This is an archive of past discussions about Conversion therapy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

→

PFAW classification

Under Opponents, People for the American Way is listed as a religious organization. PFAW doesn't have any religious or spiritual affiliations. However, they DO fight back at the American Religious Right. Their name should be replaced in that sentence to the name of a religious group that's opposed to reparative therapy. I could make the change, but I thought I'd run it by the talk page first just to make sure it's ok with everyone else. C4bl3Fl4m3 16:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that castration would cure heterosexuality also. Seems to me that whoever thought up that "cure" was suffering a short-circuit...

Scott McNay 17:49, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC)

Location on the pro-con spectrum

This looks spectacularly partial. It is not neutral at all. Clearly pro–RT. --A Reader 12:08, 3 Nov 2004 (CET)

I'm not going to disagree with your edit, OuterLimits, but it seems that Fowler made at least one statement that wasn't against reparative therapy:

If ... there is a desire to talk about changing, that is an acceptable choice and a psychologist may participate ..." (quotation sliced and diced for talk page purposes)

But it's important to add the first part you added, where he says RT is trying to change the immutable. I myself question any attempt to make people change natural, beneficial characteristics to fit a social agenda.

Perhaps we agree on the "no coercion" part but only disagree on the "gay is good" part. --Uncle Ed 18:26, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

His statement indicates that he's unwilling to characterize RT as unethical. That he had to clarify that point should be taken as an indication that many psychologists do consider it unethical, and that many psychologists feel that the APA should take that position. His statement doesn't make him "neutral" on the subject, and websites that take his statement out of context and imply that he is neutral are being manipulative and dishonest. As for your latter point, I'm quite certain I've never stated that "gay is good". I am not shocked to learn that you think "gay is bad". - Outerlimits 18:54, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, yes, of course: my mistake. He's not neutral on the subject, i.e., whether reparative therapy is harmful. And of course many if not most 'cologists and 'chiatrists oppose it. The last thing I want to do is take anyone's statement out of context.

Perhaps the article should say that Fowler opposes RT but doesn't oppose the right of mutually agreeing client and therapist to try it? (Your call.)

By the way, it really helps me when I can discuss the fine points with someone who's really familiar with the material, the viewpoints, and the posturing of the various sides. I'm aiming for a balanced portrayal. --Uncle Ed 20:32, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is not exactly a fine point. If your goal is a balanced, informative article, you can probably achieve that goal best by actually reading Besen's book, or by reading about the subject in some other source - one that is not specifically chosen because you know in advance that you agree with it. I think the strategy of adding a one-sided opinion and relying on others to actually do the research needed to balance it will produce a debate rather than a decent article. It also gives the appearance that you are more interested in promoting a particular view than in a balanced article, which certainly can't be the case. (I'd also encourage you not to rely too heavily on NARTH or other websites with agendas to provide quotes, as they are unreliable, and, as I think this example shows, dishonest.) - Outerlimits 03:57, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Detailed Analysis of POV

Here follows are detailed analysis of my objections to the POV on this page.

Reparative therapy, or conversion therapy, is any of several voluntary techniques that are aimed at changing a person's sexual orientation from homosexuality to heterosexuality. Their efficacy has not been established, and most professionals warn that such attempts may be psychologically harmful. Most pro-therapy advocates believe that homosexuality is itself either a psychological disorder, a tendancy toward immoral and harmful behaviors (to oneself and others), or both.

First of all, the use of the word "voluntary" is somewhat controversial. Whilst there is no evidence that people are forced to undergo reparative therapy, opponents would argue that social pressures placed on gay individuals, particualrly in isolated, rural areas with a strong Christian presence where reparative therapy is most popular, is a subtle method of co-ercing people into reparative therapy. Also, are not some adolescents forced into reparative therapy by their parents?

Also, I notice the start paragraph makes no mention of the ex-gay movement which seems directly related. Yet, the ex-gay page references reparative therapy in its starting paragraph... how strange!

Controversy

Reparative therapy can be divided into two categories: secular and religious. Secular reparative therapy seeks to distance itself from religion and morality, basing itself on object relations theory and empirical studies in gender identity.

I'm not sure why my notes that secular reparative therapy actually descends from religious reparative therapy? I also made a statement that whilst some reparative therapy appears to be secular it tends to be funded mostly by religious institutions and seems to possess only the appearence of secularism. Are there any reasons why this was deleted? Were they in dispute?

In general, one's position on reparative therapy will be determined by one's position on the cause of homosexuality: Is it genetic or environmental?

Not at all: one could (and some do) hold that homosexuality is changeable but that there is no reason to change. Similarly, one might argue that whilst homosexuality is changeable, it may be damaging and thus prohibitive to do so. One might better make the argument that one's position on reparative depends on whether you think homosexuality is a good or a bad thing.

Sexual orientation is defined as an individual's amorous desires, but it also refers to his feelings and self-concept, all of which might not remain static over a lifetime. Attempts have been made to measure this change, for example, by the Klein Sexual Orientation Grid.

For starters, shouldn't discussion of what sexual orientation is be left to the sexual orientation page (which is not linked to for some reason?!?).

Since feelings, self-concept and preference can change over time, the belief that this change might be consciously ellicited with the aid of therapy arises.

This smells a lot of weasel words. Obviously, this question arises in regard to sexual orientation for particular groups of people, in this context those who believe in reparative therapy.

Sexologist Alfred Kinsey also showed that, even in the modern age, "[e]xclusive preferences of behavior, heterosexual or homosexual, come only with experience, or as the result of social pressures which tend to force an individual into an exclusive pattern of one or the other sort."

This rather ignores the considerable evidence and subsequent arguments that has since rendered the above conclusions somewhat obsolete. I think more contemporary reports on sexual orientation are more relevant and considered.

Supporters of reparative therapy believe that homosexuality is not a fixed sexual orientation but an emotional disorder which a person can change. This viewpoint has not only a moral, but an historical basis. In the words of Francis Mondimore: "The word homosexuality did not exist prior to 1869.... This idea - that some individuals' sexual attraction for persons of the same sex was an inherent and unchanging aspect of their personality - was radically new."1 Just as homosexuality had been seen, historically, as a behaviour, and not a state of being, so do modern-day Reparative Therapists see homosexuality as a chosen, and oftentimes compulsive, behaviour that can be modified or cured.

More weasel words: we are well aware the supporters of reparative therapy think sexual orientation is changeable. The above is someone's opinion regarding homosexuality but is presented here, unchallenged, as reasonable opinion. Also, who is Francis Mondimore? Why should we believe what he says?

here are anecdotal reports of successful conversions, total reversions, and partially successful conversions (in which the subjects still had some homosexual feelings/attractions). Reparative therapists say this variability in success should not be viewed as a therapeutic failure, for, in the words of Otto Weininger

"[T]he rudiment of homosexuality, in however weak a form, exists in every human being.... There is no friendship between men that has not an element of sexuality in it, however little accentuated it may be in the nature of the friendship, and however painful the idea of the sexual element would be. But it is enough to remember that there can be no friendship unless there has been some attraction to draw the men together."

Not really sure what the above says: the quote does not seem to support the asssertion. Also, this stuff (as in previous sections) seems to belong in the propoenent section rather than in the factual description of reparative therapy.

This theory is, however, unsubstantiated by empirical evidence, although its dynamic is clearly in evidence in the gay scene, where it is most desirable to have had a large number of masculine lovers."

Again, a dubious assertion at best. Highly contentious, needs substantial evidence to back up anecdotal evidence and should otherwise be deleted. Also, contradictory: we state there is no evidence and then claim there is evidence.

Should this rigidity turn out to one day become proven fact, then one would have to ask: Why can a heterosexual preference evolve into a homosexual one, but a homosexual preference or self-concept can never evolve at all?

Should one have to ask this? Again, leading question and more weasel words do not really leave the question open, the question answers itself.

The controversy section does not to explain the controversy, but seeks to eliminate it in favor of reparative therapy.

History

The belief in the need for such 'cures' arose from the redefinition of homosexuality as a medical illness from the former view that it was a sinful choice

The above is presented in a highly dubious light: it gives the opinion that, prior to the definition of homosexuality everyone thought homosexuality was a sin. There are many other problems with this sentence:

homosexuality was not "redefined" but defined.
prior to the classification of homosexuality it was not considered to be a "sinful choice" but the sexual activity was considered to be a sinful and criminal activity.
this was only a crime for a narrow point in history, but this statement leads one to believe it had always been a crime - and sodomy and buggary laws are relative new.

Modern reparative therapy is a re-reading of this early psychological research and stems from the clinical work and theories of Elizabeth Moberly, a British Christian theologian. In her book, 'Homosexuality: A new Christian ethic', she states that homosexuality is purely a result of environmental factors, primarily a failure to bond with the subject's father as opposed to the domineering mother theory in Freudian psychoanalysis. The subject, as a boy, first experiences rejection by his father, then lapses into helplessness, and finally retreats to the security of his mother and defensively detaches from his father. This defensive detachment emotionally isolates him from other males, and from his own masculinity

More needs to be done here to make it clear that the above are the theories of Mobery, and not fact. Also, how is this historical? This is merely explaining what reparative therapy is and what it holds, rather than historical detail and belongs in another section. The rest of this section continues in a similar vein, incorrectly describing reparative doctrine as history.

Proponents

Initially, reparative therapy was welcomed by many 'Ex-Gay' and homosexual Christian groups who saw it as a means of reconciling their beliefs with their sexuality and as a way of gaining greater acceptance in their respective churches or ministries.:

This sentence fragment is obviously part of a parapraph I wrote describing that some ex-gay groups have since turned away from reparative therapy. Why was this deleted?

Reparative therapists claim that the psychological community has submitted to political forces, harming people while witholding treatment for their illness... homosexuality.

This sentence seems to hang in the air, devoid of any context and seeking a proper paragraph to be part of. It's also highly emotive and, again, uses weasel words to highlight it's sub-text. It would be better if it were described in the context of opposition from various professional bodies and toned down.

Opponents

There are people and groups who oppose these therapies, usually on the grounds that there is little scientific evidence that the techniques work. There is also opposition from the those who espouse the cultural argument that homosexuality is not immoral or harmful to the individual or society.

Again, this paragraph contains so much unconcious and subtle bias it will take a large effort to untangle all the threads. For starters, "There are people and groups" is pretty weasel words. It would be better to go straight into a description of those parties who directly oppose reparative therapy. Also, there are more grounds for oppososition than the "little scienfitic evidence" argument and the author of this work should be aware of this. The use of the word "espouse" is particularly pernicious, having very negative conotations. The term "cultural argument" is highly POV and should be replaced. Finally, the phrase "homosexuality is not immoral or harmful to the individual or society" is highly POV, working as it does from the assumption that homosexuality is immoral and harmful. Finally, this sentence contradicts the earlier view stated that "one's position on reparative therapy will be determined by one's position on the cause of homosexuality".

In fact, this is possibly the most POV and biased paragraph in the entire article, with it's multiple implicit assumptions.

The difficulty with the claim that the scientific evidence for change does not exist is that many studies indicate that while change is not a universal phenomena, for some percentage of individuals who orient toward homosexuality, some orientation change does occur. For instance, Ben Newman's Research Shows Change Is Real (http://pathinfo.ihostsites.net/Change_Is_Real.htm) discusses 48 studies of homosexuality with regard to the question, "Is change possible?" Every study listed included some evidence of a heterosexual shift in subjects' sexual orientation, and some count as "success" an increase in heterosexual daydreams unaccompanied by any lessening of the number of homosexual acts. The 48 include studies by partisan groups such as NARTH, and many are old and are methodologically dated, which is to be expected, as the political pressures by gay rights groups are such that any attempt at testing and study are quashed by the APA and other governing bodies.

Wow! I thought the last paragraph was bad! There is substantial scientific evidence that homosexuality is decided at birth, and the evidence that change is possible contended on multiple fronts and ignores bisexuality. This section is higly POV, highly contentious, and certainly belongs in the controversy section and definately not in the opponents section!

Those who are convinced that homosexuality is caused by genetic factors may view conversion therapy not only as an impotent, but a potentially damaging, pseudoscience. They attempt to present it as a manifestation of religious fundamentalism and intolerance of minorities, but prefer to ignore the fact that those afflicted with unwanted and intrusive homosexual thoughts seek the help voluntarily.

sigh Again, the above is ridiculously biased. Dubious statements include:

Those who are convinced
may view - they certainly do view it as such
They attempt to present it as - they attempt to do so!?? do they not succeed in some cases?
prefer to ignore the fact that those afflicted with unwanted and intrusive homosexual thoughts seek the help voluntarily - this itself is contentious as has been deatiled earlier.

Both the theory and practice have come under heavy criticism from gay rights groups, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Counseling Association, and the National Association of Social Workers, the Royal College of Nursing and other organizations.

This does not explain that opposition comes from a variety of groups, but the above are the main opponents. Makes it sound like its only some sort of gay rights crusade, which is misleading and POV.

This section is supposed to be about opposition, but one could be mistaken for thinking you are reading the proponents section. Unbeliavably biased. It seems the further you go down this essay the less effort is made to hide the bias.

Techniques

This whole section should be at the head of the page rather than at the bottom.

Some religious individuals may express that the power of prayer and of reading scripture, as forms of guidance and self-reflection, ought never to be underestimated; however they cannot be considered a part of therapy per se

Does it? Who says this?

Whether aversion therapy and fasting are used by any contemporary practitioners remains unclear. They are certainly not mentioned by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, who is the author of the primary manual on Reparative Therapy.

Does it? I thought I found plenty of evidence that aversion therapy is used which I clearly cited when I made my edits.

The Bigger Picture

Although same-sex sex acts seem (both to reparative therapists and to some others) to contravene human anatomical structure and design, a propensity for an emotional bisexuality would seem to exist, as is evidenced by the male need for cameraderie and bonding. It is in the fulfilment of these unfulfilled needs that the cure - the relief from unwanted same-sex sexual attraction, is found. Hence, it is not the innate emotional need for same-sex bonding that Reparative Therapy tries to correct, but what reparative therapists see as its dysfunctional expressions.

This whole section should be deleted, and its arguments moved to the controversy or proponents section. It does not belong in any "neutral" summary of reparative therapy.

Summary of Analysis

In summary, this whole page has been so completely seeded with leading questions, weasel words and subtle bias that I don't know how to begin altering it to be more neutral. A lot of this material could (and perhaps should) be merged with the ex-gay page which is, apart from anything, else a much more balanced and more popular link than the more obscure reparative therapy page where such bias can continue to be published unnoticed by other editors. --Axon 18:29, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have submitted a new version of the document which, I hopes, deals with the above issues. Comments wellcome. --Axon 15:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Terminology

I dispute the NPOV of the title of this piece: reparative therapy itself is a controversial term with its implicit assumption that the therapies are actually healing and non-harmful (which is in dispute). I would argue that conversion therapy is more neutral and there is evidence that a substantial number of people use this term (Google both phrases). I would like to change the name of this article as well as replace uses of reparative therapy with conversion therapy. I still think the introduction should descibe the synonyms and we should keep the Terminlogy section itself. I think there is an argument for continuing to refer to reparative therapists as such - isn't there a rule in Wikipedia that groups should be named by the term they prefer themselves? Although, of course, most gay man and women do not prefer to be called homosexual, yet Wikipedia frequently refers to them as such so maybe this point is moot. --Axon 15:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Conversion therapy seems like a much more neutral term. "Reparative therapy" implies damage that needs repairing, which should be something for the reader to decide for themselves. There is in fact a guideline about that, though I don't remember if it applied to a situation such as this. Perhaps we could continue to call the reparative therapists as such, and just move the terminology section closer to the top to avoid confusion. --Crazy Wolf 08:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

History from Moberly to Nicolsi

I'd be interested in some more details regarding the history of reparative therapy from Moberly to Nicolosi. I skip from where Moberly first posits her theory and therapy straight to when it is in action in America. Some details of how Nicolsi et al adopted Moberly's work and following on from there. --Axon 15:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

History of Religious Therapies

The article focuses of secular therapies, but what about the history of religious conversion therapies? More work needs to be done here. --Axon 15:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fowler Quotes

"...sexual orientation is not a choice and cannot be altered. Groups who try to change the sexual orientation of people through so-called 'conversion therapy' are misguided and run the risk of causing a great deal of psychological harm..." Raymond Fowler, executive director, American Psychological Association.

"If an individual is comfortable with his or her homosexuality, it is not the role of the therapist to convince the client otherwise. If one's feelings are egodystonic and there is a desire to talk about changing, that is an acceptable choice and a psychologist may participate if he or she desires." Ray Fowler, PhD, CEO, American Psychological Association. (From the Utah Psychologist, Winter, 1998, p. 11.)

I deleted both these quotes. My reasons are that, whilst on first glance appearing to be contradictory and reflecting a change of mind, they are actually not contradictory. Fowler could very easily hold the position that, whilst conversion therapy is dangerous, it is acceptable for a participant to undergo reparative therapy if the is what he or she wishes.

Also, both quotations are ordered sequentially seeming to indicate the Fowlers opinion changed from against to pro-RP, but there is no indication that the quotes belong in this order. If Fowler has changed his mind that RP is acceptable then I agree this should be mentioned in the article, but if he still thinks that reparative therapy is wrong, or has changed from a pro-stance to and anti-stance then I see no reason to include it. --Axon 15:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category change

I'm moving this to Category:Ex-gay movement because Category:LGBT was too full, and there are a bunch of related articles on changing, repairing, or whatever, homosexuals, and it's nice to have them collected all in one place. "Ex-gay movement" might not be the best name; if anyone can think of a better one, feel free to nominate the category for re-naming on WP:CFD. -- Beland 04:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bias Information

This information is biased and does not present enough facts to let people come to their own conclusion. I've been involved with reparative therapy for 2 years and have seen drastic results. The only thing i've done was read the book and participated on peoplecanchange.com forum to gain a better understanding of some underlying issues. Like cigarette smoking, some people have different results when it comes to quiting. My results are shocking! I was not totally convinced that change could take place. I have never considered myself bisexual which is the weak excuse used by opponents to say we are crazy and can't tell the difference in our attractions, as if we were stupid or something. This is not about science. It is about politics and people not being objective but double in their standards.

I hope the truth comes out and the playing field will be levelled and people can decide for themselves whether they want to change or not. True, some people do have a harder time than others. But for me, it as not very difficult at all. I saw significant results in a year and have sustained these. My attactions to the same sex are nearly zero if not zero. THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION. All i had to do was understand my underlying needs and causing and change my thinking. As a former homosexual, i know, this sounds extremely over simplified and maybe irrational. But hopefully in the near future there will be more of us. Then because of the sheer numbers, you will come to believe that at least some are capable of change.

Good luck to you, but what precisely do you object to in the article? The editors have tried to present all the information in as neutral a way as possible and I think the page succeeds very well at this. As a proponent of reparative therapy I would be interested in your perspective. --Axon 17:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long. Defending reparative therapy is not my livelihood and i try not to reply to such discussions at work. I had begun a reply but was not satisfied with it.

Although the encyclopedia has to reflect the current professional opinion, i think it needs to discuss better the political bias. Many will agree taht homosexuality was removed from the book of mental disorders because of political reasons and fear of aiding or causing discrimination. Reparative therapy is also not given the attention it needs, not because of much or overwhelming scientific study, as some would have us believe, but because it is simply politically incorrect and assumed a pseudo-science.

I would disagree that "many" people agree that "homosexuality was removed from the book of mental disorders because of political reasons" - on the contrary, there was considerable studies at the time that demonstrated that homosexuals could function normally and healthily. That aside, I'm not sure if this is the page to discuss this. This page is about reparative therapy.

I think the page does adequately describe the position that RT is dismissed because of political reasons. It clearly attributes these claims to RT proponents which I think is valid. If you think this page misses any points that you are free to add them but they should be placed in the correct context. --Axon 09:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I believe the encyclopedia would be more unbiased to at least explain the counter-cultural environment in which reparative therapy much fight. By explaining the effects of politics curious individuals can see that it is not just proven science that discredits reparative therapy but an opposing culture (created and propagated by the Gay Rights Movement). Besides there is no CONCLUSIVE proof that homosexuality is biological. There is only speculation. Since i'm a homosexual myself, i know this is foolishness!

This page is about RT and not discussing whether or not homosexuality is inherent or genetic (there are other pages for this). If you wish to describe the polical bias or a counter culture RT must fight against that would be valid, but I think you should attribute these claims of political bias/correctness to those who make them - that is RT proponents - and be careful not go state them as undisputed fact --Axon 09:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Spitzer's study is also unreasonably criticized a few times in the Wikipedia. Many studies done in support of homosexuality have small sample sizes. Just because the group did not contain a larger or more varied population, such as those who would normally fail at so-called reparative therapy, does not mean anything. He addresses the limitations in his study and compares his limitations to others opposing studies. Spitzer's study defined whether anyone was having success -- not the frequency of success. When one looks at the frequency of success there are various reasons why people don't succeed. Spitzer raises a good question in this culture bent on promoting homosexuality. The question is: 'although many homosexuals prefer to remain homosexual or find it difficult to change, are there any individuals who have succeeded?' Just as with smoking and any other problem, a person may not have the will power, desire or the ability to change underlying issues. Some people just outright refuse to confront themselves. I find these people on both sides. Many do not have the tools, or are not mature enough, to analyze themselves. Since reparative therapists claim that SSAD springs from unmet childhood needs and/or from some psychological trauma, the question of whether many strugglers really have the tools to examine themselves is a valid question. Some have further exprienced rejection from family, religion, and other social environments that may obscure their ability to be perceptive and objective. Thus the term "internal homophobia." They aren't sure if their confusion springs from possible fears due to an anti-gay culture or valid internal issues. It is further claimed that pressure excelerates same sex desires. In such cases many will take the path of least resistence.

The content on the Spitzer report is cited from other pages on the Internet and other studies. In this sense I do not believe it is unreasonable criticised. How can criticism be unreasonable if it is valid and backed up with first and secondary sources? You also claim that Spitzer backed up the assertion of RT proponents that homosexuialty is "promoted" but Spitzer himself noted that his own study did not demonstrate the efficacy of RT that it's proponents claim and dismissed any of the political ramifications of his study. --Axon 09:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

If i have time, i will try to pull together some quotes even if they are simply "the concerns" of proponents of reparative therapy. My goal is to at least explain that the current culture is one of the biggest obstacles to an open discuss about reparative therapy.

Thanks for your reply. I will try to be a little more engaged in this discussion.

I clicked on Axon since it was trailed by numbers (ie 17:4) to make sure i understood what it meant and found your name listed amoung Queer Wikipedians. What does that mean? And yet are you a proponent of reparative therapy?

Apologies: let me clarify. I am not an RT proponent, I was referring to you as an RT proponent in my comment above although the sentence I wrote is indeed misleading --Axon 09:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Reparative therapy has occasionally been used rather loosely

Hi Outerlimits. I do not necesarily dispute this change[1] (although it probably needs a bit of copyedit as it sounds a little like weasel words) but I'd be interested in your reasoning behind it. I've always been aware that reparative therapy not only covers the counselling therapies of NARTH et al but also the rather more brutal attempts by various ministries.

Does you edit indicate you do not believe this is the case? And, if so, what leads you to this conclusiong? Kind regards --Axon 09:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Outerlimits please provide an explanation, with some citation and evidence, for your change rather than just re-adding it without discussion. I also suggest we consider and alternative phrasing for this sentence, should it require inclusion, to avoid use of weasel words - weasel words are against wikipedia policy, regardless of whether they are "needed" or not. --Axon 13:34, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Reparative therapy is not the name for all attempts to alter sexuality; many such attempts, and attempts at "cures" occurred long before "reparative therapy" was invented, conceived of, or referred to. It's necessary to indicate that so we do not mislead people. That you have chosen to label this indication a "weasel word" doesn't make it any less necessary: I prefer to call it a nuanced treatment of a serious subject. - Outerlimits 07:24, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain your edits. It is unfortunate that you could not do so earlier and thus avoid unnecesary reversions. I would also like to point out that you yourself labelled your edit as weasel words[2]. Also, your point is not made explicit in your edit and the edit itself is difficult to parse - I've ammended it to be clearer --Axon 17:01, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that your response to edits you don't understand is unnecessary reversion. - Outerlimits 02:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Without wanting to get snarky about it, Outerlimits, I did post my original comment above on the talk page days before I reverted your change. It's not like I just blanket reverted your edits. --Axon 09:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Recent reversions

Richman9's responses are noted below, indented

I have reverted the edits by user User:Richman9 because they are POV and unsourced. A small minority of his/her edits were valid, but so much was POV and unsourced that it became difficult to sort the chaff from the whaet so I have reverted them all. I list my reasons for each edit here:

"Reparative therapy, or conversion therapy, is any of several controversial religious or secular techniques that are aimed at changing a person's sexual orientation from homosexuality to heterosexuality (or ex-gay)." [3] Deleting the the statement that reparative therapy is controversial is POV: the findings and results of reparative therapists are highly contested. Similarly, some of the techniques are considered religious by some and it is POV to not mention this.

"most professionals warn" -> "some professionals warn"[4] I reverted this because a clear majority of professionals do warn against reparative therapy. If you have any evidence against this please cite it here to back it up.

"Evergreen International"[5] Wikipedia seems quite clear on the subject of vanity pages, advertisments. I'm unsure if, as you claim Evergreen International is one of the largest organisations. There is no article for this org on Wikipedia, and the last article created was deleted. Axon 10:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Axon, A quick visit to the Evergreen Web site would tell you this is a large organization. It has been around for 25 years, providing referrals, information, bookstores, annual conferences, workshops, speakers' bureau, etc. It serves thousands of individuals, has 46 affiliate groups worldwide, and a large Web site which receives 3.6 million hits a year. It was one of the original founders of the coalition of 15 Christian organizations (PATH) mentioned in the article on Homosexuality and psychology. I've resubmitted the article on this organization, since it is clearly one of the major organizations. I'll also resubmit the article on Evergreen.

Hi Richman9, whilst the above may well be true, I'm not sure we can consider the evidence from the Evergreen web site itself. For example, a search on the Exgaywatch.com site (which maybe an anti-RP site but does also cover a wide range of reparative therapy issues) returns only 1 hit. Similarly, a Google test on google groups returns only 10 hits for EI[6] but 7,020 hits for NARTH[7] and 2,350 hits for Exodus International [8]. Axon 10:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also note that you are the CEO of Evergreen International. I do not think it is appropriate that you seek to add links and information to an organisation you are heavily involved with on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Axon 16:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Opponents argue that therapists espousing any form of therapy, may be motivated by financial interests. The financial funding mentioned in the article above refers to funding of ex-gay organizations, and not any direct funding to therapists." I'm not sure what evidence there is that "Opponents argue that therapists espousing any form of therapy, may be motivated by financial interests" - this seems like weasel words to me, or at least a POV statement. I'm pretty sure that funding to ex-gay organsations such as NARTH and Exodus International are used to pay the salaries of reparative therapists. What evidence do you have that no such funding exists? I am deleting both these sentences: the former should not be here, the later needs backing up.

"Some of the more extreme therapies that have been" "of the more extreme therapies that were used many years ago" This is just weasel words - the section already makes it clear that these techniques may be no longer used.

"However, longer-term studies have been conducted and published and more data is being collected showing positive success. Proponents of reparative therapy argue that individuals who are conflicted over their same-sex attractions have the right to decide whether to seek counseling or therapy, what kind of counseling to seek, to be made aware of all alternatives, and to determine the desired direction of their own therapy program. They believe professional organizations should enhance rather than inhibit the client's right of self-determination." Please cite these studies from reputable sources you claim demonstrate positive success.

There are two issues in the note above. I'll address each one separately:

About the studies published that shows efficacy of RT. Below are examples:

An article in the October 1998 issue (volume 20, pages 283-304) of the Journal of Mental Health Counseling that concludes that efforts to assist homosexually oriented individuals who wish to modify their patterns of sexual arousal have been effective, can be conducted in an ethical manner, and should be available to those clients requesting such assistance. Another is...
For a list of dozens of published studies on the numbers of people who have changed as a result of RT, see http://www.peoplecanchange.com/Is_Change_Possible.htm (it's about half way down the page). See also http://www.newdirection.ca/a_change.htm and http://www.evergreeninternational.org/Throckmorton.htm.
In 1994, Dr. Houston MacIntosh reported in the Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association (vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 1183-1207) a survey of 285 psychoanalysts who treated 1,215 homosexual patients. The psychoanalysts reported that 23% of the patients changed to heterosexuality and 84% received significant therapeutic benefit.

As I understand it, the same study also reported that "285 psychoanalysts who together had treated 1,215 homosexual patients. 7) When asked whether a homosexual patient 'can and should change to heterosexuality,' 278 (97.6 percent) answered in the negative." and that, indeed, "a majority of psychiatrists responding to MacIntosh's survey believe that homosexually oriented patients cannot change."[9] Axon 10:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A Masters & Johnson study showed the recovery rate from homosexuality at 71.6% when there was motivation and support. (See Homosexuality in Perspective, William H. Masters and Virginia E. Johnson, Bantam, New York, 1979, p. 416.)

Was this published in a peer-reviewed journal? This seems to me to be a self-published report. Axon 10:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For her doctoral dissertation at Brigham Young University in 1978, Elizabeth James conducted perhaps the most comprehensive review of the literature on the treatment of homosexuality that had been conducted to date. In her analysis of 101 studies that had been published from 1930 to 1976, she found that approximately 35% of the clients recovered and 27% improved. She concluded that "significant improvement and even complete recovery are entirely possible." She noted an 81% recovery and improvement rate for bisexuals, 69% for long-term therapy clients, 53% for short-term therapy clients, and 42% for exclusively homosexual clients. (See Treatment of Homosexuality: A Reanalysis and Synthesis of Outcome Studies, doctoral dissertation, BYU, Provo, UT 1978 to see the lists of these 101 published studies.)

Again, was this published in a peer-reviewed journal? A dissertation is not necesarily equivalent. Axon 10:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See also the heading Observations of Others at http://www.evergreeninternational.org/overcome.htm.

You proposed no arguement to the statement about an individual's right to therapy. This is a key point by proponents of RT, and isn't mentioned in this article. I believe it needs to be. Please reinsert the following sentences: Proponents of reparative therapy argue that individuals who are conflicted over their same-sex attractions have the right to decide whether to seek counseling or therapy, what kind of counseling to seek, to be made aware of all alternatives, and to determine the desired direction of their own therapy program. They believe professional organizations should enhance rather than inhibit the client's right of self-determination." This is a rational argument by proponents of RT, and is supported by the psychological profession. For example, the American Psychological Association's prestigious journal Professional Psychology: Research and Practice published a comprehensive research paper in the June 2002 issue on sexual-orientation change and said that clients have the right to pursue change because "sexual orientation, once thought to be an unchanging trait, is actually quite flexible for some people." This was also supported in the lead article in the January 2003 issue of the Journal of Marital and Family Therapy (JMFT). Even noted researches and gay advocates Simon LeVay and Douglas Haldeman acknowledge that RT is a legitimate and should be permissible out of respect for client choice and autonomy. (See http://narth.com/docs/legitimate.html.)

I can see no reason not to include the above so long as it is an opinoin ascribed to proponents and it is put into the correct section in the article. I do dispute that the above position is supported by the mainstream. Axon 10:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"At the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association on May 9, 2001, Dr. Spitzer reported that the findings of his study show that "some people can and do change. Like most psychiatrists, I thought that homosexual behavior could only be resisted, and that no one could really change their sexual orientation. I now believe this to be false."" Spitzer's findings have already been discussed at length in this section. The addition of this section at the end of the article seems like point scoring.

"Results are not published in peer reviewed journals but tend to be"[10] the deletion of this sentence is highly POV: if you have evidence that reparative therapist's results have been pubished in peer review journals please cite them. Also, this opionion is attribtud to opponents who clearly do hold this view.

"and the fact that reports are published exclusively in non-peer reviewed journals, in particular Psychological Reports, which has been criticised for its lack of peer review and strong, anti-gay bias."[11] Ditto

See the extensive lists of published studies above.

"Techniques in past years'"[12] more weasel words Axon 10:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Axon 10:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Zach and Love Won Out

There has been much in the blogosphere about Zach

myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewProfile&friendID=7428306&Mytoken=20050611060821

being forced to undergo reparative therapy

blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=7428306&Mytoken=20050604221047

This should probably be added to the article. I also found the following references which should also be added:

Karolyn Ann Hicks, COMMENT: "REPARATIVE" THERAPY: WHETHER PARENTAL ATTEMPTS TO CHANGE A CHILD'S SEXUAL ORIENTATION CAN LEGALLY CONSTITUTE CHILD ABUSE, 49 Am. U.L. Rev. 505 (1999).
John Alan Cohan, Parental Duties and the Right of Homosexual Minors to Refuse "Reparative" Therapy, 11 Buff. Women's L.J. 67 (2002).

Axon 13:10, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. The experience of one person does not warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia entry. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.10.186.133 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, this is not the experience of one person any more - not to mention the fact that we sure have many, many, many articles about experiences made by single persons - all biographical articles would have some of those. And of course Zach is hardly the only one to whom such abuse happens/happend. In other words, irrelevant unsigned comment with an evocation of an irrelevant policy. Waste of diskspace. -- AlexR 23:12, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Religioustolerance.org

This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Socarides

"Specific proponents, such as Charles Socarides, often have gay sons, leading some to suspect they are working out their own psychological issues in public through their advocacy of a therapy that doesn't work."

Is this really fair? Under the "oppenents" section, I don't see written "Specific propenents often are gay themselves, leading some to suspect they are simply justifying their sexual deviation through their opposition to effective therapy." Weasel words.--141.225.34.126 03:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It is fair if someone could be kind enough to state exactly who these people are. Otherwise, its an acid (though witty, and probably accurate) comment sandwiched in some fairly weasley language. -Seth Mahoney 08:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Opposition and controversy

Cut from article:

One of the most controversial aspects of reparative therapy has been the focus on gay teenagers, including occasions where teenagers have been forcibly treated in 'ex-gay' camps. This came to public attention after

That's using the wrong word: "controversial" doesn't mean "opposed by somebody". There are not two types of psychological practices: (1) helpful, effective "good" therapies and (2) controversial ones. Nearly everything in psychology is controversial.

Better to say something like:

One of the biggest objections to reparative therapy comes from activists who claim that RT advocates are "targeting teenagers".

Also saying that something "come to public attention" implies that it's true (massive targetting).

Moreover, over-zealousness by some in one direction doesn't mean the direction is wrong. Were the North Vietnamese wrong about defeating the South (and kicking out the US) because of their torture of American pilots? --Uncle Ed 19:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

revert

sorry I compared the wrong versions there, however I did clean up all the dead links, is there some way we can combine there so that cleanup isn't lost?--Crossmr 04:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Conversion therapy/Archive 1