Talk:Conversion therapy

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Sadger, etc

I would like to ask MrX what, precisely, he sees as being the significance of Isidor Sadger and Felix Boehm? How exactly do you think information about these obscure figures will be of benefit to readers trying to understand conversion therapy? Despite the edit summary you used, I don't believe that either of them is in any way a "notable" figure for this field. Most literature on conversion therapy doesn't even mention them, so far as I know. I note that you did not restore the material about J. Vinchon, Sacha Nacht, and Daniel Lagache, which I removed earlier this month - why are Sadger and Boehm more worthy of mention than Vinchon, Nacht, or Lagache? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I think discussing those people help our readers understand the history of conversion therapy, and that in turn helps set a context for understanding the contemporary views. Yes, I intentionally did not restore the other three because I agree that their historical roles were minimal. Both Sadger and Boehm (de.wiki) have articles.

How about if we shorten and combine some of these sections? I do think they are a little lengthy and do not need separate sections. - MrX 13:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

You asserted that Sadger and Boehm were "notable figures" in this field; I'd like to see some actual evidence of that. I doubt very much that contemporary conversion therapists owe anything to either of them, and I think it's questionable that the material about them here will benefit readers. Including it may actually confuse matters, by exaggerating the importance of such figures. I would be all in favor of shortening the sections if you would agree to that, however. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Sadger here. If you read Isidor Isaak Sadger you will see that he was active in researching homosexuality cures and even influenced Freud to some extent. Boehm was the president of the German Psychoanalytic Assembly. His research on the causes and "cures" are well documented in secondary and tertiary sources (examples). I am not claiming that contemporary conversion therapists owe anything to these two, only that they merit inclusion in the article for historical context. While their research may be fringe by today's standards, they both seem to have been quite notable, at least in their own time. - MrX 02:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the historical context argument is dubious if these figures didn't meaningfully influence later developments in conversion therapy. The key question has to be whether literature on conversion therapy standardly mentions them, and the answer, so far as I know, is that it doesn't. For me, the ideal would still be to remove mention of them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that your "influence" argument convinces me that this material should be removed any more than my "historical context" argument convinces you that it should be included. If there is no room for compromise then I guess we should wait for others to weigh in. - MrX 13:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, other views would be helpful. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Banning of the practice on minors

California and New Jersey have banned conversion therapy for minors. This does not apply to religious institutions. If I remember correctly, they have been upheld, so far. Whether one agrees or disagrees, it is relevant and important to include legal developments on this issue. I would appreciate that we try to remain neutral in comments in this public forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.104.143 (talk) 05:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Original research

I have removed the following passage, as original research:

'Nicolosi's "A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality" clarifies that Haldeman's interpretation of his work, cited above, is inaccurate; Nicolosi explains that some males are temperamentally more sensitive and esthetically oriented and can never be expected to act in a way that is stereotypically masculine. As Nicolosi says, "A gender-nonconforming boy CAN be sensitive, kind, social, artistic, gentle--and heterosexual. He can be an artist, an actor, a dancer, a cook, a musician--and a heterosexual. These innate artistic skills are 'who he is,' part of the wonderful range of human abilities. No one should try to discourage those abilities and traits." Nicolosi adds, "With appropriate masculine affirmation and support, however, they can all be developed within the context of normal heterosexual manhood."'

The citation given was page 48 of Nicolosi's book about preventing homosexuality. I happen to have a copy of that book. I have looked up the passage, and it does not support what appeared in the article. The relevant part of Nicolosi's book reads as follows:

'But make no mistake about this: A gender-nonconforming boy can be sensitive, kind, social, artistic, gentle - and heterosexual. He can be an artist, an actor, a dancer, a cook, a musician - and a heterosexual. These innate artistic skills are "who he is", part of the wonderful range of human abilities. No one should try to discourage those abilities and traits. With appropriate masculine affirmation and support, however, they can all be developed within the context of normal heterosexual manhood.'

That passage cannot be used as a criticism of Haldeman. It does not even mention Haldeman, or say anything about Haldeman's interpretation of Nicolosi's work. To use the passage to criticize Haldeman is unacceptable original research. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Transgender?

One thing I'm rather surprised is the lack of discussion, both in the article and on the talk page, about transgender conversion therapy. Looking through the archives, there's only one thread about it (here), which soon devolved into the COI-infighting by User:Jokestress and User:James Cantor that led to Sexology last year.

That said, there may be space to discuss trans conversion therapy, especially given the controversy regarding Kenneth Zucker's use of it and later appointment to DSM 5 working groups. I don't have references to hand at this exact moment in time (although they undoubtedly exist), but I think it would be prudent to have this discussion anyway. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

What is "transgender conversion therapy"? Are there sources that discuss it, using that term? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

1. There is no such thing as transgender conversion therapy. There do exist bloggers and trans- activists who make claims, but it does not appear in the professional therapy literature (except as political/activist commentary). The idea is generally intended as an analogy to "conversation therapy" for homosexuality/heterosexuality, but does not exist in reality. The state of the science is that: (1) Gay men stay gay, and straight men stay straight, no matter what you do. (2) There have been many attempts—explicit and published in peer reviewed therapy journals—to change gay to straight, and none has met with any reasonable evidence of change. (3) For transgenderism, however, feelings of being in the wrongly sex'ed body are less stable: Roughly 80% of the pre-pubescent kids stop being transgender by puberty and instead identify as regular (cisgendered) gays/lesbians. (4) Before permitting sterilization (including castration) etc., Zucker and other therapists first attempt to help the kids be comfortable with their born sex until they are old enough to undergo the surgeries or they know which kids will remain in the 20% minority instead of growing into being gay/lesbian. Zucker's approach does indeed differ from the "surgery on demand for children" favoured by some activists, but calling it "conversation therapy" (etc.) is the political line, not the encyclopedic description.

2. I would recommend User:Sceptre apply great caution in this discussion: Making accusations of COI without evidence violates NPA. I was (repeatedly) accused of violating COI in the Sexology Arbcom case, but ArbCom found no such thing. ArbCom did, however, put this and other paraphilia-related topics under discretionary sanctions. So, again, I would recommend User:Sceptre apply great caution.

3. For anyone reading the Archive that User:Sceptre linked to, I was writing at that time (2008) as User:MarionTheLibrarian, before I started editing under my real name. I believe the discussion at that archive (including the input from the other editors) speaks for itself.

— James Cantor (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes I added duplicate material

In [1]: "Reverted good faith edits by 135.0.167.2 (talk): Duplicates material already in the history section - Hooker and Bieber are discussed below."

Oh, come on, all the info in the section's lede are also found in it's subsections, but that's what the lede is for. Currently the lede only focuses on psychoanalysis as if it was the only player. If a lede should only mention non-duplicate information, rather than show a proportionate summary and impression, then what is a lede for? 135.0.167.2 (talk) 06:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

It's only the lead of the article as a whole that is supposed to summarize the article. The history section is already confused and cluttered, and I'm afraid your edit made it worse - which is why it was reverted. Feel free to open a thread about the history section on the article's talk page; it would be a more appropriate place to discuss matters than my talk page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I moved the lede of the history section to the bottom of the lead on the top of the article. I felt that's where it belongs anyways, but last time I was afraid of messing things up so just added to the section lead. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 08:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Please don't do things like that; it's not at all helpful. The "lede" of the history section should remain where it was; it was in the right place to begin with. The lead of the article certainly doesn't need expanding. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, ha, was just seconds form pressing save. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 08:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for not saving. If you want to make major changes to the article, please discuss them first. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

You did say, "It's only the lead of the article as a whole that is supposed to summarize the article." Now, did you mean

A) the section ledes summarize only the sections, but only the article lead should summarize the whole article.

or

B) the section ledes should not summarize anything, (maybe be a transition, or be completely removed or only mention things which can't fit in any subsection), and only the article lead should summarize the article's important details.

I thought it was B, but it's getting gradually, ambiguous, and I just wanna check. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 08:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I meant B. Please be more careful in your edits: I have had to revert an edit you made that was presumably well-intentioned, but which misrepresented source material and made the article significantly less accurate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, that edit (if you look closely) didn't change any meanings and moved things around, but that edit/revert is off topic and neither of us should care about it.

Ok, now that I'm clear you meant B, we both agree that the summary should go in the main lead. So I'll simply add the info about the APA there, as it's a fact of key importance to this article (I'm sure you did not contest this). The whole time, all I really wanted to do was mention the key fact about the APA in the summary, but simply wasn't clear where the summary of the history is, because if you look at the article, you have to admit it DID look like the summary of the history was the history sections lead. I don't really mind where the summary will be, I just read the article lead and history lead, found that it talked about so much psychoanalysis and other strange details, without making the basic idea clear (that psychiatry's main players first started an effort to "cure" homosexuality, and now learned it ain't no mental disease and efforts were disastrous). You may know that, I may know that, but if you look closely, someone skimming this article will get no such clue about the big picture. That was all I wanted to fix, not debate over where the summary should be. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I did look at your edit closely. You moved the sentence, "Some psychoanalysts felt free to ridicule and abuse their gay patients", from a place that indicated that it was part of developments subsequent to the 1930s to a place that implied that it was part of an earlier situation, in the 1920s. Your change was completely inaccurate, and misrepresented the source material used. Please be more careful. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

As for the lead, could you please clarify exactly what information you want to add, and where? The lead is already too long, and rather confusing. Further additions could easily make it worse. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

You're most probably right about that edit, I won't question it.

I'll add that same paragraph (remember?), somewhere where it fits with smoothly. I'll also shorten the lead so it mentions less fine detail, and just the big picture. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Extended content

"Pray the gay away" redirects here. For the Our America with Lisa Ling episode, see Pray the Gay Away? Conversion therapy (also known as reparative therapy) is a range of pseudo-scientific treatments that aim to change sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Conversion therapy is now condemned scientifically and ethically by many medical and scientific organizations, including the American Psychiatric Association (APA), American Counseling Association, and the World Health Organization, and has been a source of controversy in the United States and other countries. Psychologist Douglas Haldeman writes that conversion therapy comprises efforts by mental health professionals and pastoral care providers to convert lesbians and gay men by techniques including aversive treatments, such as "the application of electric shock to the hands and/or genitals," and "nausea-inducing drugs...administered simultaneously with the presentation of homoerotic stimuli," masturbatory reconditioning, visualization, social skills training, psychoanalytic therapy, and spiritual interventions, such as "prayer and group support and pressure." The APA condemns "psychiatric treatment, such as reparative or conversion therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation." It also states that political and moral debates over the US society's integration of homosexuals have obscured scientific data about changing sexual orientation "by calling into question the motives and even the character of individuals on both sides of the issue." In February 23, 2011, the Attorney General of the United States wrote to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, "while sexual orientation carries no visible badge, a growing scientific consensus accepts that sexual orientation is a characteristic that is immutable". The APA notes, "Ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals' sexual orientation." The American Counseling Association further calls on ethical practitioners not to refer patients to practitioners who do. The advancement of conversion therapy may also cause social harm by disseminating inaccurate views about sexual orientation. Psychiatric efforts to convert homosexuals in the US and Germany were mainly a 20th century phenomenon, although intolerance existed before. In 1952, the APA listed homosexuality in the DSM as a sociopathic personality disturbance. Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study of Male Homosexuals, a large-scale 1962 study of homosexuality, was used to justify inclusion of the disorder as a supposed pathological hidden fear of the opposite sex caused by traumatic parent–child relationships. This view was widely influential in the medical profession. In 1956, a study found no difference between homosexual men and heterosexual men in happiness and well-adjusted nature but homosexuality remained in the DSM until May 1974. Today, the highest-profile contemporary advocates of conversion therapy tend to be fundamentalist Christian groups and other right-wing religious organizations and the therapy is derided by critics as "pray the gay away". The main organization advocating secular forms of conversion therapy is the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), often partnering with religious groups. In 2012, the Pan American Health Organization of the World Health Organization (WHO) cautioned against services that purport to "cure" non-heterosexuals, as they lack medical justification and represent a serious threat to non-heterosexuals' health and well-being, and noted the global scientific and professional consensus that homosexuality is a normal and natural variation of sexuality and cannot be regarded as a pathological condition. They further called on governments, academic institutions, professional associations and the media to expose these practices and to promote respect for diversity. They also noted that gay minors have sometimes been forced to attend these "therapies" involuntarily, being deprived of their liberty, sometimes kept in isolation for several months, and that these findings were reported by several United Nations bodies. The Pan American Health Organization recommended the practices be subject to sanctions and penalties under national legislation, as a violation of the ethical principles of health care and human rights protected by international and regional agreements.

Here's the edit if you really want a close look. diff 135.0.167.2 (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

No, that proposal is no good. There's too much detail there. Bieber's book was certainly influential, but I doubt that there is any point in mentioning it in the lead. Your proposed addition focuses on Bieber's theories about the development of homosexuality, something which is of only secondary importance to an article that is mainly about efforts to alter homosexuality. I realize that the efforts to change homosexuality were justified partly in terms of ideas about its causes, but that connection isn't made explicit in your proposed addition (making the connection clear would require even more text). Evelyn Hooker is again certainly a significant and influential figure, but again, I doubt that it improves the article to mention her in the lead. That Hooker's work made her "hero to many gay men and lesbians" is an important part of her personal story, but it's not of such importance that it belongs in the lead. The best thing for the lead would be to streamline it and cut it back - not to make even more additions. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

A agree that section had too much detail. I shortened it down the the important facts: the APA and DSM were in the bandwagon at the time. 135.0.167.2 (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)