This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The McClurkin text is off-topic. This is not an article about notable ex-gays; debate was about homohobic comments, not about his ex-gay status. Put it in Ex-gay or Religion and homosexuality -- Dr.enh ( talk) 02:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
[outdent] This is not a page about McClurkin, not a page about his anti-gay views ("the curse of homosexuality"), not a page about McClurkin's explanations for homosexuality, not a page about whether he is gay or ex-gay, not an article about "persecution" of ex-gays. Again, I realize that it is hard for you to stay on topic, but please read WP:TOPIC. -- Dr.enh ( talk) 04:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Rm Signapore. Controversy about a grant to an ex-gay group is not debate about SOCE. Put it in Ex-gay -- Dr.enh ( talk) 02:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Rm DC. Court order about civil rights is not debate about SOCE. Put it in an article related to non-discrimination in Washington, D.C.-- Dr.enh ( talk) 02:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The lede contains the statement "The World Health Organization allows SOCE as a treatment for ego-dystonic sexual orientation." What does this even mean? First of all, WHO has no authority to "allow" or "disallow" specific treatments. Secondly, the treatments listed for ego-dystonic sexual orientation in the second source (the first says nothing of treatments) does not include SOCE. Gabbe ( talk) 16:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Which method used to treat people with a certain affliction is something that arguably falls under the purview of WP:MEDRS. We shouldn't be saying (or implying) "A is a method used to treat B" unless the vast majority of those practising evidence-based medicine considers "A" to be a valid treatment for "B". For an extreme example, we can't let the lead of an article say "Having sex with a virgin girl is a method used to treat HIV", even though many people in fact do this. What's necessary for including a statement about a medical treatment is for that statement to be held to be true by the majority of physicians. The quoted book does not support that. We could reword it with attribution to say "Supporters of SOCE consider it to be a method to treat egodystonic sexual behaviour" or similar. Gabbe ( talk) 09:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Joshuajohanson: You say that "in countries that use the WHO, a patient can go receive treatment to change their sexual orientation under the diagnosis of ego-dystonic sexual orientation". Do you have a source for that? The book is not very clear on the subject. For example, it doesn't say anything about where SOCE is available. Are you saying that from the source you've inferred that SOCE is an accepted treatment outside the US?
Regarding the book's reliability itself, just because something is a textbook doesn't mean that it's reliable. For example, Of Pandas and People is written with the intention of it being used as a high-school textbook in biology. Nevertheless, mainstream biologists reject most of its claims, and Pandas exhibits a fringe view. How do we know that the Ahuja book reflects the mainstream view of SOCE? For instance, if the book had been issued by Cambridge University Press, or if it were widely used in colleges and universities around the world, then we could reasonably assume that it would be a reliable source. Gabbe ( talk) 15:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
The fact that the ICD contains "ego-dystonic sexual orientation" does not mean that mainstream psychologists consider SOCE to be a valid treatment for it. By your argument, Joshua, you could say that the APA doesn't represent the position of people who practice past life regression (PLR) either, because the APA does not practice PLR. Just as with SOCE, the APA considers PLR to be a fringe practice, one has not been proven to work, and consequently urges its members not to perform it. Nevertheless there are lots of people who believe in PLR, and claim that the APA is biased (just as with SOCE). Indeed there are countries where the practice of PLR might be more prevalent than in others, and no doubt could we find some relatively obscure textbook claiming that PLR is a valid treatment for various ailments. But this does not change the fact that mainstream psychologists consider PLR (as well as SOCE) to be fringe. WP:NPOV does not say we should give equal validity to all views (see WP:GEVAL), but present the majority opinion of experts first and foremost, and avoid letting other views be given undue weight. Gabbe ( talk) 10:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we've drifted from the original question. The WHO does not "allow" ... it "recommends". Only those countries or doctors who choose to, are bound by it. We must remember that - despite the fond wishes of many - the UN is not a world government (not yet!), and its agencies do not make international law.
So it's better to say something like "The ICD suggests/recommends treatment A for condition X." We can also point out any dissenting views, such as the American Psychological Assocation, which tells its members not to use such a treatment.
The point is not to declare certain treatments OKAY or BAD, and is not to say that patients or clients CAN or CANNOT obtain a type of desired therapy. Rather, in accordance with NPOV policy, it is to describe the viewpoints of organizations (or other advocates) who declare their support or opposition for something. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 15:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Engaging in SOCE is not a treatment for ESO, it is a symptom. When I read the definition for ESO the key symptom of the disease is the desire to change orientation. This symptom can lead the patient enagaging in potentially dangerous bahavior such as participating in SOCE. SOCE is more accurately described as a symptom of the disease, not a treatment. - Tonyjkent ( talk) 14:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Opponents of SOCE say that SOCE shouldn't be allowed because there is no proof whether or not it is effective, and has a potential for harm. Supporters of SOCE say that people should be able to have the freedom to make their own choices over sexuality. They say that everyone should have equal access to public forums and access to accurate information. It has been argued that the position of SOCE advocates and all evidence and examples is "off-topic" and should not be included in this article. I personally think an article about SOCE should have the position of SOCE advocates. It makes sense to me. Joshuajohanson ( talk) 20:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Do mental health organizations require that a proposed treatment methodology be "proven effective" before they "allow" their members to try them out on patients? If so, when did this practice begin, and which therapies have been found to be (1) usually effective, (2) effective in some special cases, or (3) rarely or never effective? I am speaking in general terms, not just about " Same sex attachment disorder", but about phobias, neuroses, etc. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 15:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure the source used for the India claim technically qualifies for RS, in that it's a working paper, basicaly a work-in-progress aiming to become something that would be a reliable source. I'd be a bit more concerned if we were using it for claims of results rather than as a survey of what is attempted. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 14:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC) Oh, and let me add that this source should not be used to support the whole WHO/ego-dystonic thing, as it makes clear that in India, CT is generally used as a streatment for homosexuality itself ("despite the fact that international psychiatric circles no longer consider homosexuality as a mental illness or an abnormality, almost half of the health care providers we interviewed in Mumbai and Pune often treat it as a deviation or mental health problem that should be changed to a heterosexual orientation.") - Nat Gertler ( talk) 15:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I happened to find this quote: "Despite no modern mental health organizations finding any empirical or scientific basis to regard homosexuality as a disorder or abnormality, and all instead viewing it as a normal preference within the population that should be fostered within those who have it," and was taken aback by the breadth of the claims.
I looked at the reference, which pointed to an amicus curae filed by the APA. Clearly an amicus curae does not itself constitute the position of every modern mental health organization so I skimmed through the source itself. I didn't find anything supporting the claim that "no mental health organizations...". Can someone help me find the actual source for this statement? Same with the second claim that "all instead view it as...".
I'm thinking the article would be more accurate if it said "some" or "many". BabyJonas ( talk) 08:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I think this sentence confounds old, discredited methods - which no one on either side of the currently raging controversy supports - with the new methods. As far as I know, there are only two "therapies" currently in use (at least in the free world):
The former is based on psychology, though very likely (blatently?) motivated by religious ideas or feelings or desires. The latter emphasizes prayer and faith (and willpower?) - and I'm not clear on how much overlap there is between the two. My impression is that the "pray-to-be-ex-gay" movement doesn't have much use for psychologically based therapy, as they prefer to emphasize "personal choice" and "turning away from sin" over any kind of scientific approach.
Moreover, I think we can do our readers a service by distinguishing the various SOCE from each other - rather than blurring distinctions. To be sure, however, one thing they have in common is that all are (equally?) condemned by gay rights organizations. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 05:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I saw the word "longstanding" in the article in reference to positions of organizations on SOCE. I saw it elsewhere too, which made me wonder. Given how recent the issue of sexuality has arisen as a topic of academic and scientific importance, can we truly say any modern position on sexuality is longstanding? If we are being generous, we can only claim 40-50 years. The more I think about it, the more the idea represented by this word seems like non-encyclopedic bias rather than objective, neutral descriptor to me. BabyJonas ( talk) 02:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure how often this realistically takes place, but any discussion of "sexual orientation change efforts" should surely discuss efforts to change from opposite-sex attraction to same-sex attraction. The opening definition equating "sexual orientation change efforts" to the elimination of same-sex attraction is incomplete.
I not that much of this article covers the same ground as conversion therapy. Perhaps a merge is in order. Everybody got to be somewhere! ( talk) 21:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I've moved the PAHO section down to the professional associations section where it belongs, rather than the lede which is supposed to be a summary of the other material. I've also put quotes around things we're quoting, to make it clear. Having done that, however, it's still a fair bit of a mess, in that the item that we're quoting is not the "statement", but a press release about the statement. If we're going to do quoting, we should quote the actual statement; if we're going to describe the statement, we should either describe it ourselves our quote an appropriate third-party reliable source, rather than a hype document. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 16:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The article stated "There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude if SOCE work to change sexual orientation.". The actual quote from the paper is "There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether or not recent SOCE do or do not work to change a person’s sexual orientation." I am not sure why the "or not" got deleted, but it leaves a skewed impression. I put back in the "or not" so readers will understand there are also no studies that conclude that SOCE is ineffective. Peculiar Light ( talk) 19:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I've removed this material on attempts to change lesbians to heterosexuals from Corrective rape because most of it did not belong there, but I'm not sure exactly where in this article it belongs.
In the article "Ancient Hatred And Its Contemporary Manifestation: The Torture Of Lesbians," the author describes how lesbians in various parts of the world who are tortured face several forms of treatment, such as initially being shunned.[cite] An article describes punishments can either be given by the government but also often by members of the family of the lesbian or the community. The article mentions that when the family gives punishment, it is often difficult to have the punishment recognized as a violation of the lesbian’s human rights and as an instance of torture. In such circumstances the torturer can continue with impunity because “no one will ever know, no one will ever hear you, no one will ever find out.”[cite] In one example, the article describes Tina Machida, a Zimbabwean lesbian who lives in Harare. Machida writes, "They locked me in a room and brought him every day to rape me so I would fall pregnant and be forced to marry him. They did this to me until I was pregnant."[cite] The article discusses another case of a lesbian who had family issues: Irina, a Russian lesbian, had been tortured and ill-treated by the police, private investigators, and her own family members. Irina described how, in 1995, her sisters demanded she give up custody of her son and get psychiatric treatment in order to “cure” her homosexuality.[cite]
Particularly with regard to the latter two examples, I'm not sure if it is best to place them in an existing section or to create new sections. Corrective rape would seem to be best as a new section, but "Irina" and whatever methods we find were used in the Ecuadorean clinics we already discuss could either be a new section or possibly belong under conversion therapy or behavioral therapy, existing sections. What do you all think? – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 01:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I have modified the lead's definition of SOCE slightly here. The change alters "methods that aim to change a same-sex sexual orientation" to "methods that aim to change sexual orientation." To prevent any possible misunderstanding, let me explain my reasons for this. In the first place, I think the article should reflect the sources it is based upon as faithfully as possible. We need to stick closely to what they actually say, instead of trying to interpret or emend them. The APA says simply that SOCE is, "methods that aim to change sexual orientation", so the article should say that as well. In the second place, "methods that aim to change a same-sex sexual orientation" is potentially misleading. It could suggest that SOCE only aims to change a homosexual sexual orientation. Obviously SOCE could include attempts to change a bisexual sexual orientation as well. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 09:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
An off-hand reference to Aesthetic Realism was deleted. This philosophic education is irrelevant to a section about Syntonic Therapy. Sydney Bufford ( talk) 19:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the description of Marco Feliciano as "seemingly racist, homophobic." It ought to be totally clear that it is a violation of WP:BLP. If absolutely necessary, we can say that Feliciano has been described by a given person or source as being these things, but the accusations can never be placed in Wikipedia's voice. BLP protects everyone, including people who oppose gay rights. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 02:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Even though the article is about humans I think it would be important to include the scientific progress in sexual orientation changing when it comes to mice. It is accomplished through hormones given during fetal development. http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/05/study-science-can-change-the-sexual-orientations-of-mice/276311/ This kind of destroys most of the arguments in the article. It should be said that IMO they are not technically changing sexuality they are changing "gender" and sexuality is highly linked to it. Mice are less intelligent and less able to override their instinct with social programming than humans making them less likely to be gender variant and still heterosexual. That part is obviously original research though. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.136.200 ( talk) 19:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected links on Sexual orientation change efforts which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bchange\.org\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Joefromrandb, if you object to anything in this article, then you need to get consensus to remove it. I'm sorry if you think that you can endlessly revert other users without explanation and without trying to reach agreement; that's not how things are supposed to work here. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 02:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Peculiar Light: I've found that it was you who added the part about Krafft-Ebing, but left short Harvard citations that lead nowhere because you failed to add the full citations at the end of the article. Please correct this; "Rosario 1997" can refer to at least two different works considering the listing in Vernon Rosario#Selected publications, and I'm completely mystified by the "Krafft-Ebing 1965" citation. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 14:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Sexual orientation change efforts. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I recently added a tag suggesting that the article needs to be rewritten entirely because of its poor quality. The tag was removed by Joefromrandb with the comment, "the notion that a long-standing and fairly stable article needs to be completely rewritten is utter horseshit". What is actually "horseshit" is the idea that simply because an article is long-standing and fairly stable that it does not therefore need to be rewritten. Joefromrandb, you seem to be supposing that articles must be high-quality simply because they are stable. Would that this were true! Wikipedia actually has many articles that are very stable and very poor quality (experienced users know these things). I'm afraid the article is currently a mess. It is a poorly presented, semi-random assortment of facts that does not give full coverage of its topic. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 00:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Let's face it rewriting this entire article is a serious undertaking—just-fix-it arguments, which ordinarily might legitimately accompany most other tags, are not applicable here. El_C 01:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Sexual orientation change efforts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Sexual orientation change efforts#cite note-75
It does not mention the source exactly, how do I find it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.170.80.137 ( talk) 15:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Done See citation in Sexual orientation change efforts#Syntonic therapy Daask ( talk) 14:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
While reading this article, I noticed that some rather unsupported claims are made in the third paragraph - claims that essentially misrepresent the sources that they cite. Specifically, I take issue with this sentence in paragraph 3:
"Some individuals and groups have, contrary to global scientific research and consensus, promoted the idea of homosexuality as symptomatic of developmental defects or spiritual and moral failings and have argued that SOCE, including psychotherapy and religious efforts, could alter homosexual feelings and behaviors."
The problem with this sentence is that it implies that there is a global consensus that it is not ever possible to change one's sexual orientation. The problem is, that isn't actually what the footnotes it cites say. They merely reiterate the claim that no study has yet shown that one definitively can change one's sexual orientation, not that such change is proven to be impossible. In fact, the American Psychological Association, which this article cites repeatedly (including after the above sentence), says:
"There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether or not recent SOCE do or do not work to change a person’s sexual orientation."
Emphasis on no studies...to conclude whether or not. So APA isn't saying that there's a global consensus that orientation change can't happen, nor is it saying that anyone who claims it's possible is going against the consensus; their claim is that there's no way to tell because there isn't enough evidence one way or the other. Why, then, does this Wikipedia page claim that it is counter to the "scientific consensus" to claim that it may be possible to change orientation, something the scientific community has yet to reach a conclusion on?
Additionally, I see one other issue with this sentence:
"Such efforts are potentially harmful because they present the view that the sexual orientation of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth is a mental illness or disorder, ..."
That is also an unsupported claim made by this article. Nothing in the citations indicates that ALL efforts to change orientation are based on the idea that being gay is a disease. The only citation is another APA article. I read the article, and while it does say that homosexuality is not a disease, it definitely does not claim anywhere that all efforts to change orientation are based on the idea that being non-hetero is a mental disease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.191.252 ( talk) 03:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I have tagged the lede for including close paraphrasing of language from another source. The other source is http://www.apa.org/about/policy/sexual-orientation.aspx. Frankly, significant chunks of the lede appear to have been lifted directly from this APA report or very closely paraphrased. I have turned some of the material into quotes, but more work remains to be done to correct the problem. SunCrow ( talk) 10:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
However, nor are they worth an edit war. Mancalledsting ( talk) 20:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
It is indeed a de facto ban. Mancalledsting ( talk) 20:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I removed such sourced claims in the article, as per https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/health/dr-robert-l-spitzer-noted-psychiatrist-apologizes-for-study-on-gay-cure.html
and the Spitzer article itself.
Still there is this study listed in the Refs. Do remove it, as cannot do so on mobile. Zezen ( talk) 07:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I propose a name change for this article to 'Sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression change efforts' (SOGIGECE). Just keeping it to sexual orientation limits the extents these methods go about trying to change someone, especially trans and further members of the queer community. The need to reflect efforts undertaken to change gender identity and gender expression are currently lost in the page's name. Jamzze ( talk) 10:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I propose merging Conversion therapy into this article. I do not see reliable sources which indicate that conversion therapy is one of multiple kinds of sexual orientation change efforts. I do not understand a difference in definition. I do not think there is a substantial difference between therapy and non-therapy interventions, nor do I see this distinction in reliable sources. Please correct me if I am mistaken. Daask ( talk) 14:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The McClurkin text is off-topic. This is not an article about notable ex-gays; debate was about homohobic comments, not about his ex-gay status. Put it in Ex-gay or Religion and homosexuality -- Dr.enh ( talk) 02:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
[outdent] This is not a page about McClurkin, not a page about his anti-gay views ("the curse of homosexuality"), not a page about McClurkin's explanations for homosexuality, not a page about whether he is gay or ex-gay, not an article about "persecution" of ex-gays. Again, I realize that it is hard for you to stay on topic, but please read WP:TOPIC. -- Dr.enh ( talk) 04:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Rm Signapore. Controversy about a grant to an ex-gay group is not debate about SOCE. Put it in Ex-gay -- Dr.enh ( talk) 02:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Rm DC. Court order about civil rights is not debate about SOCE. Put it in an article related to non-discrimination in Washington, D.C.-- Dr.enh ( talk) 02:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
The lede contains the statement "The World Health Organization allows SOCE as a treatment for ego-dystonic sexual orientation." What does this even mean? First of all, WHO has no authority to "allow" or "disallow" specific treatments. Secondly, the treatments listed for ego-dystonic sexual orientation in the second source (the first says nothing of treatments) does not include SOCE. Gabbe ( talk) 16:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Which method used to treat people with a certain affliction is something that arguably falls under the purview of WP:MEDRS. We shouldn't be saying (or implying) "A is a method used to treat B" unless the vast majority of those practising evidence-based medicine considers "A" to be a valid treatment for "B". For an extreme example, we can't let the lead of an article say "Having sex with a virgin girl is a method used to treat HIV", even though many people in fact do this. What's necessary for including a statement about a medical treatment is for that statement to be held to be true by the majority of physicians. The quoted book does not support that. We could reword it with attribution to say "Supporters of SOCE consider it to be a method to treat egodystonic sexual behaviour" or similar. Gabbe ( talk) 09:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Joshuajohanson: You say that "in countries that use the WHO, a patient can go receive treatment to change their sexual orientation under the diagnosis of ego-dystonic sexual orientation". Do you have a source for that? The book is not very clear on the subject. For example, it doesn't say anything about where SOCE is available. Are you saying that from the source you've inferred that SOCE is an accepted treatment outside the US?
Regarding the book's reliability itself, just because something is a textbook doesn't mean that it's reliable. For example, Of Pandas and People is written with the intention of it being used as a high-school textbook in biology. Nevertheless, mainstream biologists reject most of its claims, and Pandas exhibits a fringe view. How do we know that the Ahuja book reflects the mainstream view of SOCE? For instance, if the book had been issued by Cambridge University Press, or if it were widely used in colleges and universities around the world, then we could reasonably assume that it would be a reliable source. Gabbe ( talk) 15:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
The fact that the ICD contains "ego-dystonic sexual orientation" does not mean that mainstream psychologists consider SOCE to be a valid treatment for it. By your argument, Joshua, you could say that the APA doesn't represent the position of people who practice past life regression (PLR) either, because the APA does not practice PLR. Just as with SOCE, the APA considers PLR to be a fringe practice, one has not been proven to work, and consequently urges its members not to perform it. Nevertheless there are lots of people who believe in PLR, and claim that the APA is biased (just as with SOCE). Indeed there are countries where the practice of PLR might be more prevalent than in others, and no doubt could we find some relatively obscure textbook claiming that PLR is a valid treatment for various ailments. But this does not change the fact that mainstream psychologists consider PLR (as well as SOCE) to be fringe. WP:NPOV does not say we should give equal validity to all views (see WP:GEVAL), but present the majority opinion of experts first and foremost, and avoid letting other views be given undue weight. Gabbe ( talk) 10:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we've drifted from the original question. The WHO does not "allow" ... it "recommends". Only those countries or doctors who choose to, are bound by it. We must remember that - despite the fond wishes of many - the UN is not a world government (not yet!), and its agencies do not make international law.
So it's better to say something like "The ICD suggests/recommends treatment A for condition X." We can also point out any dissenting views, such as the American Psychological Assocation, which tells its members not to use such a treatment.
The point is not to declare certain treatments OKAY or BAD, and is not to say that patients or clients CAN or CANNOT obtain a type of desired therapy. Rather, in accordance with NPOV policy, it is to describe the viewpoints of organizations (or other advocates) who declare their support or opposition for something. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 15:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Engaging in SOCE is not a treatment for ESO, it is a symptom. When I read the definition for ESO the key symptom of the disease is the desire to change orientation. This symptom can lead the patient enagaging in potentially dangerous bahavior such as participating in SOCE. SOCE is more accurately described as a symptom of the disease, not a treatment. - Tonyjkent ( talk) 14:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Opponents of SOCE say that SOCE shouldn't be allowed because there is no proof whether or not it is effective, and has a potential for harm. Supporters of SOCE say that people should be able to have the freedom to make their own choices over sexuality. They say that everyone should have equal access to public forums and access to accurate information. It has been argued that the position of SOCE advocates and all evidence and examples is "off-topic" and should not be included in this article. I personally think an article about SOCE should have the position of SOCE advocates. It makes sense to me. Joshuajohanson ( talk) 20:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Do mental health organizations require that a proposed treatment methodology be "proven effective" before they "allow" their members to try them out on patients? If so, when did this practice begin, and which therapies have been found to be (1) usually effective, (2) effective in some special cases, or (3) rarely or never effective? I am speaking in general terms, not just about " Same sex attachment disorder", but about phobias, neuroses, etc. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 15:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure the source used for the India claim technically qualifies for RS, in that it's a working paper, basicaly a work-in-progress aiming to become something that would be a reliable source. I'd be a bit more concerned if we were using it for claims of results rather than as a survey of what is attempted. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 14:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC) Oh, and let me add that this source should not be used to support the whole WHO/ego-dystonic thing, as it makes clear that in India, CT is generally used as a streatment for homosexuality itself ("despite the fact that international psychiatric circles no longer consider homosexuality as a mental illness or an abnormality, almost half of the health care providers we interviewed in Mumbai and Pune often treat it as a deviation or mental health problem that should be changed to a heterosexual orientation.") - Nat Gertler ( talk) 15:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I happened to find this quote: "Despite no modern mental health organizations finding any empirical or scientific basis to regard homosexuality as a disorder or abnormality, and all instead viewing it as a normal preference within the population that should be fostered within those who have it," and was taken aback by the breadth of the claims.
I looked at the reference, which pointed to an amicus curae filed by the APA. Clearly an amicus curae does not itself constitute the position of every modern mental health organization so I skimmed through the source itself. I didn't find anything supporting the claim that "no mental health organizations...". Can someone help me find the actual source for this statement? Same with the second claim that "all instead view it as...".
I'm thinking the article would be more accurate if it said "some" or "many". BabyJonas ( talk) 08:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I think this sentence confounds old, discredited methods - which no one on either side of the currently raging controversy supports - with the new methods. As far as I know, there are only two "therapies" currently in use (at least in the free world):
The former is based on psychology, though very likely (blatently?) motivated by religious ideas or feelings or desires. The latter emphasizes prayer and faith (and willpower?) - and I'm not clear on how much overlap there is between the two. My impression is that the "pray-to-be-ex-gay" movement doesn't have much use for psychologically based therapy, as they prefer to emphasize "personal choice" and "turning away from sin" over any kind of scientific approach.
Moreover, I think we can do our readers a service by distinguishing the various SOCE from each other - rather than blurring distinctions. To be sure, however, one thing they have in common is that all are (equally?) condemned by gay rights organizations. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 05:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I saw the word "longstanding" in the article in reference to positions of organizations on SOCE. I saw it elsewhere too, which made me wonder. Given how recent the issue of sexuality has arisen as a topic of academic and scientific importance, can we truly say any modern position on sexuality is longstanding? If we are being generous, we can only claim 40-50 years. The more I think about it, the more the idea represented by this word seems like non-encyclopedic bias rather than objective, neutral descriptor to me. BabyJonas ( talk) 02:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure how often this realistically takes place, but any discussion of "sexual orientation change efforts" should surely discuss efforts to change from opposite-sex attraction to same-sex attraction. The opening definition equating "sexual orientation change efforts" to the elimination of same-sex attraction is incomplete.
I not that much of this article covers the same ground as conversion therapy. Perhaps a merge is in order. Everybody got to be somewhere! ( talk) 21:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I've moved the PAHO section down to the professional associations section where it belongs, rather than the lede which is supposed to be a summary of the other material. I've also put quotes around things we're quoting, to make it clear. Having done that, however, it's still a fair bit of a mess, in that the item that we're quoting is not the "statement", but a press release about the statement. If we're going to do quoting, we should quote the actual statement; if we're going to describe the statement, we should either describe it ourselves our quote an appropriate third-party reliable source, rather than a hype document. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 16:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The article stated "There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude if SOCE work to change sexual orientation.". The actual quote from the paper is "There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether or not recent SOCE do or do not work to change a person’s sexual orientation." I am not sure why the "or not" got deleted, but it leaves a skewed impression. I put back in the "or not" so readers will understand there are also no studies that conclude that SOCE is ineffective. Peculiar Light ( talk) 19:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I've removed this material on attempts to change lesbians to heterosexuals from Corrective rape because most of it did not belong there, but I'm not sure exactly where in this article it belongs.
In the article "Ancient Hatred And Its Contemporary Manifestation: The Torture Of Lesbians," the author describes how lesbians in various parts of the world who are tortured face several forms of treatment, such as initially being shunned.[cite] An article describes punishments can either be given by the government but also often by members of the family of the lesbian or the community. The article mentions that when the family gives punishment, it is often difficult to have the punishment recognized as a violation of the lesbian’s human rights and as an instance of torture. In such circumstances the torturer can continue with impunity because “no one will ever know, no one will ever hear you, no one will ever find out.”[cite] In one example, the article describes Tina Machida, a Zimbabwean lesbian who lives in Harare. Machida writes, "They locked me in a room and brought him every day to rape me so I would fall pregnant and be forced to marry him. They did this to me until I was pregnant."[cite] The article discusses another case of a lesbian who had family issues: Irina, a Russian lesbian, had been tortured and ill-treated by the police, private investigators, and her own family members. Irina described how, in 1995, her sisters demanded she give up custody of her son and get psychiatric treatment in order to “cure” her homosexuality.[cite]
Particularly with regard to the latter two examples, I'm not sure if it is best to place them in an existing section or to create new sections. Corrective rape would seem to be best as a new section, but "Irina" and whatever methods we find were used in the Ecuadorean clinics we already discuss could either be a new section or possibly belong under conversion therapy or behavioral therapy, existing sections. What do you all think? – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 01:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I have modified the lead's definition of SOCE slightly here. The change alters "methods that aim to change a same-sex sexual orientation" to "methods that aim to change sexual orientation." To prevent any possible misunderstanding, let me explain my reasons for this. In the first place, I think the article should reflect the sources it is based upon as faithfully as possible. We need to stick closely to what they actually say, instead of trying to interpret or emend them. The APA says simply that SOCE is, "methods that aim to change sexual orientation", so the article should say that as well. In the second place, "methods that aim to change a same-sex sexual orientation" is potentially misleading. It could suggest that SOCE only aims to change a homosexual sexual orientation. Obviously SOCE could include attempts to change a bisexual sexual orientation as well. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 09:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
An off-hand reference to Aesthetic Realism was deleted. This philosophic education is irrelevant to a section about Syntonic Therapy. Sydney Bufford ( talk) 19:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the description of Marco Feliciano as "seemingly racist, homophobic." It ought to be totally clear that it is a violation of WP:BLP. If absolutely necessary, we can say that Feliciano has been described by a given person or source as being these things, but the accusations can never be placed in Wikipedia's voice. BLP protects everyone, including people who oppose gay rights. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 02:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Even though the article is about humans I think it would be important to include the scientific progress in sexual orientation changing when it comes to mice. It is accomplished through hormones given during fetal development. http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/05/study-science-can-change-the-sexual-orientations-of-mice/276311/ This kind of destroys most of the arguments in the article. It should be said that IMO they are not technically changing sexuality they are changing "gender" and sexuality is highly linked to it. Mice are less intelligent and less able to override their instinct with social programming than humans making them less likely to be gender variant and still heterosexual. That part is obviously original research though. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.136.200 ( talk) 19:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected links on Sexual orientation change efforts which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\bchange\.org\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Joefromrandb, if you object to anything in this article, then you need to get consensus to remove it. I'm sorry if you think that you can endlessly revert other users without explanation and without trying to reach agreement; that's not how things are supposed to work here. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 02:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
@ Peculiar Light: I've found that it was you who added the part about Krafft-Ebing, but left short Harvard citations that lead nowhere because you failed to add the full citations at the end of the article. Please correct this; "Rosario 1997" can refer to at least two different works considering the listing in Vernon Rosario#Selected publications, and I'm completely mystified by the "Krafft-Ebing 1965" citation. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 14:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Sexual orientation change efforts. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I recently added a tag suggesting that the article needs to be rewritten entirely because of its poor quality. The tag was removed by Joefromrandb with the comment, "the notion that a long-standing and fairly stable article needs to be completely rewritten is utter horseshit". What is actually "horseshit" is the idea that simply because an article is long-standing and fairly stable that it does not therefore need to be rewritten. Joefromrandb, you seem to be supposing that articles must be high-quality simply because they are stable. Would that this were true! Wikipedia actually has many articles that are very stable and very poor quality (experienced users know these things). I'm afraid the article is currently a mess. It is a poorly presented, semi-random assortment of facts that does not give full coverage of its topic. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 00:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Let's face it rewriting this entire article is a serious undertaking—just-fix-it arguments, which ordinarily might legitimately accompany most other tags, are not applicable here. El_C 01:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Sexual orientation change efforts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Sexual orientation change efforts#cite note-75
It does not mention the source exactly, how do I find it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.170.80.137 ( talk) 15:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Done See citation in Sexual orientation change efforts#Syntonic therapy Daask ( talk) 14:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
While reading this article, I noticed that some rather unsupported claims are made in the third paragraph - claims that essentially misrepresent the sources that they cite. Specifically, I take issue with this sentence in paragraph 3:
"Some individuals and groups have, contrary to global scientific research and consensus, promoted the idea of homosexuality as symptomatic of developmental defects or spiritual and moral failings and have argued that SOCE, including psychotherapy and religious efforts, could alter homosexual feelings and behaviors."
The problem with this sentence is that it implies that there is a global consensus that it is not ever possible to change one's sexual orientation. The problem is, that isn't actually what the footnotes it cites say. They merely reiterate the claim that no study has yet shown that one definitively can change one's sexual orientation, not that such change is proven to be impossible. In fact, the American Psychological Association, which this article cites repeatedly (including after the above sentence), says:
"There are no studies of adequate scientific rigor to conclude whether or not recent SOCE do or do not work to change a person’s sexual orientation."
Emphasis on no studies...to conclude whether or not. So APA isn't saying that there's a global consensus that orientation change can't happen, nor is it saying that anyone who claims it's possible is going against the consensus; their claim is that there's no way to tell because there isn't enough evidence one way or the other. Why, then, does this Wikipedia page claim that it is counter to the "scientific consensus" to claim that it may be possible to change orientation, something the scientific community has yet to reach a conclusion on?
Additionally, I see one other issue with this sentence:
"Such efforts are potentially harmful because they present the view that the sexual orientation of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth is a mental illness or disorder, ..."
That is also an unsupported claim made by this article. Nothing in the citations indicates that ALL efforts to change orientation are based on the idea that being gay is a disease. The only citation is another APA article. I read the article, and while it does say that homosexuality is not a disease, it definitely does not claim anywhere that all efforts to change orientation are based on the idea that being non-hetero is a mental disease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.191.252 ( talk) 03:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I have tagged the lede for including close paraphrasing of language from another source. The other source is http://www.apa.org/about/policy/sexual-orientation.aspx. Frankly, significant chunks of the lede appear to have been lifted directly from this APA report or very closely paraphrased. I have turned some of the material into quotes, but more work remains to be done to correct the problem. SunCrow ( talk) 10:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
However, nor are they worth an edit war. Mancalledsting ( talk) 20:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
It is indeed a de facto ban. Mancalledsting ( talk) 20:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
I removed such sourced claims in the article, as per https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/health/dr-robert-l-spitzer-noted-psychiatrist-apologizes-for-study-on-gay-cure.html
and the Spitzer article itself.
Still there is this study listed in the Refs. Do remove it, as cannot do so on mobile. Zezen ( talk) 07:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I propose a name change for this article to 'Sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression change efforts' (SOGIGECE). Just keeping it to sexual orientation limits the extents these methods go about trying to change someone, especially trans and further members of the queer community. The need to reflect efforts undertaken to change gender identity and gender expression are currently lost in the page's name. Jamzze ( talk) 10:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I propose merging Conversion therapy into this article. I do not see reliable sources which indicate that conversion therapy is one of multiple kinds of sexual orientation change efforts. I do not understand a difference in definition. I do not think there is a substantial difference between therapy and non-therapy interventions, nor do I see this distinction in reliable sources. Please correct me if I am mistaken. Daask ( talk) 14:02, 5 February 2018 (UTC)