Category talk:Conversion therapy

This category should be abolished
Because it is pointless. There are other categories that cover this stuff - notably ex-gay organizations and ex-gay people. No one has made a proper case that this category is necessary. It seems an admin has just created it because of a dispute he is engaged in with me about the Aesthetic Realism article. Skoojal (talk) 06:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Criteria and name
If you don't want endless arguments about the subject. Personally, I think that the only article that would properly belong in this category along with Conversion therapy is Reparative therapy - except that there isn't an article specifically on that subject. Skoojal (talk) 08:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It needs to be renamed as there does seem to be consensus that some category should exist. I'm now leaning towards Changing sexuality to be broad and inclusive. Any ideas? Banj e  b oi   11:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That seems quite concise and clear in meaning. Perhaps it would also be helpful to develop a description of Category:Changing sexuality that sets out its scope?--Trystan (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Is "sexuality" better than "sexual orientation"? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Many of these so-called "ex-gay" organizations are avoiding the term ex-gay and focusing on changing sexual behaviors rather than sexual orientation. If we say "sexual orientation" then many groups in the ex-gay category would not fit.  I agree with Category:Changing sexuality. I do have one question.  What about bisexual people, who frequently and naturally change sexuality?  Do they belong here?  What about Anne Heche, who left Ellen Degeneres for Coleman Laffoon?  Ex-gay groups have often pointed to that as "changing sexuality", though she herself says she "I have been very clear to everybody that just because I'm getting married does not mean I call myself a straight."  What about Tedd Haggard?  Would he fit? Let me repeat, I think Changing sexuality is a better category, and I support the change.  However, these are questions that have come up in the past, and will come up again. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's OK with me. So Category:Changing sexuality would be a broad category to include the "ex-gay" categories plus other articles that deal with changing sexuality? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Changing sexuality would be better than Conversion therapy. In the interests of not having endless arguments with people, I'm willing to stop objecting to applying this category to Aversion therapy and Aesthetic Realism if the renaming goes ahead. Skoojal (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It can also be, as I think about it, less contentious to be clunky - Changing sexuality, orientation and behaviour which would help fold in more research. I think if we go this route we should also set-up some NPOV sub categories like "Research" and "Advocacy". Banj e  b oi   02:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Another subcategory an editor proposed elsewhre is "techniques". ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 05:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I prefer the shorter title. Skoojal (talk) 10:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To Will Beback, I'm concerned "techniques" is rather limiting, do we really have that many articles about techniques?
 * To Skoojal, please explain why you prefer the shorter title or should we start a vote process and discuss then? Banj e  b oi   18:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I prefer the short title because I like short titles, and prefer to keep things simple. Skoojal (talk) 07:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I will accept that if we include in the descriptor that Changing sexuality, orientation and behaviour are considered a part of the category. Does that work? Banj e  b oi   20:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine. Skoojal (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If that's done, can Cat:Conversion therapy and :Changing sexuality be combined? There seems to be complete overlap... --zenohockey (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we can now depopulate this category and redirect the talkpage there. Any objections? -- Banj e b oi   20:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience
I've added the pseudoscience category per List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience. Viriditas (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Should not be in pseudoscience category
I don't think this article belongs in the pseudoscience category. There are a number of studies such as this one that find that conversion therapy is often effective. At most, this article belongs in the Medical controversies category. Just because some people don't like conversion therapy, doesn't mean that it's pseudoscience. 70.128.120.202 (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * See answer here. --McSly (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)