prescriptive of what the person's options should be, or descriptive of what the condition itself is.

I didn't agree with you then and I don't agree with you now. India seems to have the same interpretation as I do. Since there is disagreement, their statement can't be so readily applied, but at the same time, it can't be so readily ignored. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

(4) The American Psychological Association's language is quoting a general ethical maxim without specifically elaborating on its application in this context (perhaps because there isn't a consensus amongst the drafters as to how it applies in this context). Your interpretation is plausible, but so is the interpretation that the guideline here functions to prohibit therapists from advocating conversion therapy to clients who do not want it.

It is not some general ethical maxim. It is in the section "What about therapy intended to change sexual orientation from gay to straight?" They are specifically talking about conversion therapy. You suggested that it was a prohibition "from advocating conversion therapy to clients who do not want it." It is both. Not only one side gets the right to self-determination. If I want it, I can get it. If I don't, you can't force me to. That is respecting a client's autonomy. It does not just work one way. The statement "The APA has no conflict with psychologists who help those distressed by unwanted homosexual attraction" clearly applies to conversion therapy and a client's right to seek it. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Stepping back, it's very difficult to craft a short (i.e., lead-appropriate) summary of the nuances of the ethical guidelines related to conversion therapy. I think that the following language would do it: "The ethics guidelines of major U.S. mental health organizations vary from cautionary statements about the safety, effectiveness, and dangers of prejudice associated with conversion therapy that do not state that such therapy is per se unethical (American Psychological Association) to recommending that ethical practitioners refrain from using conversion therapy (American Psychiatric Association) or referring patients to others who do (American Counseling Association)." Fireplace (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

But that would over-emphasize one aspect of it and completely ignore all of the above statements. They allow it. Every single one of them do, and each of them emphasize the right of the client to his or her own self-determination. The current explanation is biased, and seem relentlessly intent on maintaining that bias. It doesn't have to be my wording, but it should not be a selective collection of negative statements about conversion therapy. That is POV.Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy with the following summary in the lead: "The ethics guidelines of major U.S. mental health organizations vary from cautionary statements about the safety, effectiveness, and dangers of prejudice associated with conversion therapy (American Psychological Association) to recommending that ethical practitioners refrain from using conversion therapy (American Psychiatric Association) or referring patients to others who do (American Counseling Association). The organizations do, however, respect the client's right to self-determination." I think that respects the nuances of the positions, draws attention to the tension between them and the right to self-determination ("however"), and avoids giving an unsourced interpretation of what "respecting the client's right to self-determination" means in this context. Fireplace (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm alright with that for the lead. Joshuajohanson (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Medication Studies?

It's unfortunate that this has had a religious focus that makes some people upset. As someone not on the "religious right" I'm concerned with people's mental health. I don't think it's prejudicial to observe that when you can't stand to be in your body, there's something wrong. I'm interested in knowing any valid, honest information on any studies in the area of medication or non-religious psychotherapy for the psychological discomfort described in transgender disorder cases.Anybody got any data, minus political posturing? 75.165.34.215 (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it sounds like you are attempting to refer toTranssexualism. I've never heard of someone using conversion therapy to cure them. Read through that page and see if that answers your questions.Kairos (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Camille Paglia

The article currently reads, 'Support for conversion therapy has even been found among gay activists. Camille Paglia, a lesbian activist, wrote in her book Tramps and Vamps, "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."[179]'

This gives a somewhat misleading idea of Paglia's views. She was criticising the extreme reaction of some gay people to some people's decision to try to change, not necessarily advocating conversion therapy. The reference to Paglia connects to an article on NARTH's website, which includes some quotes from Vamps and Tramps, notably not including this, on page 78: 'The injustice and impracticality are in trying to "convert" totally from homosexuality to heterosexuality, an opposition I think false.' The description of Paglia as an 'activist' is also rather off. Actually she is a literary scholar. Skoojal (talk) 23:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I have removed reference to her advocating conversion therapy and her being a gay activist. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The current version is an improvement, however, it could perhaps be modified further. It still seems a little odd to say that Paglia does not oppose 'conversion therapy' when she wrote that attempting to 'convert' is unjust and impractical. More detail could help to clarify things. Skoojal (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

She said the injustice and impracticality are in trying to convert totally from homosexuality to heterosexuality. Most modern supporters of conversion therapy agree with that. She is in favor of freedom of choice, a notable distinction from some of the more vocal gay activists. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Conversion therapy is not a pseudoscience

If conversion therapy were a pseudoscience, then the APA wouldn't allow physicians to practice it under their licenses, have presentations at their conferences on it, and publish guidelines on how to do it. The official statement by the APA includes the quote: "APA encourages and supports research in the NIMH and the academic research community to further determine "reparative" therapy's risks versus its benefits." The APA wouldn't support research into pseudo science. The only evidence of it being a pseudoscience is a paper written back in the 1990's by gay psychologist Dr. Haldeman, who has since written a paper supporting the right of a client to seek it professionally. Yes, they discourage it, warn of potential harms including a harmful environment and have found several faults in the premises surrounding reparative therapy, but that doesn't mean it is a pseudoscience. You need to find an official source saying mainstream organizations consider it a pseudoscience or remove it from the pseudoscience category. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

APA and ACA do not condone this practice. It is a Pseudoscience, as defined here. Furthermore, it is clarified to be so in this article, in several sections, including "Mainstream medical view in the U.S." Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 22:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. There is extensive debate and the APA does condone it, even publishing guidelines as defined here. (Notice how I am using an outside source?) Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That reads as a clear stance against conversion therapy. Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 23:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It's entitled "Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation". They are guidelines on how to do appropriately. I didn't say they were in favor of conversion therapy, but they do provide information on how to do it appropriately. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, none of the major mental health organizations have called conversion therapy, as it is practiced by certain people today, "pseudoscience". However, the history of conversion therapy goes back over a hundred years, and many of the methods that have been used (see Conversion therapy#Freud and early sexologists (1886–1939) and with the subsequent historical sections) throughout most of the history of conversion therapy are uncontroversially "pseudoscience." This suggests that the category is appropriate. Fireplace (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is uncontroversially pseudo-science, because this term has no clear definition. It probably should not be used at all. Skoojal (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think what is practiced today is more important than the pseudoscience of yesteryear. That certainly isn't pseudoscience, because it is practiced by people with licenses. Joshuajohanson (talk) 07:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If a therapist uses concepts from astrology or I Ching in her/her therapeutic model, does the APA automatically revoke the therapist's license? If not, does this mean that the APA endorses astrology and the I Ching as rigorous science?

I think not; the APA would be quick to point out that astrology and I Ching are psudosciences with little or no empirical basis.

By the same token, the mere fact that the APA does not swoop in and automatically revoke the licenses of therapists embracing conversion therapy does not mean that it is therefore regarded as valid science, or that the entire model is not motivated, at its root, by a singular aversion to the very existence of mentally healthy gay and lesbian people.Rangergordon (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please provide some evidence that the comparison of conversion therapy's concepts to those of astrology is correct. There's no point in making the comparison if you cannot back it up. Skoojal (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a refutation to the argument that "since the APA does not always revoke licenses of therapists practicing conversion therapy, conversion therapy is therefore not a pseudoscience." Skoojal perceived it as a positive argument that conversion therapy is a pseudoscience like astrology. This is a logical fallacy.

The evidence I need to support the refutation is the existence of one or more therapists who use pseudoscience in their practices, yet who don't have their licenses automatically revoked by the APA. Here's one.

If the existence of Dr. Jeanette's license is proof enough for you that astrology is not pseudoscience, then you may argue out of conviction that the existence of a reparative therapist's license proves that reparative therapy is, likewise, not pseudoscience.

This falsifies the argument that reparative therapy is not pseudoscience simply because such therapists are allowed to practice.Rangergordon (talk) 05:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no good argument that conversion therapy is a pseudo-science, and nor, I think, is there a good argument that 'pseudo-science' has any clear or useful meaning. Skoojal (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) No one has presented any reliable sources showing that there's a consensus that conversion therapy as practiced by certain people today is pseudoscientific -- debates about licensing, etc., seem inapt -- the standard is WP:RS. However, there are reliable sources stating that conversion therapy, as practiced throughout most of its history, is pseudoscientific. That seems sufficient to put this article in the pseudoscience category for navigational purposes. (Joshua's response to this argument above doesn't really have much meat to it.) Fireplace (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a good argument. If conversion therapy per se isn't a pseudo-science, then it does not belong in the pseudo-science category. Nor is it true that there is good evidence that conversion therapy as practiced in the past was pseudo-scientific either. It may not have been good science, it may even have been very poor science, but it wasn't necessarily 'pseudo-science', unless you're going to use that term for what happens whenever a scienist opens his or her mouth and gets it wrong. Skoojal (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll fess up that my whole discussion above does not satisfy WP:RS and might even be "original research" if not downright argumentativeness. Still, I think it's now clear that Joshuajohanson's argument above that "If conversion therapy were a pseudoscience, then the APA wouldn't allow physicians to practice it under their licenses ..." is invalid, on the grounds that one cannot disprove the proposition that any particular practice is pseudoscience simply by pointing out that some licensed therapists are allowed to practice it. Rangergordon (talk) 06:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

There are numerous reasons why it would be wrong to label conversion therapy a 'pseudo-science.' 'Pseudo-science' is often used to mean something that claims to be science but is not. Therapies are activities or practices, which may be based on scientific theories of some sort but are not themselves claimed to be 'science.' Since therapy itself is not claimed to be a science, the label pseudo-science cannot apply. It would be like calling baseball a pseudo-science. Skoojal (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case, then any valid arguments which may support the thesis that conversion therapy is not pseudoscience should be listed. The fact that some therapists are sometimes allowed by the APA to practice conversion therapy is not one of those valid arguments. Therapy may be an art, but psychology is a science, and homosexuality is not considered an illness in the psychological community. Rangergordon (talk) 06:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

(unidented)There are a lot of points to respond to. Let's see if I can get them all:

1. Fireplace argues "that conversion therapy, as practiced throughout most of its history, is pseudoscientific." In high school, my chemistry teacher said that 90% of what he was teaching us was going to be disproved in our life times. Does that make chemistry pseudoscientific? Until 1992, any form of homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the World Health Organization. Is it any surprise that theories presented by conversion therapist followed modern, mainstream thinking and indicated that same sex attractions stemmed from a mental illness? Hind-sight is 20-20. Science changes. Let's get over the past. Conversion therapy as practiced 20 years ago, relied on the mainstream thinking of 20 years ago. That is hardly pseudo-scientific.
2. The way I am interpreting Rangergordon's argument, (s)he thinks conversion therapy as practiced today should be considered a pseudo science because homosexuality is not an illness. There are two problems with this argument. (1) Just because someone wants to diminish homosexual attractions doesn't mean they think it is an illness. Many modern approaches, such as Sexual Identity Therapy focus on aligning sexual behaviors with internal values. That has nothing to do with thinking it is an illness. (2) (S)he said "homosexuality is not considered an illness in the psychological community." We aren't talking about ego-syntonic homosexuality, but ego-dystonic homosexuality. That is indeed considered a mental illness according to the WHO, not that I necessarily believe that. Even the DSM has a diagnosis for persistent and marked distress about one’s sexual orientation.
3. Both have argued that my argument that because licensed psychologists practice it doesn't mean it isn't pseudoscientific. That may be true, but I still think it is a good indicator.
4. No one has addressed my argument that why would the APA hold a conference and allow Sexual Identity Therapy to be presented at it if it were based on sound psychology?
5. What reliable sources have been presented that indicate it is pseudoscientific? Joshuajohanson (talk) 08:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I think either Joshuajohanson or I may have conflated two arguments. I have not stated a position on whether or not conversion therapy is a pseudoscience. I have only made the argument that the very existence of reparative therapists does not logically disprove the pseudoscientific status of reparative therapy, which refutation I believe Joshuajohanson was trying to make when he started this talk-page section.

Some people certainly do hold the opinion that reparative therapy offers more lasting benefit to clients who are ego-dystonic than affirmative therapy would. We must accept the fact that some people believe this. In view of the fact that the article is about reparative therapy, and not about the status of gays and lesbians in the world, it seems suitable (and encyclopedic) to reference any experts who people in this field may consider notable, as long as those references are up-to-date, and where equally suitable refutations are also referenced. However, it would be WP:UNDUE to give the pro-reparative argument equal weight--and, indeed, the article does not. Rangergordon (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"Gay and lesbian" vs. "homosexual"

I reverted a series of major changes by [[::User:Skoojal|Skoojal]] ([[::User talk:Skoojal|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Skoojal|contribs]]), who purged the article of "gay" and "lesbian" and replaced with "homosexual" and who has made accusations of NPOVness about at least one other editor objecting to the change. "Homosexual" is becoming recognized as a derogatory term among gays and lesbians. From [1]: "Offensive Terminology to Avoid: Please use "lesbian" or "gay man" to describe people attracted to members of the same sex." Skoojal claimed that reverting away from "homosexual" was just "political correctness", but this is incorrect. Per Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality:

Terminology must be neutral. Derogatory terms are not to be tolerated in a category name under any circumstances, and should be added to the list of speedy deletion criteria. Note that neutral terminology is not necessarily the most common term — a term that the person or their cultural group does not accept for themselves is not neutral even if it remains the most widely used term among outsiders.

It is therefore clear that WP guidelines indicate that the most appropriate terms to use are "gay" and "lesbian." eaolson (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The term 'homosexual' is not derogatory, whatever some gays and lesbians may think (other gays, including me, don't have a problem with it). 'Homosexual' is a neutral and accurate term for people attracted to the same sex, just as heterosexual is a neutral and accurate term for people attracted to the opposite sex (and I note that eaolson isn't objecting to 'heterosexual' or complaining that it is somehow derogatory, which logically it should be if 'homosexual' is bad). There is no reason why this article has to use what one particular homosexual organization considers appropriate language: GLAAD does not speak for the homosexual 'cultural group' as a whole. Skoojal (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Should I assume that because no one has responded to my comments above there is no further disagreement and that I should go ahead and edit the article again? Really, I think that if someone is going to call the word 'homosexual' derogatory they should try harder than eaolson has. Skoojal (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• First, I disagree with your statement that if "homosexual" is offensive then "heterosexual" must therefore also be derogatory. If political groups start using "heterosexual" to make straight people sound clinically disordered, then I might agree. If you can show me a major straight-rights advocacy group asking that the term not be used, I'll have no objection to "heterosexual" being changed to "straight." In fact, I don't really have any objection anyway. Descriptive adjectives for the majority group are very rarely derogatory, mainly because they are in the majority, the "normal" group.

The question isn't whether the word is inaccurate. Words have connotations and we should be sensitive to them, just how "Eskimo" isn't used on Wikipedia, regardless of its accuracy. You won't find many people objecting to "Caucasian" but I'd be very careful using the clinical term "Negroid" if I were you.

Simply put, "homosexual" isn't generally how the gay and lesbian community describes itself. As examples:

1. GLADD. Self-evident from the fact they request the media not use the term. (see above)
2. Advocate.com: Describes itself as the "award-winning LGBT news site."
3. Human Rights Campaign: "...the largest civil rights organization working to achieve equality for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans..."
4. Servicemembers Legal Defense Network: lists among its goals, "Lift the ban preventing gays, lesbians and bisexuals from serving openly and honestly in the military."
5. here!: "a precedent-setting television destination dedicated to serving the country's gay and lesbian audience."
6. Logo: the new lesbian & gay network from MTV Networks

Those are just examples I pulled entirely at random from all the major gay and lesbian media and web presences I could quickly think of. I didn't cherry-pick; I couldn't actually find a single use of the word "homosexual."

Your claim that "GLAAD does not speak for the homosexual 'cultural group' as a whole" is an impossible to meet standard, as there can never be a group that speaks for the whole of any cultural group whether it centers on race, religion, or sexual orientation. And it's not just one group. As far as I can tell, it's basically every media presence, with the exception of some obviously conservatives ones like WorldNetDaily that can't even use the term "gay" without putting it in scare quotes. From our very own article Terminology of homosexuality#Currently prescribed usage:

Same-sex oriented people seldom apply these terms to themselves, and public officials and agencies often avoid them... The Guardian Style Guide, Newswatch Diversity Style Guide, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, and the Committee on Lesbian and Gay Concern of the American Psychological Association's Avoiding Heterosexual Bias in Language agree that "gay" is the preferred term... People with a same-gender sexual orientation generally prefer the terms gay, lesbian and bisexual.

I stand by my claim that "gay" and "lesbian" should be the preferred terms. eaolson (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Some factual knowledge about the history of the word 'homosexual' may be helpful here. There's a good article about this by Jim Burroway over at the Box Turtle Bulletin website http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/page/2. It describes how the word 'homosexual' was coined by Karl-Maria Kertbeny, an early supporter of what is now often called gay rights, as a neutral term to describe people sexually attracted to their own sex.

The term 'homosexual' is standardly used in scholarly and academic discussion of people who are attracted to the same sex, which it certainly would not be if it were derogatory. It is used this way by both supporters and opponents of the gay movement. The fact that some gay groups think that the word 'homosexual' is derogatory does not make this true. They may happen not to like the word 'homosexual', or even be uncomfortable with it, but that's an entirely different matter. Skoojal (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This remains an issue wherein the terminology on articles should only be changed through consensus. It appears that current consensus on wikipedia is not in favor of replacing "gay" and "lesbian" with "homosexual." Consider building consensus prior to making such changes on articles. Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 01:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

'There has to be a consensus' is an argument one can always resort to if one has nothing better. The majority opinion may prefer 'gay' and 'lesbian', but these terms are not neutral, and the very fact that many homosexuals insist on them shows as much. Skoojal (talk) 04:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• [edit conflict, in response to Skoojal] Yes, and in the early days of the gay rights movement the term "homophile" was used. We don't use it anymore. The word "fairy" was used in a non-insulting way in the 1920s. We don't use that one anymore, either. I'm not saying "homosexual" was inappropriate for the 19th century. I'm not saying it's inaccurate, I'm just saying it's not the preferred usage. Terms change. The very reason "homosexual" is not preferred is that it is unnecessarily clinical. Go take a look at Americans for Truth about Homosexuality or Positive Alternatives to Homosexualty. One thing you'll never find there is the word "gay" used, it's always "homosexual" this and "homosexual" that. That's not a coincidence. That's a very intentional use of a clinical word to imply some sort of disorder.

Again, the WP guideline is to refer to a group as how they generally refer to themselves, not how outsiders refer to them. Furthermore, I think this is analagous to the British/American spelling edit wars that go on. WP guidelines are to leave those as they were initially without a significant reason to change them from one to the other. Maybe you can suggest why it's necessary to change all uses of "gay" to "homosexual" in this article? eaolson (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• In response to the interesting boxturtlebulletin article, let me submit this link from Americablog, a fairly prominent gay blogger:

As a gay guy, the use of the word homosexual is downright messed up. The word homosexual is now often considered derogatory by gays, partly because the word is used incessantly by the religious right for the express purpose of denigrating gays (the word can sound dirty and clinical).

eaolson (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Your use of the word 'we' suggests that all homosexuals agree that the word 'homosexual' should not be used. This is not true. Remember that I'm a homosexual and I don't agree with you. The fact that most homosexuals do not prefer the word 'homosexual' does not make it either derogatory or insulting and is not a valid reason for not using it. The fact that the words 'homosexual' and 'heterosexual' are clinical is what makes them appropriate to an article about a scientific subject. Insisting on politically correct rather than scientifically correct language is a violation of neutral point of view.

Incidentally, you aren't describing accurately the changes I made - I did not remove all uses of the word gay from the article. Not only did I not remove it from direct quotes, which unquestionably would have been wrong, I also did not remove several other instances of the word (in one case, I removed it, but on further reflection decided that I shouldn't have done that and put it back in again). I accept that it may be appropriate within certain contexts, eg to describe gay affirmative therapy. It just shouldn't be used in general. Skoojal (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Another point. There is a substantial group of homosexuals who generally don't want to be called 'gay.' These are homosexuals who regard homosexuality as wrong and want to change their orientation. Why should their feelings and sensitivities count for less than those of homosexuals who are happy being homosexual? Using the word 'gay' rather than 'homosexual' is a way of siding with homosexuals who are happy being homosexual against those who are not. Must it be pointed out that a neutral article shouldn't do this?Skoojal (talk) 04:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the group of people who are homosexual but prefer the label "gay" currently outnumber those who are homosexual and prefer that label. Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 04:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

This may be true, but how is it relevant? That's not a convincing response to my point above, which I consider a strong argument for limiting the use of the term 'gay.' Skoojal (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately you will need to work to build consensus. I don't think this argumentative approach is likely to do that. Your perception of your argument being strong does not necessarily change any minds. Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 04:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Argument about article content is what talk pages are for. Can I ask why my arguments haven't changed your mind? Skoojal (talk) 04:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[outdent]While "homosexual" is a perfectly fine word in the right context, I disagree that the terms "gay" and "lesbian" imply a particularly pro-gay viewpoint. I think you're saying that the use of "gay" or "lesbian" (as opposed to "homosexual") necessarily implies POV in support of gay rights. If that were true, then politicians couldn't say they were opposed to gay marriage; religious leaders couldn't say that lesbians are sinful; psychologists couldn't claim that gays and lesbians are capable of reversing their sexual orientation. "Gay" and "lesbian" are, simply, the human terms for men and woman--H. s. sapiens males and females--who are endowed with homosexual orientation. The word "homosexual" is not equivalent; it can be used to describe, for instance, the behavior of a Bonobo chimpanzee during a certain time of day. "Homosexual" as an adjective describes a specific behavior; as a noun, it sometimes applies to a particular sociocultural niche. However, when referring to individuals, it is correct to use "gay" and "lesbian." In discussing, say, bull-on-bull mounting behavior, it is just as imprecise to describe the cattle as "gay" as it is to say that, for instance, the people who moved in across the street are "a homosexual couple." Rangergordon (talk) 09:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a long since dead dispute, and I have no idea why you're bringing it up. I'm just not making an issue of it at the moment. Skoojal (talk) 10:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I made a mistake. Skoojal, I read your question about why your arguments hadn't changed minds to mean arguments in favor of the exclusive use of the term "homosexual." I was presenting further arguments against that exclusive use. Now that I have read more carefully, our arguments are close enough that it really does seem I was beating a dead horse. Sorry for opening up a dead argument. We can delete that whole comment if it will help avoid further confusion. Rangergordon (talk) 07:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of the use of the term reparative therapy

I think this article fails to point out the fact that most therapists actually practicing conversion therapy prefer the term reparative therapy. The article currently states "The label conversion is often preferred over reparative, as the latter suggests that same-sex desire is something which can or should be repaired." This is certainly true for opponents of conversion therapy. However, advocates of conversion therapy tend to use the term reparative therapy, which the article does not currently state. If you actuatly go to the NARTH website you will see that their literature tends to use this term.Nrswanson (talk) 02:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see my post below - 'The first sentence of this article' - on why this is a mistake. Reparative therapy is only one kind of conversion therapy. The misrepresentation (it is you who is engaging in it) is using these terms as synonyms.Skoojal (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sexual activity versus Sex

This article frequently uses the expression 'sexual activity' where plain old fashioned 'sex' would be better. I propose to replace 'sexual activity' with 'sex', which means the same thing and has eleven fewer letters. If there are no objections within the next two days, I will assume that no one disagrees or can suggest a reason why I shouldn't do this, and will go ahead. Skoojal (talk) 08:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually I only see it used three times, and each circumstance would be clumsy otherwise. If the first instance, "avoiding same-sex sexual activity" was changed to "avoiding same-sex sex", it would sound silly. --Knulclunk (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the expression 'same-sex sex' would be silly. The words 'same-sex' do not need to be used at all, however. In this context, they mean exactly the same thing as 'homosexual' and that's the word that should be there. I accept that for the time being I've lost the struggle over changing 'gay' and 'lesbian' to 'homosexual', but I submit that there is no reason why 'same-sex' has to be used in cases where 'homosexual' has the same connotation. Skoojal (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I will make this change in the near future if there are no further objections. [Looking at those three uses of 'sexual activity', I think one of them is fine, but I will change the other two] Skoojal (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a whole lot more involved in sexual activity than sexual intercourse. Passionate kissing and petting are considered sexual activities.Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

'Sex' and 'sexual intercourse' do not mean the same thing. 'Sex' is a very broad term that can include a wide range of things, including passionate kissing, and so forth. That's why it's not different in any meaningful way from 'sexual activity.' Skoojal (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that passionate kissing is a form of sex, or at least the connotations are very different. If I heard someone had sex with someone else, I would assume they did more than just kiss. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If I heard that someone had sex with someone else, I wouldn't necessarily assume anything. Seriously speaking, if a behavior like anilingus (often called 'rimming') that does not even involve the genitals counts as sex, then passionate kissing counts as sex too. And just as a matter of logic, 'sex' and 'sexual behavior' mean the same thing. 'Sex' is a behavior, therefore 'sexual behavior.' 'Sexual behavior' likewise means sex. Skoojal (talk) 03:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think "sexual activity" or "sexual behavior" is more appropriate here in general. Fireplace (talk) 17:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't think that. I have given reasons for my position; you have given none for yours. Please note that I will make this change in the near future if no one offers good grounds against it. Skoojal (talk) 02:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Joshua has given a good example as to why sexual activity or sexual behavior is broader than sex and is more accurate in this context. Fireplace (talk) 03:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Joshua has offered his opinion. His assertion of this opinion, and your agreement with it, does not end the issue. Disputes can't be solved by just asserting that someone is wrong - where are your arguments, your sources? Skoojal (talk) 03:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sexual behavior and sexual activity are widely used terms in the professional literature (see [2] and [3]). Fireplace (talk) 03:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

So is sex. The first hit on the first of those links is Alfred Kinsey's classic book on Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. It uses the term sexual behavior in the title, yes, but the book itself also contains a lot of uses of the word sex.Skoojal (talk) 03:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Since there was no response to my post above, I assume that there is no more disagreement. I will make this change soon. There is currently no consistent terminology - the article sometimes refers to 'sexual activity' and sometimes 'sex', with no apparent rationale. I will be changing 'sexual activity' to 'sex' whereever this makes sense. Skoojal (talk) 08:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence of this article

The first sentence of this article begins, 'Conversion therapy, sometimes called sexual reorientation therapy or reparative therapy...' This is not actually wrong - conversion therapy is sometimes called reparative therapy, just as it is called a lot of other things, but it is misleading, as has been pointed out numerous times. Elsewhere, the article says, 'Sometimes reparative therapy is misleadingly used synonymously with conversion therapy, though in fact it is only one type of conversion therapy.' This is true, and that's why the article should not begin the way it does. I have taken the liberty of changing the article without waiting for a discussion because it really was just wrong the way it was. Skoojal (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me but in that case I think the sentence "The label conversion is often preferred over reparative, as the latter suggests that same-sex desire is something which can or should be "repaired" should be removed from the lead.Nrswanson (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence is misleading and should be removed - I will do it, if no one has done that already. Skoojal (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Terminology

As a result of a recent edit war between myself and several other people, this article now uses an inconsistent mixture of terms to describe people attracted to the same sex. Sometimes 'homosexual' is used, and sometimes 'gay' or 'lesbian', with no apparent logic to the choices. Presumably this happened because those who were undoing my edits did it so quickly that they may not have realized exactly what they were doing - several cases of my changing 'gay' to 'homosexual' seem to have escaped notice. The article ought to use consistent terminology (I would prefer it if 'homosexual' was used throughout the article except in direct quotes, but I realize that I'm not going to get my way on this). My only request to whoever edits the article to resolve this situation is to at least not use the silly acronyms - GLBT, LGBT, GLB or whatever - where it can be avoided. They're a mutilation of the English language. Skoojal (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going through and restoring the original language (using gay, not homosexual). I appreciate that terms like LGBT (or LGB, when trans people are excluded) take some getting used to, but they are part of the mainstream public discourse today -- presumably because using the full "lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender" is a mouthful and makes a text more difficult to read. Fireplace (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Terms like 'LGBT' are the language of an elite of activists who do not represent ordinary gay men and lesbians (or for that matter bisexuals and transsexuals). They are ugly and silly terms that can be objected to on numerous grounds. For example, the article now reads: 'The 1969 riots at the Stonewall Inn began a movement of LGBT visibility and policy reform.' The term 'LGBT' wasn't even used in 1969 so this is a misrepresentation of history. I will change this (probably to 'gay') if no one gives a good reason why I shouldn't. Skoojal (talk) 02:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with replacing that instance of LGBT with gay and lesbian. Regarding the use of the term more generally, I think you'll find it's made its way into the mainstream (see, e.g., [4]). Fireplace (talk) 03:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Wording of the introduction

The introduction contains a sentence that reads, 'Today's conversion therapists characterize the movement as offering the possibility of a choice to gay men and lesbian women who are unhappy with their sexuality.' I've already tried to point out what is wrong with this. Conversion therapists typically do not like or use terms like 'gay men', so this sentence effectively represents them as saying something that they do not say. The 'gay men' and 'lesbian women' who are not satisfied with their sexuality also generally do not use these terms or want them applied to themselves, so that's deeply unfair to them. This part of the article could be made fair without using the word 'homosexuals' by changing it to, 'Today's conversion therapists characterize the movement as offering the possibility of a choice to people who are unhappy with their attraction to the same sex.' I can't see why anyone should object to this. Skoojal (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Since no one objected I made the change. It's clearer and more precise this way (since it is specifically their same sex attractions that the people in question are dissatisfied with, rather than their 'sexuality' in general - a much broader concept). Skoojal (talk) 01:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Something else that should be changed

Part of the article reads, 'The label reparative originates from 1983 when research psychologist Elizabeth Moberly coined the term reparative drive to refer to male homosexuality itself, interpreting male–male desires...' This is expressed very badly. The term 'male-male' does not make sense in English. I am going to change this to something that actually makes sense - male homosexual desire, maybe; I'm open to other suggestions - in the near future in the absence of objections. Skoojal (talk) 03:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Male-male makes sense to me and a google search gives plenty of results showing that its usage is widespread. It is a useful and common shorthand. Anyone else have an opinion?Intesvensk (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

'Male-male' is an expression that does not make sense in English. No one with a sense of logic or style would use it. That it may be in widespread use does not contradict this. Skoojal (talk) 04:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

To whom does it not make sense? It makes sense to everyone who uses it and therefore it makes sense in English. No one person is the arbiter of the English language, its usage is dependent on the users.Intesvensk (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it does make sense as the language communicates what is intended. However, it is not the best use of the English language and more professional word choices are available. This is an encyclopedia and we should strive for excellence.Nrswanson (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I completely understand where you are coming from on this and in a way I agree. I just think that terms like male-male are widely used in the context of the subject and it is therefore appropriate to use them in the article. It is very common to hear of terms like male-male in the literature (I can find examples if you like) and so I thought that it made sense to use the term here. It has been changed anyway and it is not something extremely close to my heart. I just wanted to explain my rationale behind my belief that it is appropriate for the article. :) Intesvensk (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

That expression may be widely used, but this does not mean either that it is elegant or that there is any reason why it must be used in this article. Skoojal (talk) 09:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

APA affirms principles with regard to treatments to alter sexual orientation:

In 1997, the APA sent out a resolution that included these words:

"Therefore be it resolved that APA affirms the following principles with regard to treatments to alter sexual orientation:"

I summarized it by saying by saying they "affirmed the principles with regard to treatments to alter sexual orientation." I really tried to keep the same wording, but it was removed with the paraphrase "this phrasing misleadingly makes it sound as though the APA has established principals within which it approves of conversion therapy -- that is not what the source says." Am I missing something? I am trying to keep the same wording as the document. Are you seeing something I'm not? Joshuajohanson (talk) 07:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the use of the word 'but' in your proposed language (No mainstream medical organization endorses conversion therapy but they have affirmed the principles with regard to treatments to alter sexual orientation) misleadingly suggests that the principles are somehow opposed to or qualify the lack of endorsement. Fireplace (talk) 01:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Debate within Professional Literature

In 1997, the APA stated:

Whereas 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

I have not seen any official statement refuting that. In 2004, the Counseling Psychologist published a paper saying "the topic of sexual-identity conflicts cannot be framed as it has been - that is, a war between opposing camps, with reparative therapists on one side and gay-affirmative therapists on the other. Ultimately, the client is the one who will be caught in the crossfire."

There is a debate in the field. Simple as that. Joshuajohanson (talk) 07:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree that there is debate in the professional literature and popular media. Regarding your revision and edit summary here, two points: (1) First, procedurally, it's disingenuous to reprimand me by saying "Please trying talking about things for making major changes." The section has been specifically about the client self-determination issue for a very long time (close to a year), until you rewrote it without discussion here. I was away at the time and so did not immediately revert and discuss. (2) Second, substantively, the original, stable version of that section was about a discrete topic that is fairly widely discussed in the literature. The presentation of that issue was well-written and cited a variety of articles to lay out a coherent dialectic. Your new version puts unrelated quotes next to each other and obscures the self-determination content. That's why I reverted it. Fireplace (talk) 01:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for the disingenuous reprimand. As you probably noticed, it is easy to get emotional about this topic. I actually do like discussing things with you because at least you are logical, even though we differ on opinion. To the point, I do not see how the new version puts unrelated quotes together. The main debate seems to be self-determination and possibility for change versus potential for harm, though neither side has been proven. I organized it with a summary, the official position promoting self-determination, arguments supporting self-determination, the official position warning potential for harm, and arguments against CT (which are quotes that I originally added, trying to be fair). I ended it with an observation about the debate and the harm it causes clients. I do not see how it is unrelated phrases stuck together. The original presented self-determination as if only conversion therapist were concerned about that. It also didn't cover other aspects of the debate such as evidence for success as well as the harm of the debate. We need a neutral section on the debate and I have been trying to get it in for a long time.[5] We can have a self-determination section which is neutrally presented (the old "stable" one wasn't), but we definitely need a section on the debate as well. Joshuajohanson (talk) 07:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think of this as a stylistic issue rather than a pro/anti-conversion therapy issue. The content should be arranged topically -- we have sections on the harm and changeability issues, and had a section on the self-determination issue. That strikes me as a better organization than a generic "debate" heading. Fireplace (talk) 12:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I think we should have a debate section. I don't care if we have another self-determination section, but we need a debate section. I think Beckstead's quote which was removed on how the debate is damaging the clients is insightful and needs to remain in. I know of tons of people with same sex attraction who were too scared to see a psychologist because they were afraid s/he would tell them that they should just accept the fact that they were gay. Many of them had developed other problems from being so closeted and full of self hate. While the world goes on in political debate, real people are suffering, and no, not all of them would be happy with the gay lifestyle, as indicated by the research by Douglas Haldeman. And also, if we do have a self-determination section, it should not be presented as going contrary to modern psychology. Self determination is the mainstream view and those who oppose it are the fringe view. Joshuajohanson (talk) 09:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Usage of the term "gay lifestyle"

Could you please define "gay lifestyle". I'm gay and I'd like to kow what my lifestyle is. --Ecelan (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC) P.S. Please define also "heterosexual lifestyle"; just to make things a bit clearer for the ignorant, like me. Thanks.

Sorry. I did not mean to be offensive. By gay lifestyle I meant people who were either in sexual relationships with people of their own gender or pursuing said relationships. Just because your gay doesn't mean you have what is commonly termed in conservative circles as a gay lifestyle. People who have ceased pursuing homosexual relationships often refer to it as a lifestyle change. I shouldn't have used the term gay lifestyle, but I honestly forget it is offensive and it is sometimes easier than saying pursuing gay relationships. I will make more of an effort to avoid such a term in the future. Is there another term that is less offensive to refer to people who pursue sexual relationships with people of their gender? Joshuajohanson (talk) 07:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"lesbian", "gay", or "bisexual" Дҭї 09:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

But how would that distinguish gays who pursue homosexual relationships from gays who do not? This was the context in which the offensive term "gay lifestyle" was used. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a gay lifestyle because gay people do not behave in a single, uniform manner. Would an out, but celibate, priest be part of the lifestyle? It's a loadedterm used to dehumanize people. In fact, the WP lifestyle article uses "homosexual lifestyle" as the example of a pejorative term. eaolson (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That is precisely the reason conservatives use the term. According to the usage in conservative circles, an out, but celibate, priest would most definitely not be part of the gay lifestyle. The whole purpose of the term is to distinguish those who choose to have gay sex and those who do not. This whole discussion is just simply for my benefit, since the term was used on the talk, not on the main page. I really do want to know what the correct term should be. I am more used to talking in conservative circles, but obviously some of the terminology doesn't translate very well. I do want to correct my speech to not be offensive. What is the correct term to distinguish a gay who is pursuing homosexual relationships from a gay (such as the celibate priest example) who is not? Conservatives use the term gay lifestyle. What do others use? Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The most equitable solution is to use the term "gay lifestyle" in the same way in which its heterosexual counterpart might be used. That is, anytime it would be natural to describe a straight person as living "a heterosexual lifestyle," it would make sense to apply the equivalent term to a homosexual. As Joshuajohanson says, the term "gay lifestyle" applies to non-celibate homosexuals. If "heterosexual lifestyle" or "straight lifestyle" were commonly used in reference to non-celibate heterosexuals, this usage would make perfect sense. This is not the case, however--which renders the term meaningless in general discourse.

The terms "straight" and "heterosexual," when applied to an adult individual, are normally understood to imply that the individual engages, or is inclined to engage, in sexual and/or romantic relationships exclusively with members of the opposite sex. To make it understood that a heterosexual individual chooses to abstain from sex, the term "celibate" is used; otherwise the reader/listener assumes the possibility of a sex life. Similarly, when describing someone who is "gay" or "homosexual," the implication is that the individual engages, or is inclined to engage, in sexual and/or romantic relationships exclusively with members of the same sex. Therefore, to communicate the fact that such an individual is celibate, one must say so.

In mainstream culture, celibacy among adults is rather unusual regardless of sexual orientation, so people naturally assume the presence of a normal sex life unless otherwise indicated. If you wish to say that a person abstains from sex, the only clear way to do so is by using the term "celibate"--or say, if you must, that he or she leads "a celibate lifestyle." Rangergordon (talk) 08:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The APA has no conflict with psychologists who help those distressed by unwanted homosexual attraction

What context do you think is necessary to put that quote in context. After he made the quote he reiterated some of the basic principles that have already been confirmed. Would this be enough context?

The President of the American Psychological Association has said: "The APA has no conflict with psychologists who help those distressed by unwanted homosexual attraction," provided they follow the several principles affirmed by the APA with regard to treatments to alter sexual orientation.

If not, what context do you want?Joshuajohanson (talk) 07:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This would strike me as NPOV:

"Gerald Koocher, while serving a one-year term as president of the American Psychological Association, said that "the APA has no conflict with psychologists who help those distressed by unwanted homosexual attraction." Advocates of conversion therapy called this statement "an amazing turnabout" and a positive development. But Koocher clarified his comments soon after, stating that "in a full multifaceted therapeutic relationship, the therapist has every duty to respond to patient choice and to help patients achieve their goals.... BUT... [First,] therapists must determine whether patients understand that their motives may arise purely from the social pressures of a homophobic environment.... [and second,] patients must understand that [treatments to modify sexual orientation] lack a validated scientific foundation and may prove psychologically harmful."

Fireplace (talk) 12:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

'Queer'

Beside this article, there is a box indicating that the article is part of the 'LGBT and Queer studies' series. The word queer is usually used to associate homosexuality with eccentricity and insanity. Its use in an article about how homosexuality has been treated as an illness is disgusting and inappropriate. Those who wish to can protest its use here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_19#Category:Queer_studies. Skoojal (talk) 05:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It is an academic term. See Sedgwick's definition...Zigzig20s (talk) 09:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

'An academic term' - that's vague. It isn't used by all academics. And academics are not above criticism. Skoojal (talk) 10:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It's an established term...See Queer Theory. It's not at all meant in the offensive sense. That would be rather laughable.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It's wrong to use a term that is usually used in an offensive way in a positive spirit. You simply can't change the fact that it is an offensive term for most people, and since there already are more generally acceptable positive terms, why even bother trying and cause needless anger in the process? Skoojal (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Queer Studies is different from LGBT Studies. Both are academic fields. You may want to read up on it before being so bold.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"Queer" and "gay" are not interchangeable terms; "gay" cannot simply be substituted for comfort's sake. Some people object to the very existence of a queer subculture (consisting of people who consider themselves "queer" and not "gay"), but that objection does not make the subculture--and the need for its descriptive term--disappear.

Some people are still offended that the word "gay" has taken on its modern meaning, but so far their offense has failed to change the language. Even words which are universally regarded as offensive are offensive only by consensus--they have no special, magical ability to offend in themselves. Rangergordon (talk) 07:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Non ex-gay relapses (removed from article)

• Terrance Lewis was a minister and former counsellor at Providence Bible College in Winnipeg, Canada who was found guilty in February 2008 for sexually assaulting a young man who sought counselling to make him heterosexual. The alleged victim, now 29, told court he started meeting Lewis for counselling sessions in early 2000 after his parents caught him viewing gay pornography on the family computer. The man said Lewis started a program of “touch therapy,” which included the two kissing and fondling each other and engaging in sexual roleplaying.

• In 2006, Ted Haggard, former American evangelical preacher and leader of the National Association of Evangelicals resigned or was removed from all of his leadership positions after allegations of gay sex and drug abuse were made by Mike Jones, a former male prostitute. Initially Haggard denied even knowing Mike Jones, but as a media investigation proceeded he acknowledged that some allegations, such as his purchase of methamphetamine, were true. He later added "sexual immorality" to his list of confessions. After the scandal was publicized, Haggard entered three weeks of intensive counseling, overseen by four ministers. On February 6, 2007, one of those ministers stated that Haggard "is completely heterosexual". The minister later said he meant to say that therapy "gave Ted the tools to help to embrace his heterosexual side."On February 6, 2008, Haggard had requested to leave the "restoration program" created for him by the New Life Church. In a press release, the New Life Church states it "recognizes the process of restoring Ted Haggard is incomplete and maintains its original stance that he should not return to vocational ministry. However, we wish him and his family only success in the future."

Both of these do not belong in the section with the ex-ex-gays. Neither Haggard or Lewis are cited as having claimed to be "ex-gay" at any point--Rather, both appear to have been closeted and acting against their professed belief systems. While both events seem notable, I don't see any connection between Haggard and conversion therapy established by the text. Lewis might be appropriate in the section on abuses occurring during conversion therapy. Jclemens (talk) 07:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The stuff about Ted Haggard certainly didn't belong where it was, and arguably didn't belong in the article at all. I'm not sure why you removed the stuff about Lewis, however. The section it was in is called 'Relapses and other scandals', so it isn't just about ex-ex-gays. This is an example of an 'other' scandal, so it should probably just go back in the article. Skoojal (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Lewis is definitely more borderline. Here's a thought--why not include it in the prior section? It's an abuse by a non-ex-gay counselor of a patient during conversion therapy, even if the patient is not a minor. I think it would be better to include all the "abuses" in one section, and all the "relapses" in another, and chuck the stuff that's neither an abuse nor a relapse, like Haggard. Jclemens (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

My point was that the section you removed that from was called, 'Relapses and other scandals.' Thus, its content doesn't necessarily have to be about ex-gays going back to being gay. It could be about pretty much any kind of ex-gay scandal. If necessary, it could be reworded to make this clearer. Skoojal (talk) 03:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I'd rather add an "other scandals" section than stick Lewis back in there. The "relapse" scandals go to the heart of the assertion that conversion therapy is ineffective. The section as it is, lacking Lewis, makes that point much more strongly. The documented abuses suffered by those undergoing convesion therapy speak to the assertion that it is fundamentally rooted in homophobia, and a source of oppression rather than psychological help. Adding "bare facts" to sections that don't really mesh well weakens the argument made in those sections. Hence, I'd favor splitting Lewis out into an "other scandals" section--except that he'd look kind of lonely there, and beg the question why he wouldn't be in with the abusers... since his only separating characteristic is that his victim was not a minor. Does that make sense? Actually, I've sufficiently convinced myself, I think I'm going to put it back in that section. Jclemens (talk) 05:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Reparative therapy versus conversion therapy

Recently, an editor called 66.30.20.71‎ has been going through articles and changing "reparative therapy" to "conversion therapy." In a few cases, this may be correct, but in most of the cases the editor has done this, it is a serious error. 66.30.20.71‎ has already been cautioned on his talk page about this by two editors, one of them me. 66.30.20.71‎ has tried to justify his editing by pointing to the article on conversion therapy, saying that it does not say that reparative therapy is only one kind of conversion therapy. The reason why the article didn't say that is because 66.30.20.71‎ had changed it. I have changed it back, and it is now correct. Skoojal (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I gather that 66.30.20.71‎ had a problem with Warren Throckmorton being used as a source, but there's no question that Throckmorton is correct. His article usefully points out a common and serious error, and it would be extremely regrettable if this article is going to be edited in a way that perpetuates the mistake Throckmorton exposed. Please, before anyone decides to change this, find a source suggesting that Throckmorton is wrong. Absent such a source, there's no justification for changing the article back again. Skoojal (talk) 04:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

66.30.20.71‎ wrote this in the article, 'Warren Throckmorton distinguishes what he calls "reparative therapy" from his own method, which he refers to as Sexual Identity Therapy.' The source referred to cannot justify this claim; "reparative therapy" is not Throckmorton's term, so the words 'what he calls "reparative therapy"' do not make sense here. They falsely imply that it is Throckmorton in particular who is responsible for this term, but he didn't coin the expression "reparative therapy"; as Throckmorton points out, the person chiefly responsible for it was Elizabeth Moberly. Skoojal (talk) 04:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I urge other editors to investigate this situation and undo 66.30.20.71‎'s changing of "reparative therapy" to "conversion therapy" when it is a mistake, which it usually is. I suggest that text visible only while editing be put into these articles to discourage other editors from making the same mistake. Skoojal (talk) 04:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not pleased with the way that Skoojal has framed this discussion, so I have created a new section, below. 66.30.20.71 (talk) 11:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I hate to engage in this skewed discussion at all, but I have to make one correction. Skoojal stated the following:

"[Throckmorton] didn't coin the expression 'reparative therapy'; as Throckmorton points out, the person chiefly responsible for it was Elizabeth Moberly".

Actually, Throckmorton attributes the term to Joseph Nicolosi, not Moberly. 66.30.20.71 (talk) 11:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a different article from the one quoted in the article. And it makes no difference; the term is not Throckmorton's, as you falsely suggested. The words 'What Throckmorton calls "reparative therapy"' give a totally misleading impression.Skoojal (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere did I suggest that the term reparative therapy "belongs" to Throckmorton. If you disagree, please point out where you feel this happened. If you cannot, I insist that you stop with this blatant misrepresentation of my words immediately. Your attempt to frame Throckmorton's opinion of the meaning of "reparative therapy" as undeniable fact, that is what is misleading, here. Whistling42 (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You used the words "what he calls reparative therapy." That was misleading and totally inappropriate. It would only have been appropriate if Throckmorton were the only person who uses that expression or if he had coined it. He did not. Skoojal (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit by Jokestress

Without any prior discussion, Jokestress recently added a large amount of information about transgender issues to this article. It is unclear to me that this was the correct decision, or that this material was properly integrated with existing material. After all, the article reads, 'Today's conversion therapists characterize the movement as offering the possibility of a choice to people who are unhappy with their attraction to the same sex.' That statement is sourced to an article that defines reparative and conversion therapies as being about sexual preference only, not gender identity. If this is correct, then it doesn't make sense to say that conversion therapy is also about transgender issues, which do not necessarily involve homosexuality. Just on that basis alone, I think there is a case for reverting the edits made by Jokestress. Skoojal (talk) 05:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that this sort of therapy is not used just for sexual orientation, and in some cases therapy for gender variance has been implemented in hopes of preventing homosexuality. The problem is not the additional material, which is all reliably sourced to clinical publications, but the article's bias toward sexual orientation therapies. I agree that the place I put the new material could be discussed, but the article itself focuses primarily on just one of the kinds of therapy. In fact, a case can be made that most conversion therapy is done (especially on children) not because they are gay, but because they act gay, which is gender identity and expression. There's plenty more info on reparative therapy for gender-variant youth. I am open to discussion. By the way, I am not sure why we are using "conversion therapy" and not "reparative therapy" (which is what I usually see used. Jokestress (talk) 06:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Even granted that the material you added should be in the article at all, you should have thought more carefully about how to add it. It looks plain silly for the article to say both that conversion therapy is about both changing sexual preference and gender identity issues and that 'conversion therapists characterize the movement as offering the possibility of a choice to people who are unhappy with their attraction to the same sex.' Skoojal (talk) 07:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Those aren't necessarily contradictory statements, if that's what you mean. How would you propose we synthesize both uses of the term? A section for each - GID and homosexuality? Jokestress (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The two statements obviously look contradictory. One asserts that conversion therapy is about both of two different things. The other asserts that it is about only one of those things. Even if the statements didn't look contradictory, there would still be the problem that the article links to a source that contradicts the material you added.

And then there's this, in the article, 'According to a response released by American Psychiatric Association, Zucker does not advocate reparative therapy for transgender adults or for trans youth in all cases, and he opposes change therapy for gays under all circumstances: "For all patients, regardless of age, the focus of therapy is the patient's gender identity, not the patient's sexual orientation. Dr. Zucker's therapeutic approach has no relationship to so-called reparative or sexual conversion therapies that attempt to change homosexual orientations to heterosexual ones."' Given the last part of that statement, I wonder whether this material isn't a questionable addition to the article? Skoojal (talk) 07:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

A further oddity is that this quote from Zucker seems to be sourced to an article that does not contain it (and spare us the confusions between the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association). That particular mistake gave me all the reason I needed to remove that material. Skoojal (talk) 08:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Jokestress' large and inappropriate addition is an attempt to use this page for her own sociopolitical agenda. Jokestress has recently started re-accusing Kenneth Zucker and others of conducting reparative therapy. Zucker pointed out in a statement that this was untrue (he works with GID kids and not people who are trying not to be gay). It thus became of interest to Jokestress to expand the definition of "reparative/conversion therapy" to include trans-, so that those terms would to make her prior accusations about Zucker less incorrect.

You will notice that her large edit contains no reference supporting her revisionist definition of reparative/conversion therapy.

I believe this is a gross abuse of wikipedia and that Jokestress should not be permitted to edit on pages related to the issue.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Throckmorton

In this edit series, I changed the two sentences in the article. Previously, they read:

Sometimes reparative therapy is misleadingly used synonymously with conversion therapy, though in fact it is only one type of conversion therapy."

I found this assertion curious, as the article itself is called "Conversion therapy"; and the article itself makes no such distinction. I visited the reference for this statement, and determined that the person who presented this definition as was Warren Throckmorton. I determined that this reference (Throckmorton's self-published website) is not sufficient to claim the "facts" about this definition, particularly considering that the article used to be called "Reparative therapy", but is now called "Conversion therapy": apparently, at some point there was a consensus so clear that it allowed the title of the article to be changed. These were the circumstances under which I attributed this opinion to the person who held it. With my changes, the sentences read:

Warren Throckmorton distinguishes what he calls "reparative therapy" from his own method, which he refers to as Sexual Identity Therapy. Throckmorton argues that it is erroneous to use "reparative therapy" as an umbrella term, suggesting instead the use of the phrase "reorientation therapy".^[1][2][3]

User:Skoojal's response to this was to revert immediately; stating: "undoing edit that introduced serious error into the article, and which is being used to justify errors in other articles - Throckmorton was correct".

Currently, we have three self-published sources, all from one person, making an assertion that is not supported elsewhere in this article. In the absence of material which would suggest that Throckmorton's view is widely accepted, we should attribute the opinion to the person who holds it.

Incidentally: in none of the sources (including the original) does Throckmorton state anything about "conversion therapy" being an umbrella term, with "reparative therapy" being one form of conversion therapy among many. In fact, none of the sources mention the term "conversion therapy" at all. Throckmorton does not present "reparative therapy" as a type of "conversion therapy"; he doesn't even use the latter term. Thus, the assertion that Skoojal made, above, remains unsourced. 66.30.20.71 (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the fact that this article is called "Conversion therapy" means nothing in itself. Articles are called what Wikipedia editors decide they should be called, which may or may not be for good reasons. Past supposed "consensus" proves nothing about the rights or wrongs of the issue. Furthermore, past versions of the article did indeed make this distinction, so 66.30.20.71's claim is false. The only reason why the article did not make the distinction was because 66.30.20.71 edited it that way. Skoojal (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

66.30.20.71's choice of words implied that Throckmorton is the person mainly responsible for the term "reparative therapy", or even the only the person who uses the term, which is a serious misrepresentation of the facts, and nothing more than 66.30.20.71's opinion. Throckmorton is a widely known writer, with a record of published work, who has tried to take a middle ground position in the controversies in this area. He clearly knows what he is talking about; 66.30.20.71 does not. Skoojal (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Since this article generally uses "conversion therapy" in the same way that Throckmorton uses the term "reorientation counselling", it is perfectly legitimate to use him as a source. The article may need to be rewritten somewhat, but not in the way that 66.30.20.71 rewrote it, which presents nothing more than his or her mistaken personal opinion. Skoojal (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Use of self-published source

Hi, I'm 66.30.20.71. One of the problems I see with Skoojal's recent edits is that Skoojal is basing zir edits upon a self-published source. This self-published source is an essay titled "What is reparative therapy?", written by Warren Throckmorton and published by Throckmorton on his own website, www.drthrockmorton.com. As we see in this edit to Conversion therapy, Skoojal references the essay as a factual source.

The official Wikipedia policy on self-published sources clearly states:

"Self-published and questionable sources may only be used as sources about themselves, and only if it is not contentious."

Skoojal is using Throckmorton's self-published source as the basis for a large number of edits, in which ze claims that "reparative therapy" is only one kind of "conversion therapy"; apparently in accordance with Throckmorton's views.

• Elizabeth Moberly - 1, 2, 3
• Joseph Nicolosi - [group I: 1, 2]; [group II: 3]
• Exodus International - [group I: 1]; [group II: 2, 3]
• Charles Socarides - 1
• National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality - [group I: 1]; [group II: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
• Robert Spitzer - 1
• Richard A. Cohen - 1
• Warren Throckmorton - [group I: 1]; [group II: 2]
• Ex-gay - 1
• People Can Change - 1, 2
• Cohen (surname) - [group I: 1]; [group II: 2]; [group III: 3]
• Beyond Ex-Gay - 1
• Christine Bakke - 1
• A. Dean Byrd - 1
• Brian Wayne Peterson - 1
• OneByOne - 1
• Homosexuality - 1
• Conversion therapy - 1, 2, 3
• Richard Cohen - 1

The edit summaries of these 35 edits make it clear that Skoojal is interested to promote Throckmorton's definition of the term "reparative therapy" throughout Wikipedia: in them, Skoojal makes the following statements:

• undoing edit that made the article less accurate - Nicolosi practices reparative therapy specifically; conversion therapy can include numerous \different things
• rewording to make it clear that reparative therapy and conversion therapy are not the same thing

Skoojal refers to this usage of "conversion therapy" as "dangerously vague", and as "a common and serious mistake".

Since this usage of the self-published source is contentious; the self-published source must not be used to justify these types of edits.

In addition to failing to provide verifiable third-party sources for these edits, I feel that Skoojal's edits represent defiance of the consensus which led to change this article's title from Reparative therapy to Conversion therapy. Clearly, at some point, editors agreed that the term "conversion therapy" was a synonym for "reparative therapy", and that "conversion therapy" is preferable.

The American Psychological Association, in Answers to Your Questions For a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality, writes:

To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective.

The American Psychiatric Association, in Position Statement on Therapies Focused on Attempts to Change Sexual Orientation (Reparative or Conversion Therapies), uses "conversion therapy" and "reparative therapy" as synonyms, but places the word "reparative" in quotes ((perhaps as scare quotes), whenever it is used.

To recap:

1. The source is self-published, it must not be used as a primary source.
2. The usage of this self-published source is contentious, it must not be used.
3. There is an existing consensus to regard "conversion therapy" and "reparative therapy" as synonyms, and to prefer the former as more neutral.
4. There are multiple reliable sources indicating that this is the case.

In my opinion, any rebuttal to this statement should include several reliable sources that indicate 1) that "conversion therapy" is an umbrella term containing "reparative therapy", and 2) what other forms of "conversion therapy", beyond "reparative therapy", exist. The rebuttal should also indicate why we should prefer these sources over 1) the usage preferred by the editors who came to a consensus to rename this article Conversion therapy, and 2) the usage preferred by the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association. Whistling42 (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

'Clearly, at some point, editors agreed that the term "conversion therapy" was a synonym for "reparative therapy", and that "conversion therapy" is preferable.' This is not a serious argument. The fact that Wikipedia editors decided that something was appropriate does not mean that it actually was appropriate. Furthermore, it is not the case that the use of "conversion therapy" as the title of this article means that "conversion therapy" and "reparative therapy" are somehow synonyms. The "conversion therapy" article itself has pointed out, in some versions of it, that this is not the case. Warren Throckmorton is a widely known writer with a history of published work in this area, and it is appropriate to use him as a source. That "reparative therapy" refers to a specific kind of therapy to change sexual orientation and not an umbrella term for all sorts of different therapies is simply the truth. Whistling42's edits are disruptive and tendentious. Skoojal (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The source from the American Psychological Association says, 'To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective.' This does not mean that 'reparative therapy' and 'conversion therapy' actually are synonyms, just that some people use them that way. Again, that's not good enough. Skoojal (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The source from the American Psychiatric Association does not specifically state that "conversion therapy" and "reparative therapy" mean the same thing, and thus it cannot be used to show that they do. That article, incidentally, is tendentious. It implies that Sigmund Freud was a reparative therapist. Not exactly. Freud is not on record as having ever called himself a "reparative therapist"; the term "reparative therapy" was not used until long after Freud's death. In any case, as the conversion therapy article makes clear, Freud thought that therapy to change sexual orientation was a waste of time in most cases. Note that this source, when it says, 'The theories of "reparative" therapists define homosexuality as either a developmental arrest, a severe form of psychopathology, or some combination of both (10-15)', refers only to sources influenced by psychoanalysis. Thus it cannot make sense to apply the term "reparative therapy" to refer to methods of changing sexual orientation that have nothing to do with psychoanalysis, such as aversion therapy. These are based on totally different assumptions about what causes homosexuality. This source is obviously using the term "reparative therapy" very loosely; it doesn't offer a real definition. Skoojal (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Then maybe our whole definition of conversion therapy is off. The article currently states it can include anything to either eliminate or diminish homosexual desires, including "behavior modification, aversion therapy, psychoanalysis, prayer, and religious counseling." I never liked the idea that simply praying has now become some kind of psychoanalytic therapy. According to my understanding, the term reparative therapy stems from a theory that homosexual desires stem from a lack of same-sex bonding in early childhood, hence the homosexual tries to repair the deficiency. The Just the Facts pamphlet states "The most important fact about these “therapies” is that they are based on a view of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major mental health professions. ...Thus, the idea that homosexuality is a mental disorder or that the emergence of same-sex attraction and orientation among some adolescents is in any way abnormal or mentally unhealthy has no support among any mainstream health and mental health professional organizations." This makes it seem that they are directing their comments at therapies that view a homosexual orientation as a mental disorder. Hence therapies such as sexual identity therapy, gender wholeness therapy, context specific therapy, don't fall under the APA definition of reparative therapy. We need a separate term for them. Using conversion therapy for all therapies aimed at reducing homosexual desires and using reparative therapy for all therapies based on the theory that homosexuality is caused by some sort reparative drive has been very convenient. If it is decided these two terms are synonymous, then the gender affirmative therapies which definitely aren't reparative therapies need to go to another page. Joshuajohanson (talk) 09:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the way these terms are defined, and what counts as an acceptable source for their definition, has never been properly resolved. Quite often, any method of changing sexual orientation is described as "reparative therapy", but this is definitely misleading. Reparative therapy, as Joshua says, is a specific kind of therapy, based on specific ideas about the development of homosexuality that other therapies do not necessarily share. Any attempt to use it as a general term for changing sexual orientation (or to equate it with sexual identity therapy) has to be resisted. Skoojal (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The apparent suggestion that prayer, all by itself, counts as a form of converison therapy certainly looks misleading. Since prayer is presumably part of religious counselling, which is mentioned independently, I can't see a reason for not removing mention of it from the introduction. Skoojal (talk) 03:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced statement

Removed the following statement from the article: "Sometimes reparative therapy is misleadingly used synonymously with reorientation counselling." The sources given were two self-published sources on "drthrockmorton.com", and are still inappropriate for anything other than to verify their own existence (i.e. "Warren Throckmorton self-published this statement."). Until such time as JoshuaJohnson's suggestion comes to pass (that a determination is made about the various forms of therapy and what they are), we must not rely on self-published sources to prove a point; doing so violates Wikipedia policy. For this reason, I have also reverted three similar edits which seek to make the same (unsourced) distinction: one to National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality, one to Joseph Nicolosi, and one to Brian Wayne Peterson. Whistling42 (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The APA has definitely defined reparative therapy as being based on the idea that homosexuality is a mental illness or inherently inferior. In your opinion what should we do with therapy aimed at reducing homosexual behavior or attractions but that is not based on the idea that homosexuality is a mental illness? One of my thoughts would be to change the intro to say "Reparative therapy is a type of pyschotherapy used to treat ego-dystonic sexual orientation based on the idea that homosexuality is a mental illness or inherently inferior." We would then move the list of the different therapies aimed at reducing homosexual desires to the ego-dystonic sexual orientation page, separating reparative therapy from the other ones. This would avoid the debate on which definition of conversion therapy to use. Much of the article, such as the debate on whether sexual orientation can be changed through therapy, would then need to be moved to the ego-dystonic sexual orientation page. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The recent edits made by Whistling42 are without justification. Joseph Nicolosi has identified himself as a practitioner of reparative therapy. This is a good enough reason for identifying Nicolosi as a reparative therapist. Similarly, NARTH are well known as advocates specifically of reparative therapy, and the article about them should say as much. The sources of the article about But I'm a Cheerleader refer to reparative therapy, thus the article about Peterson should also use the expression reparative therapy. Whistling42 seems to think that the expression reparative therapy must never be used on Wikipedia, but has never given a good reason for this stance. Skoojal (talk) 22:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the suggestion that Joshua makes is that the article by the American Psychiatric Association, without offering a real definition of "reparative therapy", all but equates it with classical psychoanalysis, which is most misleading. Reparative therapy is influenced by psychoanalytic ideas, but it is certainly not one and the same thing as classical psychoanalysis. If Whistling42's argument were correct, then one could edit the article about Sigmund Freud to make it say that Freud was a reparative therapist, something which would be a terrible distortion of the facts and which I am sure would be swiftly reverted. The article from the American Psychological Association does not actually say that conversion therapy and reparative therapy are the same thing, or always refer to the same thing, only that these terms are sometimes used that way. Skoojal (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The American Psychiatric Association article uses expressions such as "reparative or conversion therapy" and "reparative and conversion therapies." This is not equivalent to saying that reparative and conversion therapy are necessarily the same thing; it leaves that issue quite unclear. Skoojal (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of inappropriately sourced statement

Once again, I have removed the use of self-published sources per official Wikipedia policy, WP:SELFPUB, which states: "Self-published and questionable sources may only be used as sources about themselves, and only if it [the material] is not contentious." This usage fails on both counts. The usage also fails per WP:SPS, which states that personal websites are largely not acceptable as sources. I have also removed the use of a Wikipedia article as a source, again per WP:SPS. Thirdly, I have removed repetetive wikilinks per WP:MOS. Whistling42 (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Your removal of that link was a mistake. I restored it. You will note that I have rewritten that passage, pointing out that it expresses Throckmorton's view (and it happens to be a correct view, though I haven't stated that in the article). Your attempt to hide the fact that reparative therapy is a specific kind of therapy does a disservice to readers of the article. It is interesting that you have never removed the words "The label reparative originated in 1983 when research psychologist Elizabeth Moberly coined the term reparative drive to refer to male homosexuality itself, interpreting men's sexual desires for other men as attempts to compensate for a lacked connection between father and son during childhood", because just by itself this shows that reparative therapy is a specific kind of therapy, and not an umbrella term for all attempts at changing sexual orientation. So long as those words are there, you are not proving anything by removing the term reparative therapy from the introduction. Obviously the term reparative cannot apply to all attempts at changing sexual orientation if it wasn't even used until 1983. The article definitely needs to be rewritten to make matters clearer; sensible suggestions about how would be welcomed. Skoojal (talk) 02:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on verifiable, reliable third-party sources, not the opinions of editors. To that end, please provide reliable sources to support your views about the definitions of the terms "reparative therapy", "conversion therapy", etc. Whistling42 (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You have claimed that the sources from the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association define the meaning of these expressions. They do not. There is no statement in either of those articles that reparative therapy and conversion therapy always mean the same thing. Both sources use these terms vaguely and loosely, without attempting to fully define them. For evidence that reparative therapy is a specific therapy, one could simply refer to the books of the reparative therapists themselves. The American Psychiatric Association's apparent suggestion that Sigmund Freud was a reparative therapist is a factual error, as I have observed. Skoojal (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Since you have not provided reliable sources supporting your definitions and usage of the terms "reparative therapy" and "conversion therapy", I have reverted most of your edits to National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality and Joseph Nicolosi. Please do not reinstate these edits without first discussing your sources here. Whistling42 (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You are wasting your time. It's apparent to anyone with even a minimal knowledge of the subject that reparative therapy is sometimes used (by reparative therapists, in particular) as the name of a particular kind of therapy. The two APA sources don't even deny this. I repeat my invitation for you to try reading a book by a reparative therapist (Nicolosi would be a good choice). Skoojal (talk) 08:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Commenting here per the request at WP:3O, all parties please calm down. Skoojal, the basis for including anything on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I realize that you feel passionately about this issue, but if you provide sources supporting your views, then I am sure Whistling will not dispute your assertions. Trying to edit war isn't the best way to put the information into the article. The onus for sources is always on the person who is attempting to include the information. And to both of you, please stop edit warring and try to resolve this using discussion. If this continues, the page may be protected until a solution is found. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggested to Whistling42 that she read a book - Joseph Nicolosi's Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality. No one who had bothered to read even that one book would be in any doubt about the basic fact that reparative therapy is a term sometimes used to describe a particular kind of sexual orientation change therapy. No one has ever seriously questioned this, including the two APA (American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association) sources. These do not offer any proper definitions of any of these terms. Skoojal (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Reparative therapy for gender variance

Two editors have raised objections about expanding this article to include all forms of reparative therapy, including gender identity and expression. Here are a few salient quotations:

• Laura Dean et al. (Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, 2000): "An extreme example is found in 'reparative' therapy, which seeks to reverse sexual orientation or gender identification, an approach that may lead to increased self-hatred and mental health problems (Ryan, Bradford, & Honnold, 1999)."

• Darryl Hill et al. (Haworth 2006): "Zucker and Bradley believe that reparative treatments (encouraging the child to accept their natal sex and associated gender) can be therapeutic for several reasons. They believe that treatment can reduce social ostracism by helping gender non-conforming children mix more readily with same sex peers and prevent long-term psychopathological development (1.e., it is easier to change a child than a society intolerant of gender diversity). Reparative therapy is believed to reduce the chances of adult GID (i.e., transsexualism) which Zucker and Bradley characterize as undesirable."

• Simon Pickstone-Taylor (Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2003). "What Bradley and Zucker (1997) suggest for treatment is something disturbingly close to reparative therapy for homosexuals."

In other words, there are lots of sources indicating that reparative therapy is not limited to sexual orientation. I feel the article should reflect this. Please provide any reasons why you feel it shouldn't, so we can discuss the ways to proceed. Jokestress (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Remarkable claims require remarkable support, and your references remain disturbingly poor. The Dean reference is a self-published report from an activist organization; the second reference is from Hayworth which publishes about everything they're paid to (it's not on par with the university presses mentioned in WP:RS), and Pickstone-Taylor's statement that they think the things are close necessarily means that they also think they are different. The great majority of references on this topic provide a definition at variance with your claims. They do not support the large-scale expansion of this page to match more closely the contents of your personal webpages.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

How about this summation of the therapy from Zucker himself (1990): two short-term goals are "the reduction or elimination of social ostracism and conflict, and the alleviation of underlying or associated psychopathology. Longer term goals have focused on the prevention of transsexualism and/or homosexuality." (emphasis mine) I see you are now posting from Zucker's employer the University of Toronto, so I would not be so quick to make claims about POV agendas. Jokestress (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It is no secret that Zucker is a colleague of mine.[6]
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and provide the complete reference to whatever you're talking about, and I'll look it up. I have a great library.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a great library, too, and a whole bunch of excellent research assistants. The reference is Bradley SJ, Zucker KJ (1990). Gender Identity Disorder and psychosexual problems in children and adolescents. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 35:477-86. That specific quotation is on page 482. Jokestress (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The complete (unmanipulated) quote from that page is :

"Two short term goals have been discussed in the literature: the reduction or elimination of social ostracism and conflict, and the alleviation of underlying or associated psychopathology. Longer term goals have focused on the prevention of transsexualism and/or homosexuality."

That is, in that article, Zucker is talking about what other people have done, and by removing key pieces of the quote, Jokestress is trying to make it sound as if Zucker is talking about what he himself does. So, Jokestress, these research assistants of yours: Did they give you an already incomplete quote, or did these key pieces of information somehow go missing afterwards?
My own opinion is that Jokestress' gross misrepresentations about Zucker baldly violate BLP and that she should not be permitted to edit on the relevant pages.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

So we are in agreement that the literature says the goal of reparative therapy is prevention of transsexualism and/or homosexuality, and we can use Zucker as the source? Jokestress (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No. The passage in the Zucker paper was not providing a definition of reparative therapy. He was discussing a clinical case and noted that the clinical literature contained papers about trying to change sexual orientation and contained papers about trying to change gender identity.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, often in the same paper. Both are forms of "therapeutic intervention," and there's going to be coverage of the gender-variant type in Wikipedia. So we have a couple of choices: we can either include it here where I feel it should be, or we can start a new article that I feel will essentially be a POV fork. How would you propose we proceed? Jokestress (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not the "therapeutic intervention" page. It is the "conversion therapy" page. The literature all defines conversion therapy as changing sexual orientation, and you have not produced any RS for otherwise.
I propose that rules be followed.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't even feel the publication by Darryl Hill in a peer-reviewed publication is reliably sourced? We can seek consensus if you wish. Jokestress (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You're asking me to repeat points what I already made. The definition of conversion therapy is extremely well-published. You want to say that the definition is something different (and which just so happens to match up with claims you make on your personal website). Remarkable claims require remarkable sourcing. To me, it looks like you do not have remarkable sourcing, you have a POV.
—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 23:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

One of the problems that I see is that the article is too long anyhow. If anything, it should be cut down into smaller articles, not have other topics merged into it. Maybe that information can be put in another article and then we can link to it from here. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of the new material. Conversion therapy very often includes reinforcement (or simple enforcement) of gender-typical behavior. I don't think a clear line can be drawn in practice between therapy to suppress or alter homosexuality and therapy to suppress or alter gender variance.

However, I agree that the article is too long even as it is. On thing that can be done to fix this is to cut the sections that already begin with links to a main article on their topic (like Gay affirmative psychotherapy and Ex-gay) to much, much smaller stubs.

Dybryd (talk) 23:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out, the material added by Jokestress was flawed. It souced a quote by Kenneth Zucker to an article that did not contain that quote. That most certainly should not have been added to the article. Skoojal (talk) 23:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The May 23 statement you're referring to was referenced here and was widely distributed as a Word document. Checking the document properties indicates that Zucker wrote the piece himself. So it is not a statement released by APA and does not appear on their site. We can cite the Chibbaro article and use that quotation instead. Besides that, are there other issues you'd like to address in that new proposed section? Jokestress (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

What you say above looks like a way of avoiding admitting that you used a source improperly. You sourced a quote from a living person to article that contained no such statement. There is no question that this was inappropriate and that the material you added had to be removed. I am going to oppose any further attempt to muddy the waters. Skoojal (talk) 00:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The earlier quotation, while verifiable, is not reliably sourced (which I admit), so I propose we use this instead: "Zucker does not advocate change therapy for transgender adults or for trans youth in all cases, and he opposes change therapy for gays under all circumstances." That seems to be a fair and concise summary of what appears in the May 23 statement about Zucker's approach and provides NPOV balance to those who consider his work to be a form of reparative therapy. Are there other concerns? Jokestress (talk) 15:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This just brings us back to the fact that the article defines conversion therapy as being about sexual preference: 'Today's conversion therapists characterize the movement as offering the possibility of a choice to people who are unhappy with their attraction to the same sex.' I am not at all sure how your proposed addition would fit into the article. Skoojal (talk) 03:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The techniques and philosophy behind therapeutic intervention for gender variance are the same as those for therapeutic intervention for sexual attraction, and the article should address that in some manner. We can't cite this Wikipedia article as evidence it shouldn't be mentioned. Reliable sources note that reparative therapy is used to "treat" gender-variant youth with a goal of preventing transsexualism. I feel (as do others) that this should be included. I agree that I am not sure how this should be included, but we should discuss that. I propose a mention in the intro and then a section, perhaps in summary style with a link to a fuller article elsewhere. Jokestress (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

No, neither the philosophies nor the theoretical basis behind these interventions are at all the same, and the techniques do not resemble each other any more than do most psychological techniques. Including it here is misleading...and just-so-happens to match Jokestress' off-wiki efforts in "re-branding" Zucker.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting) Then perhaps we should start a separate article first. What do you propose we call it? I suggest one of the following:

• Transsexual prevention therapy
• Prevention of transsexualism
• Curing pre-transsexual children
• Gender enforcement therapy
• Reparative therapies for gender identity

The last suggestion is probably my preferred one, after Dr. Hill's paper section titled "Reparative therapies are harmful and contravene existing treatment standards." I am open to any other suggestions. Jokestress (talk) 00:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

There has been ongoing confusion about what the expression reparative therapy means, so I think that the last of those proposals is very likely the worst one. Use of reparative therapy is not appropriate unless those conducting the therapy define it that way. Skoojal (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Our goal here is not to determine which usage is the "appropriate" one (which is WP:OR), but to list all of the denotations of reparative therapy in reliable published sources. Our goal is verifiability, not truth. Jokestress (talk) 06:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion is completely inappropriate. The creation of an article titled "Reparative therapies for gender identity" would send a very strong signal that there is one correct use of the term "reparative therapy", and that is as an umbrella term for any kind of therapeutic intervention in gender identity or sexual preference. It would also effectively identify Kenneth Zucker with reparative therapy, which might be regarded as libel. If you create an article with that title, it should be deleted immediately. Skoojal (talk) 07:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not libel if we are citing a published source as I suggested (the Hill quotation above, etc.). The fact is that therapy aimed at preventing transsexualism has been characterized as reparative therapy by psychologists. Zucker is not the only one promoting and practicing this sort of therapy, but he's the one most often cited because he has published the most about this sort of therapy and is probably its most influential proponent. The intelligent design movement objects to being labeled creationism, but the fact remains that some people have published work noting the connections. This debate seems similar. Of course those who promote prevention of transsexualism do not want to be associated with reparative therapy and will object to the connection, but Wikipedia is supposed to present a neutral account of any topic. Jokestress (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the debate seems similar to people who don't have the background (or desire) to appreciate what they're reading, anyway.

In order to insert one's personal agenda of misunderstanding into WP, all one has to do find someone else who already misunderstands the issue and then cite it without ever citing (or even understanding) the rest of the relevant information. Of course, one can hurry things up by actively promoting that misunderstanding (outside of wikipedia) until someone publishes it in someplace better than a blog. Of course, the more reliable the source, the harder to push misunderstandings into it.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You make my point perfectly. We need an article that presents all viewpoints on the controversy in a neutral manner. Once we do that, we can have a section here if warranted, with a link to the main article. What do you propose we call this article? I have made five proposals, but I am open to discussing any other options. Jokestress (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

For as long as the basic idea is inaccurate, the number of possible ways to say it is irrelevant.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

What is an accurate description of the basic idea, then? Jokestress (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That the association between typical homosexuality and heterosexuality (in males) is not at all analogous to the association between typical homosexuality and homosexual transsexualism. No matter what you do with homosexual men, nothing will change; they will stay homosexual men. However, even if you do absolutely nothing with GID kids, they will change; the large majority will turn out to be typical homosexual adults.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, then in a half dozen words or less, how do clinicians prefer to describe preventive therapeutic intervention directed at GID kids? Jokestress (talk) 19:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Making kids comfortable with their bodies.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That's probably too vague for an article title. How about Therapeutic intervention for gender variance? Jokestress (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That's still not what it is. Kids are in therapy because they are uncomfortable with their bodies, not because they are "gender variant" or because a superficial examination of their experiences can be spun to fit a sociopolitical theory about the meaning of sex and gender.

When one has trouble finding support for what one has in mind, one might start thinking about changing one's mind.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Your backhanded insults have no place here. Please try to work with me on reaching consensus by commenting on content, please. How would we distinguish the demographic group treated by proponents of this sort of therapy? Many young people are uncomfortable with their bodies, but this therapy specifically treats children who are expressing gender nonconformity. Perhaps Therapeutic intervention for childhood GID? Jokestress (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

As per WP:COI, I do not believe you have sufficient distance to write on this topic at all.

—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you have leveled that accusation many times now, and other editors have pointed out that we don't require that editors be neutral, only their edits. So does Therapeutic intervention for childhood GID seem accurate and value-neutral to you? Jokestress (talk) 21:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Big ol' Ex-gay merge/deletion

I think that in terms of organization, a good bit of what's now in this article under "Ex-gay" ought to be moved to the article Ex-gay, and the section here cut down to a summary stub because there is already a whole article about it and info that is not already in that article should be there and not here. Would anyone get mad if I started to do that?

Dybryd (talk) 00:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with that, this article is complicated enough already; and, wherever located, I have some doubts about the citation of a few personal accounts of experience as if they provided evidence one way or another. To justify such accounts, it is necessary to show and give evidence in the text that they are either widely recognized as representative, or at least the most widely read ones. To take whatever accounts happen to be found and use them is irresponsible. If a particular group is putting these forth as examples of success (or failure) then it should be said who it is that supports the account as reliable. (I was asked to have a look at some other aspects of this article--this is just a comment on something I happened to notice.)DGG (talk) 03:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think this sounds like a good idea. Skoojal (talk) 04:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I think the ex-gay information in the scandals section could go with it. If the ex-gay section is shortened, the ex-ex-gay section should also be shortened. Joshuajohanson (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Dybryd (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. This article is way too long. I say, go right ahead. Whistling42 (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Introduction needs to be modified

The introduction to the article reads, 'Conversion therapy refers to methods aimed at changing a person with primarily homosexual attractions to heterosexual, or at eliminating or diminishing homosexual desires and behaviors. Many techniques have been tried, including behavior modification, aversion therapy, psychoanalysis, prayer, and religious counseling. Conversion therapy is closely associated with the "ex-gay" movement, which is more explicitly religious.'

This needs to be modified to make it clear that reparative therapy is a specific method that has been used to change sexual orientation, and that it is the method most associated with the ex-gay movement. I suggest that the introduction be rewritten as follows: 'Conversion therapy refers to methods aimed at changing a person with primarily homosexual attractions to heterosexual, or at eliminating or diminishing homosexual desires and behaviors. Many techniques have been tried, including behavior modification, aversion therapy, reparative therapy, psychoanalysis, prayer, and religious counseling. Reparative therapy is closely associated with the "ex-gay" movement, which is more explicitly religious.' Skoojal (talk) 04:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

outside view

I've just looked briefly at the sources, but it seems quite obvious that the terminology is being used in the profession in more than one way. Definition One considers reparative therapy an approximate synonym for conversion therapy, and Definition Two considers it a specialised subtype--an older subtype, referring specifically to a psychoanalytically-based method. I am not yet clear who uses it which way, but I think the APA establishment, which deprecates conversion theory in general, does not make much distinction between the various forms. The psychologists allied with groups that have some connection with conservative Christianity, which promotes conversion therapy to at least a certain extent, tends to make the differentiation--presumably in order to distinguish their newer methods which they think more sophisticated in terms of an understand of the social as well as the psychological significance of homosexuality and free from what many consider the theoretical baggage of psychoanalysis.

The only way I see to edit in a situation like this is to be up-front about the different meaning, giving the definitions that support one, and the definitions that support the other. How they are used is, unlike their therapeutic merits, not the province of peer-reviewed papers but of usage. I think that to document one school of thought or one individual's view, a definition from the person or group's official website is a perfectly reasonable way of doing it--every bit as good as from one of their published works. Care needs to be taken to give a good definition--not one extracted from a longer passage if possible, but one that is explicitly set forth a being a definition. This avoid the problems of quoting out of context. We are not competent to describe what "conversion theory" properly meaqns, just what it is said to mean. The views of the person introducing the term defines how he originally used it, but it might well be used differently by others, in which case his view would be of mostly historical interest.

I don't see this a question of majority and fringe viewpoints--I see it as multiple schools of thought, which must each be explained in its own terms. I don't think it altogether impossible that schools of thought in subjects like this may deliberately choose terminology intended to convey a certain effect, and make use of the implications of words as they think it will be seen by others--this requires especial care in quoting and explaining.

Remember that the purpose of Wikipedia is not to tell the reader whether or not therapy aimed at reversing homosexuality either as practice or orientation is appropriate, is effective, is ethical, is necessary, is the majority viewpoint, is the scientific approach. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present the information objectively, and if the interpretations differ, to give them fairly. There is a place for persuasion, and for writing aimed at demonstrating the correctness of a position, but it is not at Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I see no fundamental problem with using several different sources, explaining why each source use the term in the way it does, but the fact that one particular group of people (reparative therapists) originally defined what they do as "reparative therapy", and that they do not consider other kinds of change therapies "reparative therapy", has to be made clear. "Reparative therapy" is only used as a general term for attempts at changing sexual orientation by groups that oppose such attempts; its practitioners never use it that way, because it would mean (for instance) that their theories would be confused with altogether different things, such as aversion therapy. Skoojal (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I think that reparative therapy deserves its own article since it is often (and more correctly) understood to be a specific kind of therapy, and not simply a synonym for "conversion therapy" in general. Creating a separate article would help to prevent confusion about this. Skoojal (talk) 23:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been going over the history of this article's talk page. Some of the relevant past discussions are archived here [7]]. Back in October 2007, in response to a request by User:Fireplace, the Reparative therapy article was moved to Conversion therapy. This was defended on such questionable grounds as 'Both terms refer to the same phenomenon' and 'Today, "conversion therapy" and "reparative therapy" are generally treated synonymously in the literature' (to quote User:Fireplace) and that because reparative therapists 'are marginal in their own field of clinical psychology' what they call themselves is not 'particularly important' (to quote User:Dybryd). I do not think that this issue was dealt with properly. There is no problem with saying that sometimes the term reparative therapy is used as a general term for methods of changing sexual orientation, but there is a very big problem with suggesting that this usage is the one correct one. That creates confusion, and has lead to the attempt by User:Whistling42 to expunge the term "reparative therapy" from Wikipedia. Skoojal (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Has the third opinion already been done? If so, I'll remove it from WP:3o Dusti^SPEAK!! 15:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if the "outside view" came from 30. I will ask. Whistling42 (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed factual error

An older version of this article wrote that the label reparative originated in 1983, and that it was coined by Elizabeth Moberly. This is quite misleading; the word reparative was used in numerous different contexts before then (eg, in the work of Melanie Klein), so I have changed this part. The entire paragraph of which that sentence was the start was worded misleadingly. It needs further improvement, and so do other parts of the article. Skoojal (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Therapy for GIDC

I have just started an article on gender identity disorder in children, which is back in the news following announcements about the DSM-V committee appointments on gender issues. The controversy centers on Kenneth Zucker, who advocates therapy in children to prevent adult gender identity disorder (transsexualism). Some previously-mentioned quotations:

• Kenneth Zucker (Canadian Journal of Psychiatry (1990). "Two short term goals have been discussed in the literature: the reduction or elimination of social ostracism and conflict, and the alleviation of underlying or associated psychopathology. Longer term goals have focused on the prevention of transsexualism and/or homosexuality."

• Simon Pickstone-Taylor (Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 2003). "What Bradley and Zucker (1997) suggest for treatment is something disturbingly close to reparative therapy for homosexuals."

• Darryl Hill et al. (Haworth 2006): "Zucker and Bradley believe that reparative treatments (encouraging the child to accept their natal sex and associated gender) can be therapeutic for several reasons. They believe that treatment can reduce social ostracism by helping gender non-conforming children mix more readily with same sex peers and prevent long-term psychopathological development (1.e., it is easier to change a child than a society intolerant of gender diversity). Reparative therapy is believed to reduce the chances of adult GID (i.e., transsexualism) which Zucker and Bradley characterize as undesirable."

The "prevention of transsexualism and/or homosexuality" indicates that the literature doesn't make a clear distinction between interventions for altering gender identity and sexual orientation. Zucker wishes to distance his own techniques from reparative therapy because he does not advocate preventing homosexuality, just transsexualism. I feel this should be mentioned here in a section above "New psychoanalytic models and Reparative Therapy." GIDC was formalized as a diagnosis in 1980, though attempts to cure childhood identity disorder predate that diagnosis. The proposed section will be in summary style with a link to the main article GIDC. Wikipedia should include all reliably-sourced uses of the terms "reparative therapy," "conversion therapy," "change therapy," etc. Jokestress (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Only people who are not themselves reparative therapists use the expression reparative therapy in this loose and general way. Self-proclaimed reparative therapists always use the term to refer to a specific kind of therapy. The article should not leave anyone in any doubt about this. Your proposed addition would probably confuse matters. Skoojal (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

More possible inaccuracies in the seciton "New psychoanalytic models and Reparative Therapy"

The article reads, 'In 1983 research psychologist Elizabeth Moberly coined the term reparative drive to refer to male homosexuality itself, interpreting men's sexual desires for other men as attempts to compensate for a lacked connection between father and son during childhood.' Now, in his book Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality, Nicolosi says this: 'In the psychoanalytic literature, homosexuality has long been explained as an attempt to "repair" a deficit in masculine identity. This theory is not new; in fact, it has a long tradition within the psychoanalytic literature. While not all homosexuality can be explained simply as reparative drive, for most homosexual men it is a significant motivation. When the homosexual encounters another man who is what he himself would like to be, he is likely to idealize him and romanticize the relationship. Reparative-drive theory began with Sigmund Freud (1914), who linked homosexuality to narcissism: "A man can love himself as he is, he can love himself as he was, he can love someone who was once a part of himself, and he can love what he himself would like to be" (p. 90).' That's from pages 70 and 71, in the section 'Homosexuality as a Reparative Drive.' Now if this is true, then the article's claims perhaps look misleading. Skoojal (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

On page 72 of that book, Nicolosi attributes the reparative drive explanation of homosexuality to Anna Freud, Sandor Rado, and Lionel Ovesey, all of whom wrote well before Elizabeth Moberly. Nicolosi identifies Moberly's contribution as the idea of defensive detachment (p. 19-20), not the reparative explanation of homosexuality. Skoojal (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, it seems that the term reparative drive is used to explain homosexuality, not as a term for homosexuality, as the wording of that section implies. Skoojal (talk) 02:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate Quotation

This article contains the following quotation from Joseph Nicolosi: 'Each one of us, man and woman alike, is driven by the power of romantic love. These infatuations gain their power from the unconscious drive to become a complete human being. In heterosexuals, it is the drive to bring together the male-female polarity through the longing for the other-than me. But in homosexuals, it is the attempt to fulfill a deficit in wholeness of one’s original gender.' The section of Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality that this is taken from is about 'The Limitations of Homosexual Love', and is not primarily about what causes homosexuality. I suggest that this quotation be removed and replaced with something more suitable. The following from page xvi might be better: 'In reality, the homosexual condition is a developmental problem - and one that often results from early problems between father and son. Heterosexual development necessitates the support and cooperation of both parents as the boy disidentifies from mother and identifies with father. Failure in relationship with father may result in failure to internalize male gender-identity. A large proportion of the men seen in psychotherapy for treatment of homosexuality fit this developmental syndrome.' This is much less colorful than the other quotation, and that's part of the reason I'm suggesting it (I have made some related comments on the Joseph Nicolosi talk page, questioning the usefulness and appropriateness of using out of context quotations as a way of explaining someone's theories). Skoojal (talk) 03:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Rethink on Statement sourced to Throckmorton

I recently added the words, 'The term reparative therapy is sometimes used loosely as a synonym for conversion therapy in general', to the introduction. So long as this explanation is allowed to remain in the introduction, I no longer think that the statement sourced to Warren Throckmorton needs to be in the article. It might arguably be better placed in the article on Throckmorton. It may seem ironic that I have now removed this myself, having several times re-inserted it, but after some reconsideration I think the sentence I have placed in the introduction is a clearer way of explaining things; hopefully it will also be less contentious. Skoojal (talk) 06:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)