This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Conversion therapy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Conversion therapy was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
![]() | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
![]() | Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about conversion therapy or changing sexual orientation. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about conversion therapy or changing sexual orientation at the Reference desk. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article Last six months (log scale)
Last 30 days (linear scale)
|
Index |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 29 April 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Zach arias 777 (
article contribs).
Hey DisciplinadoLector, your addition to the lead has been reverted twice now. Please note that both times we noted this is not included in the body. While it is true that behaviourism was the underpinning to some conversion therapy treatments, that is partially covered by masturbatory reconditioning. There is no need to refer to Hans specifically, who had nothing to do with conversion therapy. We don’t say “freud’s psychoanalysis”, we say “psychoanalysis”. The missing area from the lead was behaviourist therapy for gender nonconforming children, which I will add in when I have the time. Thanks for trying to improve the article but please try to read WP:LEAD to understand the reverts. Zenomonoz ( talk) 04:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
!! DisciplinadoLector, please gain WP:CONSENSUS first here on the talk page. I just reverted you because you incorrectly included content about Hans Eysenck/behavior therapy under 'gender identity change efforts' for transgender people, despite the source stating it was for homosexuals. In addition, as Bennv123 stated, referring to Hans Eysenck in the opening paragraph is WP:UNDUE. You are welcome to include content about behaviourism and behavior therapy under 'methods', then refer to that in the opening, but 'Hans Eysenck' doesn't need be mentioned (he can be mentioned in the body). There are/were dozens of high profile conversion therapists, many of them psychoanalysts, and we do not need to mention them in the opening paragraph. In addition, please do not use scare quotes around the word "therapy", even if it is quackery. See MOS:SCAREQUOTES. Zenomonoz ( talk) 09:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
In Belgium and Germany conversion therapy includes corrective rape. Who dares to whitewash these most criminal government? The truth is they commit most sexual violence in the world. 2A02:1811:2C09:F100:C10C:80E2:82D0:59C7 ( talk) 17:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
The recent undoing of an attempt to claim that GET is not a form of conversion therapy and sourcing it to an instigator of GET who is trying to distance it from methods under attack was appropriate. However, it does leave us with a section which is sourced to Science-Based Medicine, Xtra, and Slate, none of which are WP:MEDRS. I don't know if Perspectives on Psychological Science qualifies as an RS here, but they have this, or perhaps this from The Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 20:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
According to its former editor-in-chief Julia Turner, the magazine is "not fundamentally a breaking news source", but rather aimed at helping readers to "analyze and understand and interpret the world" with witty and entertaining writing.And presumably if there were better sources, the person who originally added this material would have added those sources. So I am intending to delete this section unless someone can come up with proper sources. Sweet6970 ( talk) 22:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
I have now deleted the material. Sweet6970 ( talk) 12:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
this is massively UNDUE - there is already a discussion about GET on the Talk page – take it to the Talk page
In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer-reviewed journal.- we do not need a full systematic review to come out every time some WP:QUACKS rebrand conversion therapy.
GET, which according to the sources in the discussion below, is not a form of conversion therapyis referencing one primary statement from a random organization saying it's not, and one article saying some people advocate it but it isn't practiced. That source does not say "it isn't conversion therapy" and was written before the majority of scholarly research of GET. Those are ridiculously poor sources, especially compared to the multitude I added which are explicit that it's conversion therapy. What makes the UKCP statement saying it's not conversion therapy and one outdated definition of GET (that still acknowledges it's fringe) outweigh 9 (10, including Ashley) RS saying it is? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 22:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
The CASS Review defines exploratory therapy (citing papers from 2009, 2018, and 2019, ie before the majority of scholarship on GET), but doesn't mention it anywhere else apart from to say it isn't used at GIDS and its advocates left GIDS.and
one article saying some people advocate it but it isn't practiced. That source does not say "it isn't conversion therapy" and was written before the majority of scholarly research of GET.
What makes the UKCP statement saying it's not conversion therapy and one outdated definition of GET (that still acknowledges it's fringe) outweigh 9 (10, including Ashley) RS saying it is?Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 22:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
You added a considerable amount about GET, which according to the sources in the discussion below, is not a form of conversion therapy.You're explicitly saying a myriad of sources saying it is conversion therapy are, if not outweighed by, the same weight as, the UKCP and Cass review.
"conversion" or "reparative" therapy under another name. Per WP:MEDASSESS/ WP:MEDORG, it is the most high-quality source we have discussed on GET, and settles the question of whether it's conversion therapy or not. I ask you again to self-revert. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 00:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Primary and secondary care staff have told us that they feel under pressure to adopt an unquestioning affirmative approach and that this is at odds with the standard process of clinical assessment and diagnosis that they have been trained to undertake in all other clinical encounters
Clinicians and associated professionals we have spoken to have highlighted the lack of an agreed consensus on the different possible implications of gender-related distress – whether it may be an indication that the child or young person is likely to grow up to be a transgender adult and would benefit from physical intervention, or whether it may be a manifestation of other causes of distress. Following directly from this is a spectrum of opinion about the correct clinical approach, ranging broadly between those who take a more gender-affirmative approach to those who take a more cautious, developmentally informed approach.
approaching trans identities and gender dysphoria from a position of suspicion—suspicion that, regardless of indication, they may be attributable to pathological causes and should be explored as such—is incompatible with therapeutic neutrality.
the opinion of one researcherI don't know why you're quoting Ashley, when WPATH is the strongest source saying it's conversion therapy.
was written before research into GET
we believe that including gender alongside sexuality in a ban will carry no real risk of ethical exploratory therapy being misconstrued as an alleged form of “conversion therapy”
more reliable than 1 person's review
I don't know why you're quoting Ashley
which everyone had previously agreed was uncontroversialcitation needed
No, it was written before advocates of the affirmation model openly started calling exploratory therapy ... "conversion".- If by "advocates of the affirmation model" you mean "RS/MEDRS", yes, that was my point. Just because you don't like the newer research doesn't mean the Cass review isn't outdated.
I'm sorry, but are you under the impression that the Cass Review is "one person's review"?
and also the one cited by virtually every other subsequent source.
1 outdated review of 1 clinic in 1 country
still makes clear GET is FRINGE and not practiced.
From the point of entry to GIDS there appears to be predominantly an affirmative, non-exploratory approach, and once to say
many individuals who are more cautious and advocate the need for an exploratory approach have left the service. Not once does it advocate for it or even say anything about it's effectiveness. The only place where GET is state sponsored is places like Florida, where minors banned from trans healthcare are recommended "GET" instead. This is getting silly and I have better things to do than argue over conversion therapy's latest rebranding, so I've notified WP:FTN. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 20:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
You refer to the Cass review as being ‘outdated’. Actually, it has not yet been completed – what has been published so far is the Interim Report. [1] And in any event, it does not make sense to refer to something so recent as the Interim Report as being ‘outdated’. According to that logic, as soon as the final report is published, all the sources you have used would become ‘outdated’. Sweet6970 ( talk) 18:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Actually, it has not yet been completed – what has been published so far is the Interim Report
Including GET (or similar) into the "conversion therapy" label, or excluding it, is a political and legal decision as much as a medical one. Recent political proposals about laws in the UK were very much considering whether to include transgender into those laws or not. Activists, politicians, legal experts and medical professionals of various flavours are all involved in this. I don't think what amounts to an "is this ethical" question is entirely a matter of MEDRS. For example, did conversion therapy for "sexual deviancy" really fall out of favour because someone published a systematic review showing it ineffective? Or perhaps society changed its mind on whether being gay was morally wrong, legally forbidden and a psychological illness. We do lots of things that are ineffective, such as throwing people in jail or building more roads, but are desirable for social or political beliefs in punishment or progress. A systematic review will not inform us whether therapy X is ethical.
We ran into problems with people demanding MEDRS over the Covid 19 lab leak theory. That was also a political, legal and possibly criminal matter as much as it was a biomedical or scientific matter. One big clue that this is a multifaceted issue is that we have Medical views of conversion therapy and Legality of conversion therapy daughter articles. I think this is an ongoing debate and so we should describe these viewpoints appropriately per NPOV. The word "FRINGE" is being thrown about on this page as a weapon. I don't think that is helpful to constructive discussion. Both sides need to recognise when their sources are partisan. I mean, Florence Ashley is an activist who wrote a book called Banning Transgender Conversion Practices: A Legal and Policy Analysis so they aren't neutral but likely worth quoting more than just some random journalist. Their article we cite is more of a personal exploratory essay than anything MEDRS would consider authoritative (for example, consider the closing sentence: "As a scholar of conversion practices, the uncanny resemblance cannot but give me pause." would never close any systematic review or NICE guideline) What the Cass review is attempting is closer to what MEDRS would value, but I think way too much is being read into what is a rather skeletal interim report. -- Colin° Talk 14:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
did conversion therapy for "sexual deviancy" really fall out of favour because someone published a systematic review showing it ineffective? Or perhaps society changed its mind on whether being gay was morally wrong, legally forbidden and a psychological illness– the most peruasive evidence comes from Bailey et al. 2016 (page 86): proponents of conversion therapy have failed to provide any evidence of change in arousal patterns before and after therapy. This would be rather easy for prove (for males). Indeed, as Bailey notes the two small studies examining the question found men who claimed to have lost homosexual attraction through therapy, still had homosexual arousal patterns. I find this line of reasoning a bit more persuasive than other arguments. We have plenty of countries in which conversion therapies are acceptable, so we might expect some good evidence to have emerged by now.
The leading paragraph of this article provides an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. The lead provides brief information on the various content that will follow in the sections below. However, the intro section contains no explicit description of which major sections the reader should expect in the article's body. The lead is not overly detailed; it provides just enough information to contextualize the article for the reader, and it only covers information which is further elaborated upon in the article's body.
The article's content is relevant to the topic and is up to date. However, the majority of space is given to theories and techniques for conversion therapy, and less focus is given to motivations, public opinion, and media coverage of the practice. Understandably, the majority of research and knowledge about conversion therapy is related to its history and techniques. I believe the article could give more attention towards the personal implications of the practice and the historical motivations behind its legality. However, this article's content does important work in shedding light on this particular issue facing the historically underrepresented LGBT population.
This article is written from a neutral point of view, with attention given towards facts and science. While conversion therapy is a complex, controversial topic, the article does not stray away from reporting on how the practice is not a legitimate form of therapy. The article bases their claims on reliable sources, such as academic peer-reviewed journals and novels. The sources are current, thorough, and written by a diverse spectrum of authors. The writing is clear and professional, and the organization of the content into sections is intuitive and easy to follow. That being said, some of the information on the legal status of conversion therapy is not as detailed as it could be, given the prevalence of the practice around the world and within certain pockets of America. Additionally, more attention could be given towards detailing the consequences and life threatening effects of the practice.
This article could use more images to enhance understanding of the topic. There are only three images, one of which is a helpful map to visualize jurisdictional bans on conversion therapy. The other two images do not do anything to provide additional enhancement of the topic or visual appeal.
There is healthy debate within the article's Talk page on understanding how psychological practices have been manipulated for the purpose of conversion therapy. Discussions center around how not to undermine the importance of some of these psychological practices while also giving attention towards how they have been abused in the service of harmful conversion practices. This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale and is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.~~~~ Efloden ( talk) 03:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
pseudoscientificbecause that's our opinion, we say so because that's what reliable sources say. Please stop bringing up irrelevant tangents - if you are so convinced that gender reassignment surgery is "pseudoscientific", provide sources that say that on that article's talk page. Otherwise, you are comparing apples to oranges, though a more apt anaology would be flat-eartherism to evolution. Best regards, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 21:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
WP:SOAPBOXING about the supposed efficacy of conversion therapy and violations of
WP:CIVIL and
WP:NPA. No prejudice against deleting if anyone thinks that's a better way to handle this.
Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (
talk)
22:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
|
---|
Can we remove pseudoscience/scientific references? There's not a lot of long-term, scientific articles that conclusively state that HRT or gender reassignment surgery are effective long-term, but we don't call transgender surgeries or treatments "pseudoscience". Clearly a double standard on an encyclopedia that is supposed to remain neutral. Conversion therapy does work for some just like transgender surgeries work for some. Why can't we practice neutrality? 216.49.128.107 ( talk) 21:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
|
Per this edit, Florence Ashley is cited comparing exploratory therapy with conversion therapy. I suggest it is at the very least worth counterbalancing this with the UK Council for Psychotherapy's Statement on therapy and gender on 02/11/2023. This states in the opening paragraph:
This statement is also being made to highlight the fact that exploratory therapy must not be conflated with conversion therapy.
This cites and builds upon the interim Cass Review, which describes gender affirmation/exploratory therapy thus:
Affirmative model - A model of gender healthcare that originated in the USA which affirms a young person’s subjective gender experience while remaining open to fluidity and changes over time. This approach is used in some key child and adolescent clinics across the Western world.
Exploratory approaches - Therapeutic approaches that acknowledge the young person’s subjective gender experience, whilst also engaging in an open, curious, non-directive exploration of the meaning of a range of experiences that may connect to gender and broader self-identity.
The Cass Review is a high quality independent assessment of international evidence and best practice, and UKCP is the UK's leading professional organisation covering this area. Void if removed ( talk) 13:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
The document makes assumptions about transgender children and adolescents which are outdated and untrue, which then form the basis of harmful interventions.
WPATH, ASIAPATH, EPATH, PATHA, and USPATH call attention to the fact that this "psychotherapeutic" approach, which was used for decades before being superseded by evidence-based gender-affirming care, has not been shown to be effective (AUSPATH, 2021; Coleman et al., 2022). Indeed, the denial of gender-affirming treatment under the guise of "exploratory therapy" has caused enormous harm to the transgender and gender diverse community and is tantamount to "conversion" or "reparative" therapy under another name.
taking one review……as the end all and be all definitively correct opinion.The problem is, on the contrary, that the Cass Review is being completely ignored, thus compromising the neutrality of this article. I do not see the relevance of your references to the Russian and Saudi governments. Sweet6970 ( talk) 13:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
GET is a form of conversion therapy[refs] that presumes that patients...would be an improvement. Relatedly, I'm about to make a new topic on this talk page to address the paragraph on Ashley. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 01:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I propose we merge the paragraph on Ashley's paper into the subsequent paragraph on GET. This entails removing the paragraph and just adding the paper as a citation to the 1st, 2nd, and 5th sentences of the 1st GET paragraph:
GET presumes that patients suffering from gender dysphoria have underlying causes other than being transgender such as homophobia, social contagion, sexual trauma, and autism.
GET is characterized by requiring in-depth talk therapy over an extended time period; practitioners often view medical transition as a last resort
Concerns have been raised that by not providing an estimated length of time for the therapy, the delays in medical interventions may compound mental suffering in trans youth.
I'd appreciate hearing people's thoughts on this! Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 01:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
to find a reason to deny care indefinitelywith my edit as well, but sadly I haven't been able to find any RS that touch on
or else to delay treatment long enough that the patient stops trying, often after puberty has run its course(though quite a lot of trans authors have pointed that out independently since it's fairly obvious, official RS have a lag).
GET is a form of conversion therapy [3] [4] [5] which presumes that patients suffering from.... Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 01:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
GET presumes that patients suffering from gender dysphoria have underlying causes other than being transgender such as homophobia, social contagion, sexual trauma, and autismwithout explaining what GET is. I agree with Snokalok that we should be clearer about the mechanism of GET, and I agree with you that we should be clearer that it is conversion therapy, but we really need an introductory paragraph there. Loki ( talk) 02:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
GET is a form of conversion therapy characterized by requiring mandatory extended talk therapy attempting to find pathological roots for gender dysphoria while simultaneously delaying social and medical transition indefinitely. Practitioners often view medical transition as a last resort and propose their patient's dysphoria is caused by factors such as homophobia, social contagion, sexual trauma, and autism. Bioethicist Florence Ashley found...
I just undid an addition claiming that this study "found that 200 homosexual men and women reported at least some minimal change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation that lasted at least 5 years following some form of reparative therapy." A quick check of that link shows that that was not a finding of the study, but rather its sample; it's not like it checked a larger base of reparative therapy patients and found X% had lasting change. The mere existence of this set of people is not scientific proof of anything other than "reparative therapy does not 100% prevent sexual fluidity"; one could do a study of people who were in such therapy and later had car accidents, and the mere existence of such a sample does not suggest causation. What findings it does have is that even among this sample, "Reports of complete change were uncommon" -- i.e.,, the therapy was not a complete "cure" even among those who felt change in its wake. And that's all just from looking at the study's own summary. If you go to the portion of the article on Spitzer that covers this study, you'll see Spitzer himself asked that the study be retracted, that the many criticisms of it had merit, and he apologized for it.
So... bad science that didn't even say what the addition claimed. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 15:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
It is said at one point that their is a consensus that such therapy doesn't work, but only one study of cases in the South is quoted. How is that proof of a consensus? 207.244.205.106 ( talk) 20:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
– RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ ( 💬 • 📝) 06:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)There is a scientific consensus that conversion therapy is ineffective and can result in significant, long-term psychological harm (Ending Conversion Therapy: Supporting and Affirming LGBTQ Youth, 2015). Many pro-conversion therapy studies utilize biased samples that only include clients who have recently undergone conversion therapy, thus distorting the purported success rates and failing to analyze whether conversion therapy remains effective in the long term (Shidlo & Schroeder, 2002). Further, even the most scientifically rigorous studies report success rates of no more than 30% (Haldeman, 2002).
I agree the article is overall quite poorly sourced. I will try and improve it when I have more time. Zenomonoz ( talk) 23:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Conversion therapy is not illegal in Iceland per se. It's only illegal to trick or force someone to go to conversion therapy. You can legally perform conversion therapy in Iceland if your clients give their informed consent. Can someone correct the article? Thanks. 85.220.49.247 ( talk) 08:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
The content in this section concerns a sensitive topic, most of it was added by hist9600.
In particular, there is reference to work by Stoller, Green, and Lovas, working with samples of effeminate young boys. They used behaviourism techniques to 'stamp out' this behavior, and then assessed their gender identity (and sexual orientation) later on.
Although this is listed under a 'gender identity change efforts', many scholars have noted that the boys in their treatment samples would not meet the diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria today. They were diagnosed with gender identity disorder, which included very effeminate boys who were not uncomfortable with their natal sex.
At adulthood follow up, only one of Green's sample identified as a transgender woman. The rest as men (most of them gay). Green's conclusion is that therapeutic intervention in prepubescent children can resolve gender identity disorder (under the definition then), but does not alter later sexual orientation (in males). Many scholars in favour of the affirmative approach to prepubescent gender dysphoria, argue that Green's experiment does not provide the first assertion, because boys in this sample were not gender dysphoric in the first place.
But the current state of the article plays into accepting Green's premise that feminine boys are all gender dysphoric, and thus, this is conversion therapy for children destined to be transgender adults... if we accept this premise, then we must (incorrectly) conclude that Green's intervention does alleviate dysphoria in prepubescents.
There is also reference to the case of Kirk Murphy, a boy who was enrolled in Green's sample. He didn't want to be a girl according Green's reports. It was only George Rekers, who misrepresented the case, making the claim. Murphys sister denies it. Rekers also falsely claimed that Kirk had grown up to become a heterosexual man, while Green acknowledged he was predominately homosexual. Hist9600 also cited directly to Rekers paper on Kirk (whom he called Kraig), which is a total misrepresentation disputed by Kirk's sister. This is why we often avoid citing primary sources. It gives the false impression that Rekers was really working with a gender dysphoric child. Rekers was embellishing.
The cited CNN article regarding his suicide makes no mention of him as a gender dysphoric child who wanted to be a girl, but plenty of reference to him as a homosexual man who was "treated" for his femininity as a boy. So why is it being used to bolster the idea that a transgender conversion therapy had occurred? Green/Rekers were also looking to see if they could prevent homosexuality, remember. I think His9600 has been a bit flexible with the sources here.
So, what is to be done? It needs some modification, at least. There probably needs to be more accurate coverage on the history and debate about therapeutic intervention for gender dysphoria in prepubescent children. This is extremely controversial and a sensitive area, so I would be interested in other editor thoughts.
Zenomonoz ( talk) 11:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Although this is listed under a 'gender identity change efforts', many scholars have noted that the boys in their treatment samples would not meet the diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria today.
plays into accepting Green's premise that feminine boys are all gender dysphoric
Regarding Rekers and Kirk, some choice quotes include
[6]:
TLDR they thought the kid was likely trans, and treatment was intended to try and "cure" that. |
---|
|
“swishing” around the home and clinic, fully dressed as a woman with long dress, wig, nail polish, high screechy voice, slovenly seductive eyes".
Just a brief follow up comment after looking at the sources. The
Rivera source is more focused on Kenneth Zucker as an example of gender identity change efforts. The Green/Rekers work is certainly cited as laying the groundwork for this, but Rivera describes their work as intended to extinguish atypical gender behaviors as well as prevent eventual homosexual orientation
.
Rivera goes on to clarify: Green’s methods were adopted by Dr. Kenneth Zucker at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto (Zucker & Bradley, 1995; Zucker et al., 2012) but modified so that the focus was primarily on preventing a child from developing an eventual transgender identity
– i.e. there seems to be a distinction between Green's work and Zucker's work.
Green/Rekers did have a control group of feminine boys who were not subject to "treatment". As I mentioned, only one of their subjects grew up to identify as a transgender woman. I am unsure if the trans woman was a member of the the treated group, or the control group. Regardless, this further strengthens the argument that Green/Rekers weren't working with gender dysphoric children, but rather, feminine boys... it doesn't seem to offer much support for the idea that they would be transwomen had they not been enrolled in the experiment (in the control group, matched feminine boys who had relatively relaxed parents grew up to be satisfied with their natal sex). That's important context (at least for editors) because this section is supposed to be about gender identity change efforts. This is a bit unclear for those with little background knowledge. A potential solution is clarifying that Lovas/Rekers (and Green?) were incorrectly assuming that all feminine boys were potential transgender adults. No doubt there are probably reliable sources somewhere since I've seen scholars (including trans ones) advance similar arguments before.
Zenomonoz ( talk) 10:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
The Cass Review has the following to say about exploratory therapy:
Exploratory Approaches - Therapeutic approaches that acknowledge the young person’s subjective gender experience, whilst also engaging in an open, curious, non-directive exploration of the meaning of a range of experiences that may connect to gender and broader self-identity (Bonfatto & Crasnow, 2018; Churcher Clarke & Spiliadis, 2019; Di Ceglie, 2009; Spiliadis, 2019).
Spiliadis 2019 is the original "Gender Exploratory Therapy" paper.
It also says:
Terms such as ‘affirmative’ and ‘exploratory’ approaches have been weaponised to the extent that it is difficult to find any neutral terminology.
And:
The intent of psychological intervention is not to change the person’s perception of who they are but to work with them to explore their concerns and experiences and help alleviate their distress, regardless of whether they pursue a medical pathway or not. It is harmful to equate this approach to conversion therapy as it may prevent young people from getting the emotional support they deserve.
Cass also stated:
She noted that some medics were afraid of being accused of conducting “conversion therapy if, again, they take a cautious or exploratory approach”
Given the weight of this source, how do we square this with the coverage in this section? That is, this whole section does exactly what Cass warns agains, ie conflating conversion therapy with exploratory therapy. The Cass Review has been directly accused of espousing conversion therapy on this basis, by WPATH. The final Review's opinions on this are due here. Void if removed ( talk) 20:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
The same month, the UK Council for Psychotherapy announced it was fine for counsellors to practice GET and in April 2024 it was endorsed by the Cass Review.
The source doesn't even support this sentence- what?
In November 2023, the UK Council for Psychotherapy—the nation’s top professional association—declared that it was fine for counselors to take GETA’s “exploratory” approach to gender. This April, a long-awaited review of gender-related care for youth in England’s National Health Service endorsed exploratory therapy, according to Alex Keuroghlian, an associate psychiatry professor at Harvard Medical School[7]
:::::“It truly is very similar to how the Alliance has always approached unwanted SSA [same-sex attraction],” she told the assembled therapists. “You approach it as ‘change therapy’—or, even less triggering, ‘exploratory therapy.’” Void if removed ( talk) 22:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I would be truly amazed if we could actually source this split. No I can't, and I would be very surprised if anyone could. Loki ( talk) 03:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
The source doesn't even support this sentence - what?
now it's been mentioned you have an issue?
Gender exploratory therapy (GET) is a form of conversion therapy. Loki ( talk) 03:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
And this source also conflates this directed, unethical approach with the undirected, ethical positions taken by the Cass Review and UKCP.You are again presuming there are two major and differing practices for GET. Whether Cass believes that GET is ethical and effective, is a different matter. The major name associated with GET is the Gender Exploratory Therapy Association (GETA), which is promoted by Genspect, with materials produced by SEGM. Both Genspect and SEGM are gender-critical advocacy groups, deeply entrenched in advocating against trans rights, and are both considered anti-LGBTQ+ hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Hist9600 ( talk) 12:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
You are again presuming there are two major and differing practices for GET
In November 2023, Michelle Cretella, a board member of the pro conversion therapy group Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity (ATCSI, formerly NARTH), gave a speech at an ATCSI conference which endorsed GET and arguing it "truly is very similar to how the Alliance has always approached unwanted same-sex attraction".
Gender exploratory therapy (GET) is a form of conversion therapy
Gender exploratory therapy (GET) is a form of conversion therapyThat's been there for months and you adding a NPOV tag after extensively discussing this and consensus disagreeing with you is disruptive.
See, here's the problem - you have an actual conversion therapist calling actual conversion therapy "gender exploratory therapy" to hide the fact that it is conversion therapy.... Yeah...
because actual, ethical, exploratory psychotherapy is not conversion.- you do realize this is literally NARTH's whole thing, right? They opposed "gay affirmative" therapy, arguing that it was necessary that a psychiatrist "ethically explore the roots of a persons same sex attraction", but that it wasn't "conversion" because there was "no preset goal in mind". Literally, same exact argument.
Terms such as ‘affirmative’ and ‘exploratory’ approaches have been weaponised to the extent that it is difficult to find any neutral terminology.I don't care about neutral terminology, I care what the cass report is saying about it, so this is a distraction to me.
The intent of psychological intervention is not to change the person’s perception of who they are but to work with them to explore their concerns and experiences and help alleviate their distress, regardless of whether they pursue a medical pathway or not. It is harmful to equate this approach to conversion therapy as it may prevent young people from getting the emotional support they deserve.
At several points in the document, there is an emphasis on “careful exploration” of a child or young person’s co-existing mental health, neuro-developmental and/or family or social complexities. There is also a suggestion that a “care plan should be tailored to the specific needs of the individual following careful therapeutic exploration…” WPATH, ASIAPATH, EPATH, PATHA, and USPATH are concerned that this appears to imply that young people who have coexisting autism, other developmental differences, or mental health problems may be disqualified, or have unnecessary delay, in their access to genderaffirming treatment. This would be inequitable, discriminatory, and misguided (Coleman et al., 2022). WPATH, ASIAPATH, EPATH, PATHA, and USPATH recommend that puberty suppression, where urgently indicated, can be commenced promptly, and proceed alongside and at the same time as any necessary diagnostic clarification of other conditions, or treatment of other conditions. Whilst careful assessment is imperative, undue delay inherent within a model of care is not a neutral option and may cause significant harm to those accessing services (Coleman et al., 2022). There is an alarming statement in the summary that “the primary intervention for children and young people… is psychosocial (including psychoeducation) and psychological support and intervention.” In another section, the document goes on to state that one outcome from the screening process would be “discharge with psychoeducation…” Disturbingly, this decision might be made without speaking directly with the young person or family. Taking No 8 and 9 together, this document seems to view gender incongruence largely as a mental health disorder or a state of confusion and withholds gender-affirming treatments on this basis. WPATH, ASIAPATH, EPATH, PATHA, and USPATH call attention to the fact that this “psychotherapeutic” approach, which was used for decades before being superseded by evidence-based gender-affirming care, has not been shown to be effective (AUSPATH, 2021; Coleman et al., 2022). Indeed, the denial of gender affirming treatment under the guise of “exploratory therapy” has caused enormous harm to the transgender and gender diverse community and is tantamount to “conversion” or “reparative” therapy under another name. This document reasserts the outdated “gatekeeping model” of access to gender affirming care.
In fact, given the increased visibility of different sexual orientations and gender identities and expressions, efforts nowadays include clinicians gatekeeping life-saving hormonal interventions by encouraging clients to not commit to their transgender identity or initiate gender-affirming care until they are absolutely sure (sometimes euphemistically called “gender exploratory therapy”), or even ascribing transgender identity or asexuality to trauma (ashley, 2023).
encouraging clients to not commit to their transgender identity or initiate gender-affirming care until they are absolutely sureas gender exploratory therapy. I think if somebody already has declared a gender identity, then it would be qualified as a conversion attempt under most of the definitions.
ascribing transgender identity or asexuality to trauma. This whole line conflates multiple things - but the cite to Ashley means this is referring specifically to the model described in Spiliadis 2019 which is explicitly an undirected model with no fixed outcome in mind.
Some youth presenting with gender distress do have underlying causes that, when properly explored by the individual themselves, resolves that distress, and sometimes this is trauma– I do not think Cass review states this as fact. This is speculation. Nor do they claim that dealing with trauma alleviates dysphoria. As far as I am aware, Littman and ROGD proponents argue that a subset of young natal female individuals are transitioning due cultural ideas about gender, and that they are misinterpreting their mental anguish as evidence of dysphoria. If 'trauma' were causing gender issues, we would expect to see quite a lot of gender dysphoria in war zones and the rest. Regardless, I'd advise against stating this kind of speculation as fact. Plenty of psychological theories claim that 'trauma' causes 'X thing I don't like', but in large well designed studies, there isn't strong evidence for causality. Zenomonoz ( talk) 10:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I think we should watch not to argue back and forth about our own ideas and opinions– well you just wrote a giant paragraph of your own opinions. My comment was a brief "correlation is not causation" statement, clarifying that plenty of psychological ideas are "just so" stories that aren't supported by evidence of causality. Can we stick to WP:NOTFORUM. Zenomonoz ( talk) 04:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
I do not think Cass review states this as fact.
GET is just conversion therapy by another name [...] Similarly, proponents of GET often point to issues such as unprocessed trauma, childhood abuse, internalized homophobia or misogyny, sexual fetishism, and autism as the “real” explanation behind one’s transgender identity, rather than accepting that a child who identifies as trans is sharing a real, deep, and even joyful truth about themselves.
If 'trauma' were causing gender issues, we would expect to see quite a lot of gender dysphoria in war zones and the rest.
one takeaway from the Cass Review it is "we don't know"– this is more moderate. I agree. The Cass review is mostly focused on the effectiveness of puberty blockers, not the cause of dysphoria. It includes a brief overview on speculative causal pathways, but it excluded topic experts, hence it gets rather speculative. Regarding trauma: children with gender dysphoria are atypical in other ways, and we know that children who veer from behavioral norms are more targets for abuse over other children. I.e. correlation is not causation.
What critics say is that even considering other underlying factors may actually be at root of gender distress is conversion therapy– well, the Slate source is not labelling all therapy for gender dysphoric youth as 'conversion therapy'. It's referring to a very specific subset of therapists who are demanding clients find an external cause (how the heck do they prove this?) and who are opposed to transition in nearly all cases. Mainstream psychology remains open minded to potential causes of dysphoria... it's the groups cited in that piece who are claiming they know (and it must be something bad!) and that they hold the solution.
The Cass review is mostly focused on the effectiveness of puberty blockers, not the cause of dysphoria.
it excluded topic experts
The APA statement cites six studies and reviews
WPATH considers GET to be conversion "conversion" or "reparative" therapy under another name. Per WP:MEDASSESS/WP:MEDORG, it is the most high-quality source we have discussed on GET, and settles the question of whether it's conversion therapy or not.
But undirected exploration of the reasons behind someone's desire to transition is [ethical]. Dismissing up-front that someone's gender identity is definitively the result of trauma is unethical.A trans kid (let's say 16) comes into a clinic, knows they're trans, already socially transitioned, and is seeking medical transition. Just how much "exploration of the reasons behind someone's desire to transition" should be required before they can transition? Who gets to decide? When does the therapist say, "alright, we've explored everything, you're free to go"? What's stopping the therapist preventing their transition indefinitely?
So when do we reach "conversion therapy" vs what clinical psychologists actually do for a living? When kids who are sure they're trans, have already socially transitioned, and wish to medically transition are made to go through an indefinite period of a therapist trying to make them explore "what made you trans? trauma? the internet? we have to look at everything before I say you're trans enough in my book to recieve medical care". The population is not, as you called them, "gender questioning" children being met with an immediate
Here's a referral to endocrinology for hormones". As the infallible Cass Review said:
Clinicians have said that most children have already socially transitioned before reaching the specialist gender service
Early research cited in Chapter 2 found low rates of persistence of childhood gender incongruence into adulthood, around 15% (for example, Zucker, 1985). Papers from this period were criticised because the children were not formally diagnosed using ICD or DSM. At that time, it was rare for children to have socially transitioned before being seen in clinic.
Later studies, which showed higher rates of persistence at 37% (for example Steensma et al., 2013) did use formal diagnostic criteria, but by that time a greater proportion of the referrals had socially transitioned prior to being seen.
I was hoping for a reply that addressed the question.Your question was based on a flawed premise, you said "gender questioning kids", while we are talking about "trans kids sure of their gender seeking medical transition".
So when do we reach "conversion therapy" vs what clinical psychologists actually do for a living.- when you presume that being transgender and wanting to transition is (or, likely is) a mental disorder due to trauma, and argue that trans kids medical care should be indefinitely placed on hold (possibly forever) while you "explore" the reasons you think the kid isn't "really" trans. If a "gender questioning kid" comes in and says "I don't know if I'm trans, I might be, I want to explore that" - nobody is just giving them hormones ffs. Nobody is against them being free to explore and supported in that. The conflation of "kids questioning their gender" and "kids sure of their gender" is precisely the kind of imprecise nonsense we are supposed to avoid.
Conversely, the high-quality popular press can be a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs, financial, and historical information in a medical article.
The attempt to distance and distinguish gender-exploration therapy from conversion practices is also familiar. After California banned conversion practices, Joseph Nicolosi wrote an essay claiming that his reparative therapy did not directly aim at altering same-sex attraction but, rather, encouraged inquiry and exploration into its underlying cause. The positive-sounding language of inquiry and exploration sanitizes his approach despite him viewing “most same-sex attractions as reparations for childhood trauma”[18]
VIR removed this and probably shouldn't have
A "psychotherapeutic” approach viewing gender incongruence as a mental health disorder or a state of confusion was used for decades, has not been shown to be effective, and was superseded by an evidence-based gender-affirming approachwhich is way, way overstating things, and the very conflict the Cass Review weighs in on, on the side of evidence and caution. This was making broad medical claims where the strongest MEDRS do not agree at all, and it was based on WPATH's response to Cass, exemplifying this dispute.
Florence Ashley is a bioethicist who studies conversion therapy
Cass is aligned with the views of GET that come from SEGM / Genspect / GETA / Therapy First.
The removed part wasnot the thing I am talking about...
Bioethicist Florence Ashley found that GET had strong conceptual and narrative similarities with previous conversion practices such as " reparative" and "reintegrative" therapy, noting they portrayed themselves as exploring the underlying psychological causes of same-sex attraction rather than directly aiming at altering it.to
Commenting on gender exploratory therapy in 2022, bioethicist Florence Ashley argued it had similarities to conversion therapy. [22]
I agree with Void that Wikipedia cannot simply assume the idea that exploratory approaches are definitely conversion therapy is an undisputed truth. British doctors have come to a jarringly different conclusion to their American counterparts, as seen in the Cass Review and the statement from the UK Council for Psychotherapy last November. Two more sources defending an exploratory approach: D'Angelo 2018 and Spiliadis 2019. Even Florence Ashley, who opposes this approach, acknowledges that exploratory therapy is being presented as having a different goal to conversion therapy. Anywikiuser ( talk) 16:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Statements and bans on conversion therapy usually problematically merge gender identity with sexual orientation, which is misleading as these are very different constructs- a WP:FRINGE view as every medical org and human rights org agrees bans should cover both types of conversion therapy. He also says
A priori assumptions, either that trans identification is always a healthy development or that trans identification is always pathological, violate this foundational principle- but there is an overwhelming consensus that trans identities aren't pathological. He's a political activist who has never worked in trans healthcare and has done thinks like argue in court that a 16 year old should be denied gender affirming care. [25]
Even Florence Ashley, who opposes this approach, acknowledges that exploratory therapy is being presented as having a different goal to conversion therapy.- I agree this should be better included since we have the sources to note that GET's proponents argue that GET isn't conversion therapy since it's undirected. As Ashley notes though, that is exactly what NARTH said about reparative therapy based on the same reasons.
Descriptions of reintegrative therapy by people who offer it are reminiscent of how gender-exploratory therapy is described by its proponents. Clinicians promoting gender-exploratory therapy have notably insisted that the approach is “not the same as ‘conversion,’ as the latter implies a therapist agenda and an aim for a fixed outcome” (D’Angelo et al., 2021, p. 10) and emphasized that they “do not aim to change someone’s gender or sexuality related feelings but rather engage in a dialogue exploring the meaning-making around identity development” (Spiliadis, n.d.)[27]
Proponents of gender-exploratory therapy acknowledge that some consider it a form of conversion practice, paradoxically resenting the suggestion while opposing bans on conversion practices on account that it would prohibit their approach. As for critiques of gender-exploratory therapy, they are presented as evidence of trans health care’s ideological capture. Yet a close comparison of gender-exploratory therapy and conversion practices reveals many conceptual and narrative similarities. How proponents talk about gender-exploratory therapy is nearly identical to how individuals offering conversion practices targeting sexual orientation frame their own work.
You cite Cass for Spiladis being a RS
single-minded focus on what the Cass-report says
it might be wrong
As Cass notes, even proponents of the affirmation model argue that it can still include "exploring the meaning of that experience in a non-directive therapeutic relationship."- we already note that the affirmative model already encourages exploration without making it a prerequisite for care
And SPLC's biased opinion carries no weight when evaluating MEDRS.
The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only among the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative.
I'd wager a guess and say it's because Spiliadis is an advisor of SEGM
Can you explain how citing Spiliadis (2019) is "going to SEGM and genspect"?I answered. As RS have noted for years, SEGM is a small group of quacks who make ridiculous claims (which he has also made, ie that trans people don't experience conversion therapy) and lobby against trans rights - his position there does make him less reliable.
I attempted to move away from current theoretical polarities
Responding to the increased visibility of detransition journeys, another model has emerged: the exploratory approach. Developed by Anastassis Spiliadis in England, this approach acknowledges the uncertainty inherent in trans journeys and underscores the clinician’s responsibility in facilitating exploration before undertaking a transition (Spiliadis, 2019). While recognizing the importance of contextual understanding and the dynamic nature of gender for appropriate support (Ashley, 2019; Coleman et al., 2022; Wren, 2019), some critique the exploratory approach’s suggestion that exploration should precede transition (Ashley, 2019).
From the premise that facilitating exploration should be our starting point in caring for trans and gender creative youth, puberty blockers must be seen as the default position, to be readily prescribed since they leave the largest space for future identity development and negotiation.
Based on this Wikipedia should say GET is a form of conversion therapy and is characterised by a denial of care.
Therapeutic approaches that acknowledge the young person’s subjective gender experience, whilst also engaging in an open, curious, non-directive exploration. of the meaning of a range of experiences that may connect to gender and broader self-identity (Bonfatto &. Crasnow, 2018; Churcher Clarke & Spiliadis, 2019; Di Ceglie, 2009; Spiliadis, 2019).
According to Ashley, conversion practices include not only direct attempts to change a person’s gender identity or gender expression, but any form of psychotherapy that examines possible causes of a person’s gender related distress or leads to any delay in medical transition
The role and nature of psychotherapeutic approaches to treating gender dysphoria is controversial.
According to Florida Medicaid, Littman (2018) is one of multiple studies to introduce “additional subtypes of gender dysphoria” (in this case, ROGD) [23]. It is not clear which studies outside of Littman’s 2018 article do propose additional subtypes, as--at this time--no such studies exist in the peer reviewed literature outside letters to the editor, specifically by Sinai et al (2022), Littman (2022), and Hutchinson et al (2020) [26 - 28]. Rather, the only published original research that follows up on Littman’s 2018 study on ROGD “...did not find support within a clinical population for a new etiologic phenomenon of rapid onset gender dysphoria during adolescence” [29]. In other words, the existence of ROGD is unsupported in current research.[31]
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Conversion therapy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Conversion therapy was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
![]() | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
![]() | Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about conversion therapy or changing sexual orientation. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about conversion therapy or changing sexual orientation at the Reference desk. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article Last six months (log scale)
Last 30 days (linear scale)
|
Index |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 29 April 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Zach arias 777 (
article contribs).
Hey DisciplinadoLector, your addition to the lead has been reverted twice now. Please note that both times we noted this is not included in the body. While it is true that behaviourism was the underpinning to some conversion therapy treatments, that is partially covered by masturbatory reconditioning. There is no need to refer to Hans specifically, who had nothing to do with conversion therapy. We don’t say “freud’s psychoanalysis”, we say “psychoanalysis”. The missing area from the lead was behaviourist therapy for gender nonconforming children, which I will add in when I have the time. Thanks for trying to improve the article but please try to read WP:LEAD to understand the reverts. Zenomonoz ( talk) 04:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
!! DisciplinadoLector, please gain WP:CONSENSUS first here on the talk page. I just reverted you because you incorrectly included content about Hans Eysenck/behavior therapy under 'gender identity change efforts' for transgender people, despite the source stating it was for homosexuals. In addition, as Bennv123 stated, referring to Hans Eysenck in the opening paragraph is WP:UNDUE. You are welcome to include content about behaviourism and behavior therapy under 'methods', then refer to that in the opening, but 'Hans Eysenck' doesn't need be mentioned (he can be mentioned in the body). There are/were dozens of high profile conversion therapists, many of them psychoanalysts, and we do not need to mention them in the opening paragraph. In addition, please do not use scare quotes around the word "therapy", even if it is quackery. See MOS:SCAREQUOTES. Zenomonoz ( talk) 09:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
In Belgium and Germany conversion therapy includes corrective rape. Who dares to whitewash these most criminal government? The truth is they commit most sexual violence in the world. 2A02:1811:2C09:F100:C10C:80E2:82D0:59C7 ( talk) 17:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
The recent undoing of an attempt to claim that GET is not a form of conversion therapy and sourcing it to an instigator of GET who is trying to distance it from methods under attack was appropriate. However, it does leave us with a section which is sourced to Science-Based Medicine, Xtra, and Slate, none of which are WP:MEDRS. I don't know if Perspectives on Psychological Science qualifies as an RS here, but they have this, or perhaps this from The Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 20:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
According to its former editor-in-chief Julia Turner, the magazine is "not fundamentally a breaking news source", but rather aimed at helping readers to "analyze and understand and interpret the world" with witty and entertaining writing.And presumably if there were better sources, the person who originally added this material would have added those sources. So I am intending to delete this section unless someone can come up with proper sources. Sweet6970 ( talk) 22:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
I have now deleted the material. Sweet6970 ( talk) 12:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
this is massively UNDUE - there is already a discussion about GET on the Talk page – take it to the Talk page
In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer-reviewed journal.- we do not need a full systematic review to come out every time some WP:QUACKS rebrand conversion therapy.
GET, which according to the sources in the discussion below, is not a form of conversion therapyis referencing one primary statement from a random organization saying it's not, and one article saying some people advocate it but it isn't practiced. That source does not say "it isn't conversion therapy" and was written before the majority of scholarly research of GET. Those are ridiculously poor sources, especially compared to the multitude I added which are explicit that it's conversion therapy. What makes the UKCP statement saying it's not conversion therapy and one outdated definition of GET (that still acknowledges it's fringe) outweigh 9 (10, including Ashley) RS saying it is? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 22:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
The CASS Review defines exploratory therapy (citing papers from 2009, 2018, and 2019, ie before the majority of scholarship on GET), but doesn't mention it anywhere else apart from to say it isn't used at GIDS and its advocates left GIDS.and
one article saying some people advocate it but it isn't practiced. That source does not say "it isn't conversion therapy" and was written before the majority of scholarly research of GET.
What makes the UKCP statement saying it's not conversion therapy and one outdated definition of GET (that still acknowledges it's fringe) outweigh 9 (10, including Ashley) RS saying it is?Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 22:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
You added a considerable amount about GET, which according to the sources in the discussion below, is not a form of conversion therapy.You're explicitly saying a myriad of sources saying it is conversion therapy are, if not outweighed by, the same weight as, the UKCP and Cass review.
"conversion" or "reparative" therapy under another name. Per WP:MEDASSESS/ WP:MEDORG, it is the most high-quality source we have discussed on GET, and settles the question of whether it's conversion therapy or not. I ask you again to self-revert. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 00:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Primary and secondary care staff have told us that they feel under pressure to adopt an unquestioning affirmative approach and that this is at odds with the standard process of clinical assessment and diagnosis that they have been trained to undertake in all other clinical encounters
Clinicians and associated professionals we have spoken to have highlighted the lack of an agreed consensus on the different possible implications of gender-related distress – whether it may be an indication that the child or young person is likely to grow up to be a transgender adult and would benefit from physical intervention, or whether it may be a manifestation of other causes of distress. Following directly from this is a spectrum of opinion about the correct clinical approach, ranging broadly between those who take a more gender-affirmative approach to those who take a more cautious, developmentally informed approach.
approaching trans identities and gender dysphoria from a position of suspicion—suspicion that, regardless of indication, they may be attributable to pathological causes and should be explored as such—is incompatible with therapeutic neutrality.
the opinion of one researcherI don't know why you're quoting Ashley, when WPATH is the strongest source saying it's conversion therapy.
was written before research into GET
we believe that including gender alongside sexuality in a ban will carry no real risk of ethical exploratory therapy being misconstrued as an alleged form of “conversion therapy”
more reliable than 1 person's review
I don't know why you're quoting Ashley
which everyone had previously agreed was uncontroversialcitation needed
No, it was written before advocates of the affirmation model openly started calling exploratory therapy ... "conversion".- If by "advocates of the affirmation model" you mean "RS/MEDRS", yes, that was my point. Just because you don't like the newer research doesn't mean the Cass review isn't outdated.
I'm sorry, but are you under the impression that the Cass Review is "one person's review"?
and also the one cited by virtually every other subsequent source.
1 outdated review of 1 clinic in 1 country
still makes clear GET is FRINGE and not practiced.
From the point of entry to GIDS there appears to be predominantly an affirmative, non-exploratory approach, and once to say
many individuals who are more cautious and advocate the need for an exploratory approach have left the service. Not once does it advocate for it or even say anything about it's effectiveness. The only place where GET is state sponsored is places like Florida, where minors banned from trans healthcare are recommended "GET" instead. This is getting silly and I have better things to do than argue over conversion therapy's latest rebranding, so I've notified WP:FTN. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 20:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
You refer to the Cass review as being ‘outdated’. Actually, it has not yet been completed – what has been published so far is the Interim Report. [1] And in any event, it does not make sense to refer to something so recent as the Interim Report as being ‘outdated’. According to that logic, as soon as the final report is published, all the sources you have used would become ‘outdated’. Sweet6970 ( talk) 18:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Actually, it has not yet been completed – what has been published so far is the Interim Report
Including GET (or similar) into the "conversion therapy" label, or excluding it, is a political and legal decision as much as a medical one. Recent political proposals about laws in the UK were very much considering whether to include transgender into those laws or not. Activists, politicians, legal experts and medical professionals of various flavours are all involved in this. I don't think what amounts to an "is this ethical" question is entirely a matter of MEDRS. For example, did conversion therapy for "sexual deviancy" really fall out of favour because someone published a systematic review showing it ineffective? Or perhaps society changed its mind on whether being gay was morally wrong, legally forbidden and a psychological illness. We do lots of things that are ineffective, such as throwing people in jail or building more roads, but are desirable for social or political beliefs in punishment or progress. A systematic review will not inform us whether therapy X is ethical.
We ran into problems with people demanding MEDRS over the Covid 19 lab leak theory. That was also a political, legal and possibly criminal matter as much as it was a biomedical or scientific matter. One big clue that this is a multifaceted issue is that we have Medical views of conversion therapy and Legality of conversion therapy daughter articles. I think this is an ongoing debate and so we should describe these viewpoints appropriately per NPOV. The word "FRINGE" is being thrown about on this page as a weapon. I don't think that is helpful to constructive discussion. Both sides need to recognise when their sources are partisan. I mean, Florence Ashley is an activist who wrote a book called Banning Transgender Conversion Practices: A Legal and Policy Analysis so they aren't neutral but likely worth quoting more than just some random journalist. Their article we cite is more of a personal exploratory essay than anything MEDRS would consider authoritative (for example, consider the closing sentence: "As a scholar of conversion practices, the uncanny resemblance cannot but give me pause." would never close any systematic review or NICE guideline) What the Cass review is attempting is closer to what MEDRS would value, but I think way too much is being read into what is a rather skeletal interim report. -- Colin° Talk 14:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
did conversion therapy for "sexual deviancy" really fall out of favour because someone published a systematic review showing it ineffective? Or perhaps society changed its mind on whether being gay was morally wrong, legally forbidden and a psychological illness– the most peruasive evidence comes from Bailey et al. 2016 (page 86): proponents of conversion therapy have failed to provide any evidence of change in arousal patterns before and after therapy. This would be rather easy for prove (for males). Indeed, as Bailey notes the two small studies examining the question found men who claimed to have lost homosexual attraction through therapy, still had homosexual arousal patterns. I find this line of reasoning a bit more persuasive than other arguments. We have plenty of countries in which conversion therapies are acceptable, so we might expect some good evidence to have emerged by now.
The leading paragraph of this article provides an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic. The lead provides brief information on the various content that will follow in the sections below. However, the intro section contains no explicit description of which major sections the reader should expect in the article's body. The lead is not overly detailed; it provides just enough information to contextualize the article for the reader, and it only covers information which is further elaborated upon in the article's body.
The article's content is relevant to the topic and is up to date. However, the majority of space is given to theories and techniques for conversion therapy, and less focus is given to motivations, public opinion, and media coverage of the practice. Understandably, the majority of research and knowledge about conversion therapy is related to its history and techniques. I believe the article could give more attention towards the personal implications of the practice and the historical motivations behind its legality. However, this article's content does important work in shedding light on this particular issue facing the historically underrepresented LGBT population.
This article is written from a neutral point of view, with attention given towards facts and science. While conversion therapy is a complex, controversial topic, the article does not stray away from reporting on how the practice is not a legitimate form of therapy. The article bases their claims on reliable sources, such as academic peer-reviewed journals and novels. The sources are current, thorough, and written by a diverse spectrum of authors. The writing is clear and professional, and the organization of the content into sections is intuitive and easy to follow. That being said, some of the information on the legal status of conversion therapy is not as detailed as it could be, given the prevalence of the practice around the world and within certain pockets of America. Additionally, more attention could be given towards detailing the consequences and life threatening effects of the practice.
This article could use more images to enhance understanding of the topic. There are only three images, one of which is a helpful map to visualize jurisdictional bans on conversion therapy. The other two images do not do anything to provide additional enhancement of the topic or visual appeal.
There is healthy debate within the article's Talk page on understanding how psychological practices have been manipulated for the purpose of conversion therapy. Discussions center around how not to undermine the importance of some of these psychological practices while also giving attention towards how they have been abused in the service of harmful conversion practices. This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale and is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.~~~~ Efloden ( talk) 03:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
pseudoscientificbecause that's our opinion, we say so because that's what reliable sources say. Please stop bringing up irrelevant tangents - if you are so convinced that gender reassignment surgery is "pseudoscientific", provide sources that say that on that article's talk page. Otherwise, you are comparing apples to oranges, though a more apt anaology would be flat-eartherism to evolution. Best regards, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 21:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
WP:SOAPBOXING about the supposed efficacy of conversion therapy and violations of
WP:CIVIL and
WP:NPA. No prejudice against deleting if anyone thinks that's a better way to handle this.
Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (
talk)
22:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
|
---|
Can we remove pseudoscience/scientific references? There's not a lot of long-term, scientific articles that conclusively state that HRT or gender reassignment surgery are effective long-term, but we don't call transgender surgeries or treatments "pseudoscience". Clearly a double standard on an encyclopedia that is supposed to remain neutral. Conversion therapy does work for some just like transgender surgeries work for some. Why can't we practice neutrality? 216.49.128.107 ( talk) 21:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
|
Per this edit, Florence Ashley is cited comparing exploratory therapy with conversion therapy. I suggest it is at the very least worth counterbalancing this with the UK Council for Psychotherapy's Statement on therapy and gender on 02/11/2023. This states in the opening paragraph:
This statement is also being made to highlight the fact that exploratory therapy must not be conflated with conversion therapy.
This cites and builds upon the interim Cass Review, which describes gender affirmation/exploratory therapy thus:
Affirmative model - A model of gender healthcare that originated in the USA which affirms a young person’s subjective gender experience while remaining open to fluidity and changes over time. This approach is used in some key child and adolescent clinics across the Western world.
Exploratory approaches - Therapeutic approaches that acknowledge the young person’s subjective gender experience, whilst also engaging in an open, curious, non-directive exploration of the meaning of a range of experiences that may connect to gender and broader self-identity.
The Cass Review is a high quality independent assessment of international evidence and best practice, and UKCP is the UK's leading professional organisation covering this area. Void if removed ( talk) 13:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
The document makes assumptions about transgender children and adolescents which are outdated and untrue, which then form the basis of harmful interventions.
WPATH, ASIAPATH, EPATH, PATHA, and USPATH call attention to the fact that this "psychotherapeutic" approach, which was used for decades before being superseded by evidence-based gender-affirming care, has not been shown to be effective (AUSPATH, 2021; Coleman et al., 2022). Indeed, the denial of gender-affirming treatment under the guise of "exploratory therapy" has caused enormous harm to the transgender and gender diverse community and is tantamount to "conversion" or "reparative" therapy under another name.
taking one review……as the end all and be all definitively correct opinion.The problem is, on the contrary, that the Cass Review is being completely ignored, thus compromising the neutrality of this article. I do not see the relevance of your references to the Russian and Saudi governments. Sweet6970 ( talk) 13:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
GET is a form of conversion therapy[refs] that presumes that patients...would be an improvement. Relatedly, I'm about to make a new topic on this talk page to address the paragraph on Ashley. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 01:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I propose we merge the paragraph on Ashley's paper into the subsequent paragraph on GET. This entails removing the paragraph and just adding the paper as a citation to the 1st, 2nd, and 5th sentences of the 1st GET paragraph:
GET presumes that patients suffering from gender dysphoria have underlying causes other than being transgender such as homophobia, social contagion, sexual trauma, and autism.
GET is characterized by requiring in-depth talk therapy over an extended time period; practitioners often view medical transition as a last resort
Concerns have been raised that by not providing an estimated length of time for the therapy, the delays in medical interventions may compound mental suffering in trans youth.
I'd appreciate hearing people's thoughts on this! Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 01:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
to find a reason to deny care indefinitelywith my edit as well, but sadly I haven't been able to find any RS that touch on
or else to delay treatment long enough that the patient stops trying, often after puberty has run its course(though quite a lot of trans authors have pointed that out independently since it's fairly obvious, official RS have a lag).
GET is a form of conversion therapy [3] [4] [5] which presumes that patients suffering from.... Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ ( talk) 01:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
GET presumes that patients suffering from gender dysphoria have underlying causes other than being transgender such as homophobia, social contagion, sexual trauma, and autismwithout explaining what GET is. I agree with Snokalok that we should be clearer about the mechanism of GET, and I agree with you that we should be clearer that it is conversion therapy, but we really need an introductory paragraph there. Loki ( talk) 02:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
GET is a form of conversion therapy characterized by requiring mandatory extended talk therapy attempting to find pathological roots for gender dysphoria while simultaneously delaying social and medical transition indefinitely. Practitioners often view medical transition as a last resort and propose their patient's dysphoria is caused by factors such as homophobia, social contagion, sexual trauma, and autism. Bioethicist Florence Ashley found...
I just undid an addition claiming that this study "found that 200 homosexual men and women reported at least some minimal change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation that lasted at least 5 years following some form of reparative therapy." A quick check of that link shows that that was not a finding of the study, but rather its sample; it's not like it checked a larger base of reparative therapy patients and found X% had lasting change. The mere existence of this set of people is not scientific proof of anything other than "reparative therapy does not 100% prevent sexual fluidity"; one could do a study of people who were in such therapy and later had car accidents, and the mere existence of such a sample does not suggest causation. What findings it does have is that even among this sample, "Reports of complete change were uncommon" -- i.e.,, the therapy was not a complete "cure" even among those who felt change in its wake. And that's all just from looking at the study's own summary. If you go to the portion of the article on Spitzer that covers this study, you'll see Spitzer himself asked that the study be retracted, that the many criticisms of it had merit, and he apologized for it.
So... bad science that didn't even say what the addition claimed. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 15:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
It is said at one point that their is a consensus that such therapy doesn't work, but only one study of cases in the South is quoted. How is that proof of a consensus? 207.244.205.106 ( talk) 20:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
– RoxySaunders 🏳️⚧️ ( 💬 • 📝) 06:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)There is a scientific consensus that conversion therapy is ineffective and can result in significant, long-term psychological harm (Ending Conversion Therapy: Supporting and Affirming LGBTQ Youth, 2015). Many pro-conversion therapy studies utilize biased samples that only include clients who have recently undergone conversion therapy, thus distorting the purported success rates and failing to analyze whether conversion therapy remains effective in the long term (Shidlo & Schroeder, 2002). Further, even the most scientifically rigorous studies report success rates of no more than 30% (Haldeman, 2002).
I agree the article is overall quite poorly sourced. I will try and improve it when I have more time. Zenomonoz ( talk) 23:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Conversion therapy is not illegal in Iceland per se. It's only illegal to trick or force someone to go to conversion therapy. You can legally perform conversion therapy in Iceland if your clients give their informed consent. Can someone correct the article? Thanks. 85.220.49.247 ( talk) 08:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
The content in this section concerns a sensitive topic, most of it was added by hist9600.
In particular, there is reference to work by Stoller, Green, and Lovas, working with samples of effeminate young boys. They used behaviourism techniques to 'stamp out' this behavior, and then assessed their gender identity (and sexual orientation) later on.
Although this is listed under a 'gender identity change efforts', many scholars have noted that the boys in their treatment samples would not meet the diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria today. They were diagnosed with gender identity disorder, which included very effeminate boys who were not uncomfortable with their natal sex.
At adulthood follow up, only one of Green's sample identified as a transgender woman. The rest as men (most of them gay). Green's conclusion is that therapeutic intervention in prepubescent children can resolve gender identity disorder (under the definition then), but does not alter later sexual orientation (in males). Many scholars in favour of the affirmative approach to prepubescent gender dysphoria, argue that Green's experiment does not provide the first assertion, because boys in this sample were not gender dysphoric in the first place.
But the current state of the article plays into accepting Green's premise that feminine boys are all gender dysphoric, and thus, this is conversion therapy for children destined to be transgender adults... if we accept this premise, then we must (incorrectly) conclude that Green's intervention does alleviate dysphoria in prepubescents.
There is also reference to the case of Kirk Murphy, a boy who was enrolled in Green's sample. He didn't want to be a girl according Green's reports. It was only George Rekers, who misrepresented the case, making the claim. Murphys sister denies it. Rekers also falsely claimed that Kirk had grown up to become a heterosexual man, while Green acknowledged he was predominately homosexual. Hist9600 also cited directly to Rekers paper on Kirk (whom he called Kraig), which is a total misrepresentation disputed by Kirk's sister. This is why we often avoid citing primary sources. It gives the false impression that Rekers was really working with a gender dysphoric child. Rekers was embellishing.
The cited CNN article regarding his suicide makes no mention of him as a gender dysphoric child who wanted to be a girl, but plenty of reference to him as a homosexual man who was "treated" for his femininity as a boy. So why is it being used to bolster the idea that a transgender conversion therapy had occurred? Green/Rekers were also looking to see if they could prevent homosexuality, remember. I think His9600 has been a bit flexible with the sources here.
So, what is to be done? It needs some modification, at least. There probably needs to be more accurate coverage on the history and debate about therapeutic intervention for gender dysphoria in prepubescent children. This is extremely controversial and a sensitive area, so I would be interested in other editor thoughts.
Zenomonoz ( talk) 11:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Although this is listed under a 'gender identity change efforts', many scholars have noted that the boys in their treatment samples would not meet the diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria today.
plays into accepting Green's premise that feminine boys are all gender dysphoric
Regarding Rekers and Kirk, some choice quotes include
[6]:
TLDR they thought the kid was likely trans, and treatment was intended to try and "cure" that. |
---|
|
“swishing” around the home and clinic, fully dressed as a woman with long dress, wig, nail polish, high screechy voice, slovenly seductive eyes".
Just a brief follow up comment after looking at the sources. The
Rivera source is more focused on Kenneth Zucker as an example of gender identity change efforts. The Green/Rekers work is certainly cited as laying the groundwork for this, but Rivera describes their work as intended to extinguish atypical gender behaviors as well as prevent eventual homosexual orientation
.
Rivera goes on to clarify: Green’s methods were adopted by Dr. Kenneth Zucker at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto (Zucker & Bradley, 1995; Zucker et al., 2012) but modified so that the focus was primarily on preventing a child from developing an eventual transgender identity
– i.e. there seems to be a distinction between Green's work and Zucker's work.
Green/Rekers did have a control group of feminine boys who were not subject to "treatment". As I mentioned, only one of their subjects grew up to identify as a transgender woman. I am unsure if the trans woman was a member of the the treated group, or the control group. Regardless, this further strengthens the argument that Green/Rekers weren't working with gender dysphoric children, but rather, feminine boys... it doesn't seem to offer much support for the idea that they would be transwomen had they not been enrolled in the experiment (in the control group, matched feminine boys who had relatively relaxed parents grew up to be satisfied with their natal sex). That's important context (at least for editors) because this section is supposed to be about gender identity change efforts. This is a bit unclear for those with little background knowledge. A potential solution is clarifying that Lovas/Rekers (and Green?) were incorrectly assuming that all feminine boys were potential transgender adults. No doubt there are probably reliable sources somewhere since I've seen scholars (including trans ones) advance similar arguments before.
Zenomonoz ( talk) 10:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
The Cass Review has the following to say about exploratory therapy:
Exploratory Approaches - Therapeutic approaches that acknowledge the young person’s subjective gender experience, whilst also engaging in an open, curious, non-directive exploration of the meaning of a range of experiences that may connect to gender and broader self-identity (Bonfatto & Crasnow, 2018; Churcher Clarke & Spiliadis, 2019; Di Ceglie, 2009; Spiliadis, 2019).
Spiliadis 2019 is the original "Gender Exploratory Therapy" paper.
It also says:
Terms such as ‘affirmative’ and ‘exploratory’ approaches have been weaponised to the extent that it is difficult to find any neutral terminology.
And:
The intent of psychological intervention is not to change the person’s perception of who they are but to work with them to explore their concerns and experiences and help alleviate their distress, regardless of whether they pursue a medical pathway or not. It is harmful to equate this approach to conversion therapy as it may prevent young people from getting the emotional support they deserve.
Cass also stated:
She noted that some medics were afraid of being accused of conducting “conversion therapy if, again, they take a cautious or exploratory approach”
Given the weight of this source, how do we square this with the coverage in this section? That is, this whole section does exactly what Cass warns agains, ie conflating conversion therapy with exploratory therapy. The Cass Review has been directly accused of espousing conversion therapy on this basis, by WPATH. The final Review's opinions on this are due here. Void if removed ( talk) 20:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
The same month, the UK Council for Psychotherapy announced it was fine for counsellors to practice GET and in April 2024 it was endorsed by the Cass Review.
The source doesn't even support this sentence- what?
In November 2023, the UK Council for Psychotherapy—the nation’s top professional association—declared that it was fine for counselors to take GETA’s “exploratory” approach to gender. This April, a long-awaited review of gender-related care for youth in England’s National Health Service endorsed exploratory therapy, according to Alex Keuroghlian, an associate psychiatry professor at Harvard Medical School[7]
:::::“It truly is very similar to how the Alliance has always approached unwanted SSA [same-sex attraction],” she told the assembled therapists. “You approach it as ‘change therapy’—or, even less triggering, ‘exploratory therapy.’” Void if removed ( talk) 22:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I would be truly amazed if we could actually source this split. No I can't, and I would be very surprised if anyone could. Loki ( talk) 03:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
The source doesn't even support this sentence - what?
now it's been mentioned you have an issue?
Gender exploratory therapy (GET) is a form of conversion therapy. Loki ( talk) 03:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
And this source also conflates this directed, unethical approach with the undirected, ethical positions taken by the Cass Review and UKCP.You are again presuming there are two major and differing practices for GET. Whether Cass believes that GET is ethical and effective, is a different matter. The major name associated with GET is the Gender Exploratory Therapy Association (GETA), which is promoted by Genspect, with materials produced by SEGM. Both Genspect and SEGM are gender-critical advocacy groups, deeply entrenched in advocating against trans rights, and are both considered anti-LGBTQ+ hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Hist9600 ( talk) 12:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
You are again presuming there are two major and differing practices for GET
In November 2023, Michelle Cretella, a board member of the pro conversion therapy group Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity (ATCSI, formerly NARTH), gave a speech at an ATCSI conference which endorsed GET and arguing it "truly is very similar to how the Alliance has always approached unwanted same-sex attraction".
Gender exploratory therapy (GET) is a form of conversion therapy
Gender exploratory therapy (GET) is a form of conversion therapyThat's been there for months and you adding a NPOV tag after extensively discussing this and consensus disagreeing with you is disruptive.
See, here's the problem - you have an actual conversion therapist calling actual conversion therapy "gender exploratory therapy" to hide the fact that it is conversion therapy.... Yeah...
because actual, ethical, exploratory psychotherapy is not conversion.- you do realize this is literally NARTH's whole thing, right? They opposed "gay affirmative" therapy, arguing that it was necessary that a psychiatrist "ethically explore the roots of a persons same sex attraction", but that it wasn't "conversion" because there was "no preset goal in mind". Literally, same exact argument.
Terms such as ‘affirmative’ and ‘exploratory’ approaches have been weaponised to the extent that it is difficult to find any neutral terminology.I don't care about neutral terminology, I care what the cass report is saying about it, so this is a distraction to me.
The intent of psychological intervention is not to change the person’s perception of who they are but to work with them to explore their concerns and experiences and help alleviate their distress, regardless of whether they pursue a medical pathway or not. It is harmful to equate this approach to conversion therapy as it may prevent young people from getting the emotional support they deserve.
At several points in the document, there is an emphasis on “careful exploration” of a child or young person’s co-existing mental health, neuro-developmental and/or family or social complexities. There is also a suggestion that a “care plan should be tailored to the specific needs of the individual following careful therapeutic exploration…” WPATH, ASIAPATH, EPATH, PATHA, and USPATH are concerned that this appears to imply that young people who have coexisting autism, other developmental differences, or mental health problems may be disqualified, or have unnecessary delay, in their access to genderaffirming treatment. This would be inequitable, discriminatory, and misguided (Coleman et al., 2022). WPATH, ASIAPATH, EPATH, PATHA, and USPATH recommend that puberty suppression, where urgently indicated, can be commenced promptly, and proceed alongside and at the same time as any necessary diagnostic clarification of other conditions, or treatment of other conditions. Whilst careful assessment is imperative, undue delay inherent within a model of care is not a neutral option and may cause significant harm to those accessing services (Coleman et al., 2022). There is an alarming statement in the summary that “the primary intervention for children and young people… is psychosocial (including psychoeducation) and psychological support and intervention.” In another section, the document goes on to state that one outcome from the screening process would be “discharge with psychoeducation…” Disturbingly, this decision might be made without speaking directly with the young person or family. Taking No 8 and 9 together, this document seems to view gender incongruence largely as a mental health disorder or a state of confusion and withholds gender-affirming treatments on this basis. WPATH, ASIAPATH, EPATH, PATHA, and USPATH call attention to the fact that this “psychotherapeutic” approach, which was used for decades before being superseded by evidence-based gender-affirming care, has not been shown to be effective (AUSPATH, 2021; Coleman et al., 2022). Indeed, the denial of gender affirming treatment under the guise of “exploratory therapy” has caused enormous harm to the transgender and gender diverse community and is tantamount to “conversion” or “reparative” therapy under another name. This document reasserts the outdated “gatekeeping model” of access to gender affirming care.
In fact, given the increased visibility of different sexual orientations and gender identities and expressions, efforts nowadays include clinicians gatekeeping life-saving hormonal interventions by encouraging clients to not commit to their transgender identity or initiate gender-affirming care until they are absolutely sure (sometimes euphemistically called “gender exploratory therapy”), or even ascribing transgender identity or asexuality to trauma (ashley, 2023).
encouraging clients to not commit to their transgender identity or initiate gender-affirming care until they are absolutely sureas gender exploratory therapy. I think if somebody already has declared a gender identity, then it would be qualified as a conversion attempt under most of the definitions.
ascribing transgender identity or asexuality to trauma. This whole line conflates multiple things - but the cite to Ashley means this is referring specifically to the model described in Spiliadis 2019 which is explicitly an undirected model with no fixed outcome in mind.
Some youth presenting with gender distress do have underlying causes that, when properly explored by the individual themselves, resolves that distress, and sometimes this is trauma– I do not think Cass review states this as fact. This is speculation. Nor do they claim that dealing with trauma alleviates dysphoria. As far as I am aware, Littman and ROGD proponents argue that a subset of young natal female individuals are transitioning due cultural ideas about gender, and that they are misinterpreting their mental anguish as evidence of dysphoria. If 'trauma' were causing gender issues, we would expect to see quite a lot of gender dysphoria in war zones and the rest. Regardless, I'd advise against stating this kind of speculation as fact. Plenty of psychological theories claim that 'trauma' causes 'X thing I don't like', but in large well designed studies, there isn't strong evidence for causality. Zenomonoz ( talk) 10:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I think we should watch not to argue back and forth about our own ideas and opinions– well you just wrote a giant paragraph of your own opinions. My comment was a brief "correlation is not causation" statement, clarifying that plenty of psychological ideas are "just so" stories that aren't supported by evidence of causality. Can we stick to WP:NOTFORUM. Zenomonoz ( talk) 04:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
I do not think Cass review states this as fact.
GET is just conversion therapy by another name [...] Similarly, proponents of GET often point to issues such as unprocessed trauma, childhood abuse, internalized homophobia or misogyny, sexual fetishism, and autism as the “real” explanation behind one’s transgender identity, rather than accepting that a child who identifies as trans is sharing a real, deep, and even joyful truth about themselves.
If 'trauma' were causing gender issues, we would expect to see quite a lot of gender dysphoria in war zones and the rest.
one takeaway from the Cass Review it is "we don't know"– this is more moderate. I agree. The Cass review is mostly focused on the effectiveness of puberty blockers, not the cause of dysphoria. It includes a brief overview on speculative causal pathways, but it excluded topic experts, hence it gets rather speculative. Regarding trauma: children with gender dysphoria are atypical in other ways, and we know that children who veer from behavioral norms are more targets for abuse over other children. I.e. correlation is not causation.
What critics say is that even considering other underlying factors may actually be at root of gender distress is conversion therapy– well, the Slate source is not labelling all therapy for gender dysphoric youth as 'conversion therapy'. It's referring to a very specific subset of therapists who are demanding clients find an external cause (how the heck do they prove this?) and who are opposed to transition in nearly all cases. Mainstream psychology remains open minded to potential causes of dysphoria... it's the groups cited in that piece who are claiming they know (and it must be something bad!) and that they hold the solution.
The Cass review is mostly focused on the effectiveness of puberty blockers, not the cause of dysphoria.
it excluded topic experts
The APA statement cites six studies and reviews
WPATH considers GET to be conversion "conversion" or "reparative" therapy under another name. Per WP:MEDASSESS/WP:MEDORG, it is the most high-quality source we have discussed on GET, and settles the question of whether it's conversion therapy or not.
But undirected exploration of the reasons behind someone's desire to transition is [ethical]. Dismissing up-front that someone's gender identity is definitively the result of trauma is unethical.A trans kid (let's say 16) comes into a clinic, knows they're trans, already socially transitioned, and is seeking medical transition. Just how much "exploration of the reasons behind someone's desire to transition" should be required before they can transition? Who gets to decide? When does the therapist say, "alright, we've explored everything, you're free to go"? What's stopping the therapist preventing their transition indefinitely?
So when do we reach "conversion therapy" vs what clinical psychologists actually do for a living? When kids who are sure they're trans, have already socially transitioned, and wish to medically transition are made to go through an indefinite period of a therapist trying to make them explore "what made you trans? trauma? the internet? we have to look at everything before I say you're trans enough in my book to recieve medical care". The population is not, as you called them, "gender questioning" children being met with an immediate
Here's a referral to endocrinology for hormones". As the infallible Cass Review said:
Clinicians have said that most children have already socially transitioned before reaching the specialist gender service
Early research cited in Chapter 2 found low rates of persistence of childhood gender incongruence into adulthood, around 15% (for example, Zucker, 1985). Papers from this period were criticised because the children were not formally diagnosed using ICD or DSM. At that time, it was rare for children to have socially transitioned before being seen in clinic.
Later studies, which showed higher rates of persistence at 37% (for example Steensma et al., 2013) did use formal diagnostic criteria, but by that time a greater proportion of the referrals had socially transitioned prior to being seen.
I was hoping for a reply that addressed the question.Your question was based on a flawed premise, you said "gender questioning kids", while we are talking about "trans kids sure of their gender seeking medical transition".
So when do we reach "conversion therapy" vs what clinical psychologists actually do for a living.- when you presume that being transgender and wanting to transition is (or, likely is) a mental disorder due to trauma, and argue that trans kids medical care should be indefinitely placed on hold (possibly forever) while you "explore" the reasons you think the kid isn't "really" trans. If a "gender questioning kid" comes in and says "I don't know if I'm trans, I might be, I want to explore that" - nobody is just giving them hormones ffs. Nobody is against them being free to explore and supported in that. The conflation of "kids questioning their gender" and "kids sure of their gender" is precisely the kind of imprecise nonsense we are supposed to avoid.
Conversely, the high-quality popular press can be a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs, financial, and historical information in a medical article.
The attempt to distance and distinguish gender-exploration therapy from conversion practices is also familiar. After California banned conversion practices, Joseph Nicolosi wrote an essay claiming that his reparative therapy did not directly aim at altering same-sex attraction but, rather, encouraged inquiry and exploration into its underlying cause. The positive-sounding language of inquiry and exploration sanitizes his approach despite him viewing “most same-sex attractions as reparations for childhood trauma”[18]
VIR removed this and probably shouldn't have
A "psychotherapeutic” approach viewing gender incongruence as a mental health disorder or a state of confusion was used for decades, has not been shown to be effective, and was superseded by an evidence-based gender-affirming approachwhich is way, way overstating things, and the very conflict the Cass Review weighs in on, on the side of evidence and caution. This was making broad medical claims where the strongest MEDRS do not agree at all, and it was based on WPATH's response to Cass, exemplifying this dispute.
Florence Ashley is a bioethicist who studies conversion therapy
Cass is aligned with the views of GET that come from SEGM / Genspect / GETA / Therapy First.
The removed part wasnot the thing I am talking about...
Bioethicist Florence Ashley found that GET had strong conceptual and narrative similarities with previous conversion practices such as " reparative" and "reintegrative" therapy, noting they portrayed themselves as exploring the underlying psychological causes of same-sex attraction rather than directly aiming at altering it.to
Commenting on gender exploratory therapy in 2022, bioethicist Florence Ashley argued it had similarities to conversion therapy. [22]
I agree with Void that Wikipedia cannot simply assume the idea that exploratory approaches are definitely conversion therapy is an undisputed truth. British doctors have come to a jarringly different conclusion to their American counterparts, as seen in the Cass Review and the statement from the UK Council for Psychotherapy last November. Two more sources defending an exploratory approach: D'Angelo 2018 and Spiliadis 2019. Even Florence Ashley, who opposes this approach, acknowledges that exploratory therapy is being presented as having a different goal to conversion therapy. Anywikiuser ( talk) 16:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Statements and bans on conversion therapy usually problematically merge gender identity with sexual orientation, which is misleading as these are very different constructs- a WP:FRINGE view as every medical org and human rights org agrees bans should cover both types of conversion therapy. He also says
A priori assumptions, either that trans identification is always a healthy development or that trans identification is always pathological, violate this foundational principle- but there is an overwhelming consensus that trans identities aren't pathological. He's a political activist who has never worked in trans healthcare and has done thinks like argue in court that a 16 year old should be denied gender affirming care. [25]
Even Florence Ashley, who opposes this approach, acknowledges that exploratory therapy is being presented as having a different goal to conversion therapy.- I agree this should be better included since we have the sources to note that GET's proponents argue that GET isn't conversion therapy since it's undirected. As Ashley notes though, that is exactly what NARTH said about reparative therapy based on the same reasons.
Descriptions of reintegrative therapy by people who offer it are reminiscent of how gender-exploratory therapy is described by its proponents. Clinicians promoting gender-exploratory therapy have notably insisted that the approach is “not the same as ‘conversion,’ as the latter implies a therapist agenda and an aim for a fixed outcome” (D’Angelo et al., 2021, p. 10) and emphasized that they “do not aim to change someone’s gender or sexuality related feelings but rather engage in a dialogue exploring the meaning-making around identity development” (Spiliadis, n.d.)[27]
Proponents of gender-exploratory therapy acknowledge that some consider it a form of conversion practice, paradoxically resenting the suggestion while opposing bans on conversion practices on account that it would prohibit their approach. As for critiques of gender-exploratory therapy, they are presented as evidence of trans health care’s ideological capture. Yet a close comparison of gender-exploratory therapy and conversion practices reveals many conceptual and narrative similarities. How proponents talk about gender-exploratory therapy is nearly identical to how individuals offering conversion practices targeting sexual orientation frame their own work.
You cite Cass for Spiladis being a RS
single-minded focus on what the Cass-report says
it might be wrong
As Cass notes, even proponents of the affirmation model argue that it can still include "exploring the meaning of that experience in a non-directive therapeutic relationship."- we already note that the affirmative model already encourages exploration without making it a prerequisite for care
And SPLC's biased opinion carries no weight when evaluating MEDRS.
The prominence of fringe views needs to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only among the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative.
I'd wager a guess and say it's because Spiliadis is an advisor of SEGM
Can you explain how citing Spiliadis (2019) is "going to SEGM and genspect"?I answered. As RS have noted for years, SEGM is a small group of quacks who make ridiculous claims (which he has also made, ie that trans people don't experience conversion therapy) and lobby against trans rights - his position there does make him less reliable.
I attempted to move away from current theoretical polarities
Responding to the increased visibility of detransition journeys, another model has emerged: the exploratory approach. Developed by Anastassis Spiliadis in England, this approach acknowledges the uncertainty inherent in trans journeys and underscores the clinician’s responsibility in facilitating exploration before undertaking a transition (Spiliadis, 2019). While recognizing the importance of contextual understanding and the dynamic nature of gender for appropriate support (Ashley, 2019; Coleman et al., 2022; Wren, 2019), some critique the exploratory approach’s suggestion that exploration should precede transition (Ashley, 2019).
From the premise that facilitating exploration should be our starting point in caring for trans and gender creative youth, puberty blockers must be seen as the default position, to be readily prescribed since they leave the largest space for future identity development and negotiation.
Based on this Wikipedia should say GET is a form of conversion therapy and is characterised by a denial of care.
Therapeutic approaches that acknowledge the young person’s subjective gender experience, whilst also engaging in an open, curious, non-directive exploration. of the meaning of a range of experiences that may connect to gender and broader self-identity (Bonfatto &. Crasnow, 2018; Churcher Clarke & Spiliadis, 2019; Di Ceglie, 2009; Spiliadis, 2019).
According to Ashley, conversion practices include not only direct attempts to change a person’s gender identity or gender expression, but any form of psychotherapy that examines possible causes of a person’s gender related distress or leads to any delay in medical transition
The role and nature of psychotherapeutic approaches to treating gender dysphoria is controversial.
According to Florida Medicaid, Littman (2018) is one of multiple studies to introduce “additional subtypes of gender dysphoria” (in this case, ROGD) [23]. It is not clear which studies outside of Littman’s 2018 article do propose additional subtypes, as--at this time--no such studies exist in the peer reviewed literature outside letters to the editor, specifically by Sinai et al (2022), Littman (2022), and Hutchinson et al (2020) [26 - 28]. Rather, the only published original research that follows up on Littman’s 2018 study on ROGD “...did not find support within a clinical population for a new etiologic phenomenon of rapid onset gender dysphoria during adolescence” [29]. In other words, the existence of ROGD is unsupported in current research.[31]