Category talk:Organizations in the ex-gay movement

Criteria
This category does not appear to have an objective criteria. What are the goals of the Ex-gay movement? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a list of organizations whose goals align with the Ex-gay movement.


 * If there are no other sources, I'm going to change the criteria to simply say that the criteria for the category is providing therapy to change homosexuals. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 04:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't redefine categories as a way of dealing with disputes over articles. Skoojal (talk) 04:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The motivation doesn't matter, and your statement shows a failure to assume good faith. The criteria is unclear, and should either be clarified or deleted. ·:· Will Beback  ·:·
 * I think you'll find that, while Ex-gay organizations do try to change the sexual orientation of homosexuals, they don't necessarily do so through therapy. If you change the definition of the category, I may well change it back. Skoojal (talk) 05:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Another alternative is to have no criteria. This undefined criteria is worse than useless. ·:· Will Beback  ·:·

LGBT organizations
Putting Ex-gay organizations in the LGBT organizations category makes no sense. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you give a better argument than that? These organizations cater to LGBT people.  They might have a different the goal than the majority of the LGBT community, but they are just as valid of people and goals as the majority of the LGBT community.  Their presence is substantial, and the are LGBT, so why not include them? Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we put the Museum of Tolerance under Racist organizations? The museum caters to racist people. They might have a different goal than the majority of the racist community, but...
 * Or should we put Lighthouse Ministries as an LDS organization?
 * Really, now. There's a difference between catering to and targeting. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a difference between catering and targeting. The members of these organizations are LGBT and chose to belong to these organizations.  Many were organized by LGBT people.  Are the members of the Museum of Tolerance racist? Are the members of Lighthouse Ministries LDS?  The members of these organizations are LGBT.  I don't see the problem. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course the whole point of these organizations is to stop them from being LGBT. To use another example, Jews for Jesus would claim they are Jews, but they still aren't listed under Jewish organizations because the point of their organization is to convert Jews to Christianity. It would be far better and more honest to list the Ex-gay organizations under Christian organizations or Heterosexual organizations. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 04:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not all of these groups are Christian, so Christian organizations wouldn't work. I don't think any of these organizations try to make people heterosexual, so I wouldn't consider it a heterosexual organization.  The problem with using religion as an example is being a religion is a choice.  Other Jewish organizations can set criteria for what people need to believe in order to be considered a Jewish religions.  Being LGBT is completely different.  You can't have the LGBT community decide what you need to believe or do in order to be LGBT.  It isn't an organization that you are trying to get membership for. These people are LGBT regardless of what they believe or how they lead their lives.  The only requirement to be LGB is same-sex attraction.  If you have that, then you are in the group. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You still miss the point. These organizations are against the very thing that define their targets - same-sex attraction. That's why they're not LGBT organizations. Sure they're not all Christians - some are Muslim, some are Jewish, others are just plain old Heterosupremacist. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * LGB people are much more than just their sexual attractions.


 * Er, ok? I know that? Why on earth would you think you need to say that to me?


 * The definition of the category LGBT organizations says "LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) organizations, including organizations of or for LGBT persons, or about LGBT issues." I think it fits all three categories. It is definitely of LGBT people (unless you think they are turned straight as soon as they walk in).  It definitely deals with LGBT issues (same-sex attraction only applies to LGBT people).  I think it is for LGBT people, because these LGBT people go willingly to these organizations for help with a certain issue.  You can't make up your own definition that it needs to promote same-sex attraction.  We need to stick with definition of the category. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Still not convinced. This is the first paragraph from Ex-gay.


 * Ex-gay is a term and concept used to describe persons who once identified as gay or lesbian (or any orientation other than heterosexual), but have since chosen to identify as heterosexual, or some other sexual orientation. The Ex-Gay Movement consists of people and organisations trying to change the sexual orientation of people who are not heterosexual. Some ex-gays enter into opposite-sex relationships, while others remain celibate. While "ex-gays" may report a reduction in same-sex desires, they may also continue to experience same-sex attraction [1][2][3] even though they do not identify as "gay".


 * You can't group a bunch of organizations trying to eliminate LGBT people into LGBT organizations just because the victims "chose" to go there themselves. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Victims? What sense are they victims?  These are LGBT people who wish to improve their lives.  That is it.  What do you have against them?  These organizations are hardly trying to eliminate LGBT people. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems we're not getting anywhere. Anyway, you do not have consensus for inserting the category. Feel free to escalate to whatever instance you deem appropriate. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that the definition on the ex-gay page was faulty. I have edited it to make clear that it is the sexual identity that has changed, not the sexual orientation. I think now that I have edited it, it makes more sense to put ex-gay organizations under LGBT. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I still disagree. None of these organizations identify as LGBT organizations. Most of them identify as religious organizations. Just because they target LGBT people doesn't make them LGBT organizations. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There are lots of LGBT religious organizations. Just because it is religious doesn't mean that it isn't LGBT.  Most of them refer to people with homosexual attractions.  There is a lot of different terminologies out there.  Several organizations on this list refer to themselves as queer.  However, it doesn't make sense to have a category for LGBT groups, another one for queer groups, and another one for homosexual groups, or groups for people with a homosexual attraction.  LGBT is a blanket term that covers all of these organizations. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, these aren't LGBT religious organizations. These are religious organizations that target LGBT people. These organizations don't fit any of the categories you name, so why should they even be in one? Just keep them like this. (Also, not that it'll change anything, but which organizations refer to themselves as queer?) Ratatosk Jones (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It fits the category of homosexual groups, since almost all of the organizations say they are for people with unwanted homosexual attractions. Whether they are wanted or not, they are still homosexual attractions. I think a name change will be clearer. Either way, if you look at the top of this top page you will see that it does fall under LGBT studies. Joshuajohanson (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant. It falls under LGBT studies because these organizations target LGBT people, not because the organizations themselves are LGBT. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That just proves my point, the target audience is LGBT people. It is composed of LGBT people. It deals with LGBT issues.  If the target audience is LGBT people, then it is a LGBT organization. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't prove your point. Being as vague as possible about who founds these organizations, funds and controls them, and what they aim to do doesn't make them fit the criteria. Also, do any of these organizations actually self-identify as LGBT? I've visited their websites, I've read their propaganda, and as far as I can see there's only one person claiming this - you. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't even know what your point is. You admit that their target audience is LGBT people, but then you say I am the only one that is saying their target audience is LGBT people.  You go to their web sites and it very clearly says they are an organizations for people with unwanted homosexual attractions.  Being vague or clear doesn't make them fit the criteria, but the fact that their target audience is LGBT people, which you admit to, but then say I am making it up. Is there a difference between LGBT people and people with a homosexual attraction?  I thought that was the same thing.  Should we put them in a separate category for Homosexual organizations?  It doesn't make sense because the term LGBT includes homosexual people. I really don't get what you are saying.  Are LGBT people their target audience or are these groups composed of people who aren't LGBT? Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, if a Homosexual organizations category existed we wouldn't put them there either. They do not identify as such, nor are they considered such by other LGBT organizations, or anyone else for that matter. My point is fairly simple: you're the only one claiming these are LGBT organizations, and to do so, you have to shave off all but the most general and vague of descriptions. Since it seems you are currently involved in an edit war over pretty much the same issue on another page, I don't think I'm the one who's not making a point here. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They identify as a group for people with homosexual attractions. If someone has homosexual attractions, doesn't that mean they are homosexual? What is the difference?  If people with homosexual attractions aren't LGBT, why is it in the LGBT studies?  You said they target LGBT people.  Now are you saying that the target audience is not LGBT people, but people with homosexual attractions?  You're obviously not the one making a point because you aren't making any point at all.  I don't understand what you are saying. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That is obvious by now, but I don't think that's my fault. I've answered your questions and misconceptions. There's no need for me to repeat myself. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Is the ex-gay the best name?
The only organization that claims to be an ex-gay organization is PFOX. Is this the best name? Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How about organizations for people with unwanted homosexual attractions? That is the terminology most of these groups use. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move
Category:Ex-gay organizations → Category:Organizations of people with unwanted homosexual attractions &mdash; Ex-gay incorrectly implies that sexual orientation can be changed. Hardly any of these organizations claim to change sexual orientation, nor do they self identity as ex-gay. The usage has been denounced by a prominent leader in the movement. Many members of these organizations never self-identified as gay, and others seek after celibacy rather than heterosexuality. Unwanted homosexual attractions is a term that is consistent through all of these organizations. Joshuajohanson (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed the movereq tag, because that's for article moves only. Renaming categories should be proposed at Categories for discussion. Jafeluv (talk) 06:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)