Talk:Sexual orientation change efforts/Archive 2

McClurkin
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)
 * This is the text of the source that you deleted:
 * "But last weekend, a competing Democratic farce debuted: Barack Obama's three "Embrace the Change" concerts featuring Grammy-winning "ex-gay" gospel singer Donnie McClurkin.


 * "All the characters in this melodrama played their roles to the hilt. Gay-rights organizations demanded that McClurkin be dropped. Numerous bloggers cast doubt on the fullness of McClurkin's "recovery." Obama's campaign staff hastily added a gay minister to give an opening prayer. But it was McClurkin who dominated the event, claiming before an audience of about 2,000 Sunday in Columbia, S.C.: "I don't speak against the homosexuals. I tell you that God delivered me from homosexuality. No matter what blog you read, let me tell you, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature!"
 * They questioned his recovery, or to put it in terms of this article, his claim of the effectiveness of SOCE. He says he does not "speak against the homosexuals", but that God delivered him from homosexuality, or in other words, he found that for him religious approaches to SOCE seemed to be effective.  Gay right activists claimed that by relating the successfulness of his religiously mediated efforts at changing his sexual orientation, he is being homophobic because he is implying that a person may not want to change their sexual orientation.  He has been very clear that he is not against people who do not want to change their sexual orientation, but only wants to help those who do want to change their sexual orientation.  The opposition to including him in the concert centered on SOCE, both that he claimed to be successful and that he claimed that others could be successful.  Opponents say those views are homophobic.  So the question at stake is whether or not promoting SOCE really amounts to "homophobic comments", as some have claimed, and whether those who promote it should be removed from public forums, or whether those who promote SOCE should be able to have equal access to public forums.  This is the heart of the debate. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The text I deleted says that McClurkin is controversial because he is an ex-gay. The sources do not support that. McClurkin is controversial because of his antigay statements ("homosexuality is a curse"). Please read Correlation does not imply causation. You say "God delivered him from homosexuality" means that McClurkin found "religious approaches to SOCE to be effective." I say "God delivered him from homosexuality" means that McClurkin views homosexuality as an enemy, as an evil, and that is an anti-gay statement. Until one of us finds a reliable source to support our interpretation, McClurkin does not belong in Wikipedia at all.  --Dr.enh (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess I don't understand. You do not think him saying "God delivered him from homosexuality" is a SOCE?  Having God deliver him from homosexuality means God changed his sexual orientation.  That is a sexual orientation change effort.  Now, the reason McClurkin sought a change in sexual orientation is probably because he viewed homosexuality as an evil.  Why else would he seek to change it?  Usually, if someone wants to change their sexual orientation, it is because they don't like their current sexual orientation and want a new one.  You can't separate the two sentiments.  However, the basis of the criticism was that he said "God delivered him from homosexuality" which means that God changed his sexual orientation.  Yes, that implies that there was a reason God changed it.  Usually, people don't claim that God delivered them from something unless they think the change was good.  The ability to be able to decide whether or not SOCE is good for you is an important part of this article.  So whether criticism is because God changed his sexual orientation or that he thought it was a good thing that God changed his sexual orientation, it belongs in this article. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * When you say "God delivered him from homosexuality" is a SOCE you are making an interpretation of what McClurkin said. Regardless of whether or not your interpretation is true, that interpretation requires a reliable source. Otherwise that interpretation is a form of WP:OR, and thus inadmissible. Gabbe (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How can God deliver someone from homosexuality without changing their sexual orientation? You can't be delivered from homosexuality without changing your sexual orientation. According to the dictionary, deliver means "to set free or liberate: The Israelites were delivered from bondage."  By delivering the Israelites from bondage, it means that they were no longer slaves, but a free people.  If they remained in bondage, they couldn't have been delivered from bondage.  That is the definition of the word.  How could someone be delivered from homosexuality if they continue to have homosexuality as their sexual orientation.  Now, it has been argued that McClurkin wasn't really delivered from homosexuality.  That question is up for debate.  But the question of whether or not someone who was homosexual but was delivered from homosexuality entails that they have changed their sexual orientation is obvious from the definition of the word deliver. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've put up a query at WP:NORN to see what others think. Gabbe (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't just that he said God delivered him from homosexuality. The controversy also included speculation on the effectiveness of his SOCE.  The source said "Numerous bloggers cast doubt on the fullness of McClurkin's "recovery.""  In other words, they doubted whether SOCE really worked for him or not.  SOCE was the heart of the debate. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is a clearer source. It says:
 * "McClurkin says he once suffered from "the curse of homosexuality" and has used his platform as a well-known gospel singer to spread untruths about gay and lesbian people. "There are countless numbers of people who are not happy in this lifestyle and want to be freed from it," said McClurkin. "They were thrust into homosexuality by neglect, abuse and molestation, and want desperately to live normal lives and one day have a happy home and family."    "McClurkin's explanations for homosexuality are patently absurd, unscientific and have no basis in fact," said Besen."
 * This source makes clear that the issue Besen has with McClukin is that he wants to help people change their sexual orientation. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:43, 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)
 * I am staying on topic. This page is on SOCE.  McClurkin is an example of the type of controversy that arises around SOCE.  It relates to the lack of equal access to public forums, which is one of the arguments of SOCE advocates.  If promoting SOCE gets you kicked out of a tour, then you do not really have equal access to public forums.  You can't just remove all of the arguments and supporting evidence for positions you don't like and call it off topic.  It seems that the only things that are "on topic" are things that support opponents of SOCE.  Positions and evidence that support the position of advocates of SOCE are more on topic in an article on SOCE than the positions of opponents. This isn't a page on the opposition to SOCE, but on SOCE. Joshuajohanson (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It relates to the lack of equal access to public forums... Interesting new spin, but it is still off-topic. I suggest you create a page SOCE rights opposition. And you still will need to reliably source the claim that McClurkin was protested (not denied a forum) because he advocates SOCE, rather than because he is anti-gay. Perhaps an analogy will help you see the difference between an advocate and a bigot: I can advocate for tonsillectomy and even have my own tonsils removed without calling tonsils "a curse from God" and "thanking God for delivering me" from having tonsils".
 * Including the position of SOCE advocates in an article on SOCE is not a new spin. Opponents were calling him a bigot because he advocated SOCE.  You can't advocate SOCE without saying that there is a reason for wanting to change sexual orientation.  You cannot separate the two.  With the tonsil example, I don't know anyone who has had their tonsils removed without either the tonsils being infected, or fear of their tonsils being infected.  Having invasive surgery on your tonsils means something is probably wrong or may be potentially wrong with your tonsils. Let's say you were an advocate for tonsillectomy.  How effective would your advocacy be if you were not allowed to mention that tonsils might get infected? What is the point of tonsillectomy?  Advocating tonsillectomy implies that there is something wrong or potentially wrong with the tonsils. Advocating any type of change implies that the change would be good, otherwise you are a bad advocate. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Opponents were calling him a bigot because he advocated SOCE." According to which reliable source? Gabbe (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I explained it. Answer my question: How can you be delivered from homosexuality without changing your sexual orientation?  Opponents questioned his recovery.  How is that not the same thing as questioning the effectiveness of SOCE?  How does complaining about him teaching that gay people can be free from homosexuality not entail that they can change sexual orientation.  It does not have to specifically have the word "change" in it.  Should we have an article on Sexual orientation delivery efforts, Freedom from sexual orientation efforts and Recovery from sexual orientation efforts?  They are the same thing.  I do not understand your argument. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but your explanation is not a reliable source. Please read WP:A again if this is somehow unclear to you. Gabbe (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong question. The relevant question is "How can you change your sexual orientation without being delivered from homosexuality?" Assuming, for the sake of argument that sexual orientation can be changed, one might decide to change one's orientation to escape homophobic persecution and to attain heterosexist privilege. Neither reason implies that there is anything wrong with homosexuality (as in "deliver us from evil") nor that homosexuality is a curse. Both "deliver" and "curse" are anti-gay. Switching metaphors, I can advocate for your right to have your tonsils removed, on the grounds that it is your body. Whether or not you have a rational reason for wanting your tonsils removed is beside the point. I can have my tonsils removed because they frequently get infected, without believing that tonsils are evil or a curse.
 * People who want to change their sexual orientation usually do so because they want to change their sexual orientation. Saying they can change sexual orientation as long as they don't say that they want to change sexual orientation is no freedom at all!  Even the examples you said of escaping homophobic persecution and attaining heterosexist privilege is saying that it is more desireable to have a heterosexual privilege than be gay.  No one is going to change their sexual orientation without wanting to change their sexual orientation.  It is like saying I'm allowed to remove my tonsils as long as I don't say they are infected because someone else out there thinks that tonsils are never infected and me saying that my tonsils are infected will make them feel bad.  Why would I want to remove my tonsils if they aren't infected?  Religious reasons is the number one reason to seek SOCE. To say that someone has the right to change their sexual orientation but has no right to want to change their sexual orientation is a ridiculous argument.  It is the same thing.  No one seeks change without desiring change.  I don't buy your argument that delivery from homosexuality isn't the same thing as changing sexual orientation because the former implies that the speaker thinks it is good to change sexual orientation.  He said God changed his sexual orientation, and they were mad about that.  Period.  It goes in. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not until you have a RS that "Opponents were calling him a bigot because he advocated SOCE." --Dr.enh (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Signapore
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)
 * The controversy centered on the way SOCE should be viewed by the government. I will do more research on it later, but we can remove it for now until I better explain the connection between SOCE and the controversy.  I'm busy answering other questions right now. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Washington DC
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 court case centered on equal access to public platform to promote SOCE. Again, we can take it out until I have time to do more research and make that connection clear. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

WHO "allows" SOCE?
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)
 * Maybe allow isn't the right word. The WHO publishes the ICD, which lists possible disorders for which a psychiatrist can treat a patient.  The ICD states that a client who is unhappy with his sexual orientation "may seek treatment in order to change it."   The second source confirms that SOCE is used to treat ego-dystonic sexual orientation under the ICD classification. You say it doesn't talk about treatments.  Under the section Ego-dystonic sexual orientation there is a subsection called Treatments.  This discusses the available treatments.  (Page 135)  It lists two main treatments (1) A change in sexual orientation and (2) Removal of stress.  It then discusses treatment for those referred by others, saying THAT was what was debatable, not those who seek SOCE.  It then lists several different techniques for changing sexual orientation, namely psycholanalytic psychotherapy, behavior therapy, supportive psychotherapy, and androgen therapy.  Note that the purpose of this book is not to discuss the values of the different methods being used, but simply to list the treatments that are currently being offered under the WHO classification. I have reworded it so that it is more clear. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This was removed again without discussion. Since no one has any more arguments, I will put it back in the lead. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there some reason why you believe this relatively obscure text (Amazon rank of over 5 million) speaks for the WHO? Because I can't find any link to the WHO there. - Nat Gertler (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2010 (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)
 * The problem with using Amazon is that it has an audience primarily in the US, which doesn't follow the WHO. The book is a medical text book and is a reliable source to tell what is being done.  All it does is report.  It doesn't advocate anything.  The point is 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 problem with the reliability of the book?  Jaypee Brothers seems to publish lots of medical books on a variety of subjects. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * JJ, you missed the point. The point is: The quoted book does not support that the majority of physicians agree that SOCE is a medical treatment. --Dr.enh (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And again, what the heck does this book have to do with the WHO? This book is not written by the WHO, not endorsed by the WHO. It does use some IDC reference, but also uses some DSM. As for its reliability, I am quite dubious; it is poorly worded and edited. Coming from a publisher that puts out a lot of books does not make a book reliable; otherwise, PublishAmerica would be an amazing font of knowledge. But even if we were to accept its claim that SOCE is sometimes used, that does not speak to the frequency of use, nor the recommendability of use, nor the weight it should be given. - Nat Gertler (talk) 02:00, 16 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 book discusses possible treatments for ego-dystonic sexual orientation. It lists SOCE as a possible treatment. The DSM does not include ego-dystonic sexual orientation, so what is said about treatments for ego-dystonic sexual orientation does not apply.  If you have reservations about Jaypee brothers, feel free to bring that up.  From what I can tell, it is a reliable source.  It doesn't seem to conflict with any other listing I have seen for treatments from ego-dystonic sexual orientation.  I have seen organizations reject the classification of ego-dystonic sexual orientation and all associated treatments, but SOCE has always been associated with ego-dystonic sexual orientation.  The desire to seek SOCE is part of the diagnosis.  Unless there is some reason to question Jaypee brothers, or some contradictory reliable information, I don't see why the source cannot be used. Joshuajohanson (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So your argument is basically that a position statement by the APA does not represent the mainstream view of psychiatrists, but this textbook published by Jaypee does? My problem with Jaypee is that (per WP:REDFLAG), it is not "high-quality source". Gabbe (talk) 07:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The APA does not represent the position of people who treat ego-dystonic sexual orientation because they do not treat ego-dystonic sexual orientation. WHO includes the classifications, the APA does not.  That is one of the ways that they differ.   There is a huge debate in this issue, and you can't represent one side.  The APA disagrees with the WHO, so no, you can't just show the APA view, because that wouldn't accurately reflect WHO.  Can you find any other method of treating ego-dystonic sexual orientation?  SOCE seems to be the only method, which is one of the reasons the APA rejects the diagnosis of ego-dystonic sexual orientation. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If SOCE is the only method to treat egodystonic sexual orientation, is the Ahuja source (whose reliability you assert) wrong when it describes two other methods under the subcategory "For Seeking Removal of Distress Only"? - Nat Gertler (talk) 18:39, 19 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)
 * Like PLR, the APA doesn't use the diagnosis of ego-dystonic sexual orientation(ESO), but the WHO does. The WHO is hardly some fringe group.  The question is how do you treat ego-dystonic sexual orientation(ESO).  The WHO seems very clear that those who are unhappy with their sexual orientation "may seek treatment in order to cure it".  India uses this diagnosis to perform SOCE.  However, people argued that the WHO doesn't proscribe treatments, just disorders.  So I look in text books that go through the WHO classification of diseases to find out what treatments are used.  Everyone that I found says that SOCE is a treatment for ESO.  This is the only one that has a link to it.  See if you can find ONE source that does not list SOCE as a treatment for ESO.  The APA is against SOCE, which is part of the reason they are against ego-dystonic sexual orientation.  This is one of the areas were the APA and the WHO differs.  But Wikipedia should present both sides.  The WHO is important enough to be mentioned in the lead. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As the WHO does not endorse or in anywhere I've seen even discuss SOCE, it's hard to see how they belong in the lede on an SOCE article. It's wrong to say that presenting the APA must present the WHO, as the WHO is not on any side. For an article on egodystonic sexual orientation, yes, the WHO diagnosis should be mentioned prominently. This is not that article. - Nat Gertler (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. WHO gives a list of classifications for diseases, one of which is ESO.  SOCE is a treatment for ESO.  The APA rejects ESO and SOCE.  The fact that SOCE is used as a treatment for ESO should be prominent.  India uses it.  China uses it.  Right there that is about a third of the world's population.  The first A in APA is for American, whereas the W in WHO stands for world.  This article must represent the world's point of view.  WHO gives a classification of ESO, for which SOCE is a treatment for.  Try to find one source that disagrees with that statement.  ESO is only important in this article because SOCE is a treatment for it. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, you're misinterpreting the "may seek treatment in order to cure it" bit. You're assuming that the word "may" is used in the sense "is permitted to", as in the WHO permits people to seek treatment in order to cure it. The ICD lists different diagnoses, not treatments. As such, the word "may" is used to indicate possibility or probability, that is "a person seaking treatment to cure their sexuality could be suffering from ESO". The ICD says that seeking treatment is a symptom, it doesn't imply that it's the solution.
 * Now, the Population Council source you've brought up could be used to support the statement "conversion as a form of therapy for homosexuality is used by many practitioners in India", or a similarly worded variant of it. I see no reliability issues with using that source to say that SOCE is prevalent in India.
 * You also say that every textbook using the ICD classification that you could find "says that SOCE is a treatment for ESO". Which ones? So far, I've only seen you name the Ahuja one, which (as has been mentioned above) I find problematic. Could you specify which other textbooks you've looked at?
 * Also remember that the onus is on you to show that your statements are well supported by reliable sources. Specifically, you have yet to show reliable sources that support the assertion that the WHO considers SOCE to be an effective treatment for ESO. Gabbe (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Gabbe is right. If this is practiced in China and India, and that is reliably sourced, then that's what we should include. Trying to paint it as something backed by the WHO, as if the whole world gets the treatment because the WHO categorizes the illness, would be misleading. The WHO likely categorizes various cancers as well, and we can point to a range of bizarre "treatments" that people undergo for that, but it would be a mistake to then associate the WHO with those treatments. - Nat Gertler (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So if we said something like "WHO defines ego-dystonic sexual orientation in the ICD. Patients can receive SOCE as a treatment for ESO in places such as India, China, Korea ..."  Would that be acceptable?  That doesn't sound like WHO is endorsing the treatment, but does say that these countries use the WHO definition in administering SOCE, assuming I find reliable sources. I want to make sure this format is correct before I spend time looking for therapies in each individual country. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, as always, that is entirely dependent on what sources you find. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (WP:V). If you can find "reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented" (WP:NOR) then I certainly won't disagree with you. As long as this article makes "appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant," and doesn't "reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view." (WP:DUE) Gabbe (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm also still unsure why the WHO is being mentioned in the lede; it looks like it's being used to justify the SOCE treatment as though it were okayed by WHO, when the WHO statement actually says nothing about SOCE. If it were to say that "SOCE is practiced in India, China, Korea, Wherever as a treatment for ego-dystonic sexual orientation, a controversial diagnosis of stress caused by one's sexual orientation.", then I would feel more comfortable with that in the lede. The body of the article would be more the place for discussing who does and doesn't support ESO diagnosis (to some limited extent; obviously, there's a full article on it for depth.) And as with any case where someone asks me if something would be "correct" or "acceptable" or whatever, I must note that I can only speak for myself; my view on something does not mean that the metric gajillion other Wikipedia editors will agree. - Nat Gertler (talk) 23:38, 22 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)

Should both point of views be presented?
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)


 * No. Opponents of SOCE (that is, mainstream psychiatrists, psychologists and psychotherapists) say that there's no reason to believe it works. Classifying SOCE as quackery when there's no proof that it is effective is not the same as disallowing SOCE. Saying that opponents of SOCE don't believe that "everyone [...] should have access to accurate information" is outright dishonest.


 * In my opinion, the position of SOCE advocates certainly has a place in this article, as long as we can find a reliable source describing their opinion in a neutral fashion. And if we don't go against WP:GEVAL and others. However, using singular examples to imply a conclusion not attributed to a reliable source goes against WP:SYNTH. That is, if you can't find a reliable source saying there's a conflict between freedom of speech and the mainstream view on SOCE (for example), it is not OK quote a handful of purported examples to steer the reader towards that conclusion. Gabbe (talk) 23:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't put mainstream medical organizations in the category of opponents to SOCE. The WHO says that those who are unhappy with their sexual orientation may seek treatment to change, and many medical organizations that adhere to the ICD instead of the DSM practice SOCE.  Americans organizations oppose some forms of SOCE, such as those who present homosexuality as a mental disorder.  They have not made comments on other forms, such as "God delivered me from homosexuality" which has nothing to do with psychology.  In fact, they said some forms of SOCE help alleviate minority stress.  Another thing, just because supporters of SOCE want everyone to have access to accurate information doesn't mean the opponents don't want everyone to have access to accurate information.  The basis of all your arguments is that SOCE is some sort of fringe therapy or something.  I see no evidence of that.  Both points of view should be presented. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This statement by the APA is unambigous about what they think about SOCE. The APA represents the mainstream view of psychologists. The view that "SOCE works" departs significantly from this mainstream view, therefore it is a fringe view. See WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE. Gabbe (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The WHO says that people may seek to change their orientation; I do not see anywhere where it says that an appropriate treatment is to help them do so. The ID-10 is a list of diagnoses, not treatments. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 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. --Joshuajohanson Factually inaccuarate. It has been argued that protests against McClurkin because of his anti-gay statements, grants to ex-gay organizations, and court orders about civil rights are off-topic. --Dr.enh (talk) 21:56, 21 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)

The India source
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)

No modern mental health organization? All instead?
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)


 * Do you know of any major mental health organizations that regard homosexuality as a disorder or abnormality? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What we know or don't know is irrelevant. Per WP:WEASEL the sentence should be attributed to APA. Not "All" nor "many" nor "some." – Lionel (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't, ArtifexMayhem. BabyJonas (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nor do I, but that will not stop some. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Old and new

 * Psychologist Douglas Haldeman writes that conversion therapy comprises efforts by mental health professionals and pastoral care providers to convert lesbians and gay men to heterosexuality, and that techniques include psychoanalysis, group therapy, aversive conditioning involving electric shock or nausea-inducing drugs, sex therapy, reparative therapy, and involvement in ex-gay ministries such as Exodus International.

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.
 * 1) reparative therapy and
 * 2) involvement in ex-gay ministries

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)
 * The article is a disorganized jumble of POV, "old" information and UNDUE treatment. As several of the recent posts here indicate. This issue noted by Ed is one of many justifying a rewrite of this article. Perhaps even a merge with Conversion therapy? – Lionel (talk) 04:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * CT isn't much better. The main thing is to separate objective information from advocacy. For the last 3 or 4 decades, the position which has been gaining ascendancy is that (1) it is impossible to change sexual orientation because (2) sexual orientation is immutable, and therefore (3) any attempt to change it is harmful to the "client" ("patient"?), not to mention political undesirable: i.e., it's unethical and a violation of human rights; and also (4) therapists should be discouraged from applying SOCE even to volunteers.


 * I know of only one group (NARTH) and one individual (Richard A. Cohen) who disagree with the ascendant view.


 * Another problem - but I can't tell which article is more affected by it - is confusion between conversion "therapies" which no longer have any following at all (e.g., electrodes on your junk while you watch images or video) and those which (still?) have modern advocates. Richard Cohen, for example, says that one of the main "causes" of same-sex attraction is the "reparative" (q.v.) desire for parental love from the same-sex parent; this gets sexualized (i.e., you're not "born that way").


 * If anyone wants to work with me, I'd like to start with a history of SOCE from, say, the 19th century to around 1975. I'd like to focus on two factors: to what extent were these efforts applied to volunteers vs. forced on people; and to what extent were they successful (or more to the point, how long did it take in each case to realize that chemical castration and aversion therapy don't work). Then I'd like to describe the new ideas advanced by NARTH and Cohen, et al., along with the reasoning or evidence (if any) that such advocates have supplied. The conclusion, of course, would be the rebuttal by scientific (and other) sources to the new ideas.


 * Any takers? --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Longstanding?
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)

Incomplete Definition
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.
 * That would be relevant if it existed on some measurable scale, but it doesn't. – Face-smile.svg Teammm Let's Talk! :) 23:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Conversion Therapy
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)

PAHO
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)

Whether or not
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)

Where in the article does this belong?
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 &sdot; contribs) 01:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Changes to lead
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)
 * Surely we can find a wording that acknowledges bisexuality without totally removing from the first paragraph the important fact that SOCE isn't about making people attracted to members of the same sex. I actually think "same-sex sexual orientation," while an awkward coinage, does this just fine: it recognizes that not all people attracted to members of the same sex are homosexual, since some are bisexual, but still conveys this key fact about the article topic. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No one is suggesting that SOCE is "about making people attracted to members of the same sex." Certainly I'm not suggesting that. It would be perfectly possible (and in fact easy) to explain that SOCE is used to try to convert homosexuals and bisexuals to heterosexuality without using a definition of it that isn't the APA's definition. I simply don't agree that "same-sex sexual orientation" acknowledges bisexuality. Most readers would probably interpret it only as a reference to homosexuality. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * How about a multi-clause sentence: "Sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) are methods that aim to change sexual orientation, used to try to convert homosexual and bisexual people to heterosexuality." –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I was about to suggest something similar. I think your suggestion is fine. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Syntonic Therapy
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)


 * No, it isn't irrelevant, any more than it's irrelevant that Kronemeyer criticized other methods of trying to change sexual orientation. Your rather clumsy edit, which removed the relevant ref as well as text, has been reverted. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

BLP violation removed
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)

Success in Mice
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)
 * Um, no. They bred lesbian mice. That's got nothing shown to do with changing the sexual orientation a human has been born with. No arguments destroyed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)4
 * No; they did no breeding whatsoever. They applied hormones during fetal development and changed the sexuality of mice bio-chemically.  Cheers
 * This material is irrelevant and should not be included in the article. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Sexual orientation change efforts
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:


 * http://www.change.org/petitions/ecuador-minister-of-health-close-remaining-ex-gay-torture-clinics-in-ecuador
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If 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)

Content dispute
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)
 * I see, Joefromrandb, that you have once again used BLP as a reason for removing content you disagree with, just as you did at the Arthur Janov article. Well, you were wrong there, and you are wrong here too. You claimed that the material is misleading. In fact it seems to be a perfectly accurate quote from one of Janov's books, The Primal Scream. It's not misleading at all, and hardly a BLP violation. Please stop your disruptive editing. (If there's any question of the accuracy of the quotation, I can easily settle that, as I have a copy of the book). If some kind of change needs to be made to the material to make it acceptable, then that would be more appropriate than simply removing it outright. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Based on a Google Books search, our source for that paragraph (Robert Kronemeyer) attributes the view, but not the exact quote, to Arthur Janov. So it looks like the issue could be resolved by rewording and removing the quotation marks. KateWishing (talk) 04:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Broken Harvard citations
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, and I'm completely mystified by the "Krafft-Ebing 1965" citation. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Sexual orientation change efforts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121001160610/http://www.stolaf.edu/people/huff/classes/Psych130F2010/LabDocuments/SpitzerComme to http://www.stolaf.edu/people/huff/classes/Psych130F2010/LabDocuments/SpitzerComme
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140308045858/http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/a30d58ca60ba4c20a4dda80f7d80e31d/US-Gay-Therapy-Ban to http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/a30d58ca60ba4c20a4dda80f7d80e31d/US-Gay-Therapy-Ban

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Article rewrite
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)
 * SOFIXIT Joefromrandb (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, you should have fixed the article instead of removing a justified template. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I was debating whether or not to post a detailed response to your straw man (being an "experienced user", you apparently know that no straw man is complete without a dab of ad hominem; well done!). Your retort shows me I made the right choice. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If the article doesn't need to be rewritten, can you point to a large section of the article that's OK the way it is, and why? If not, Free is correct and the tag should be retained. p  b  p  01:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Same question: Can you point to a large section of this article that needs a rewrite? p  b  p  13:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Where do we begin? Just look at the history section. You see an unaccountably large section discussing Richard von Krafft-Ebing, but no mention at all of Freud, surely a major figure, or other less well-known figures who could be mentioned, as such Eugen Steinach. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's good enough for me to believe the tag is appropriate., please don't edit-war with Free and I.  And you were WRONG to not post a detailed defense of your decision to remove the tag.  p  b  p  01:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * A bit outside my field, but rewrite the entire article because its missing a section about Freud? I could see why Joe may find that difficult to swallow. El_C 01:39, 23 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)
 * The point about Freud was obviously just an example. The article is poor quality generally. One could list a series of things wrong with it (if one had nothing better to do with one's day). Basically nothing there is up to scratch. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert on this topic, but Free's arguments have been persuasive and Joe's have not, so I'll continue to hold with Free. p  b  p  01:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm no expert either. Maybe once my protection expires in a few hours, change the tag to reflect significant—but falling short of total—rewrite? I'm just trying to think of a compromise tag that would still inform editors of how serious you view this in needing attention. El_C 02:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, a different tag is a reasonable suggestion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You could also tag the most egregious sections as needing help. p  b  p  02:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://new.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6803&Itemid=1926
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090717121843/http://www.psychology.org.au/publications/tip_sheets/orientation/ to http://www.psychology.org.au/publications/tip_sheets/orientation/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910045820/http://www.psych.org/Departments/EDU/Library/APAOfficialDocumentsandRelated/PositionStatements/200001a.aspx to http://www.psych.org/Departments/EDU/Library/APAOfficialDocumentsandRelated/PositionStatements/200001a.aspx
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/pediatrics%3B113/6/1827.pd
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070701171455/http://www.spiritindia.com/health-care-news-articles-10085.html to http://www.spiritindia.com/health-care-news-articles-10085.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070815232436/http://www.csssm.org/English/e7.htm to http://www.csssm.org/English/e7.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140115041606/http://blogs.diariodepernambuco.com.br/lgbtudo/2013/07/psiquiatra-jairo-bouer-fala-dos-efeitos-colaterais-da-cura-gay/ to http://blogs.diariodepernambuco.com.br/lgbtudo/2013/07/psiquiatra-jairo-bouer-fala-dos-efeitos-colaterais-da-cura-gay/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140111125836/http://osentendidos.com/2012/11/12/a-decada-de-30-bate-na-nossa-porta-gays-espinafre-e-cabras-da-revista-veja/ to http://osentendidos.com/2012/11/12/a-decada-de-30-bate-na-nossa-porta-gays-espinafre-e-cabras-da-revista-veja/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Citation is amgigous
Sexual orientation change efforts

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)

✅ See citation in Sexual orientation change efforts Daask (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Rewording of Paragraph 3
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)

Attribution problems in lede
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)

False edit summary statement like that the APA doesn't ban the practice of conversion therapy are not helpful
However, nor are they worth an edit war.Mancalledsting (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Please refer to the message I left on your user talk page. An organization stating opposition to conversion therapy is not the same as banning it. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

It is indeed a de facto ban.Mancalledsting (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Source? WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Spitzer study used as a WP:RS
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)

Page name change to 'Sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression change efforts'
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)
 * The article only discusses sexual orientation, so we wouldn't change the title to include something not discussed in it. Crossroads -talk- 20:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've begun editing the terminology within the article to reflect SOGIECE as it is a more encompassing term. Please do consider title change as change efforts are not just aimed at gay or homosexual communities, but the whole spectrum of sexual and gender minorities (e.g. LGBT+)Jamzze (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * On this subject we have to follow WP:MEDRS. A yet-unpublished preprint and three advocacy groups are not MEDRS compliant sources. MEDRS sources almost always treat sexual orientation and gender identity as separate topics. What's more, the four sources that you put in that use this longer "SOGIECE" term are all about the same research group, led by Salway and publishing their "Ending conversion therapy in Canada" report. For the definition of a topic, and for any other aspect, we have to follow WP:Due weight. A neologism by one team does not warrant that level of weight. Crossroads -talk- 19:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your rebuttal, however, SOGIECE is a more inclusive term and includes greater elements of change efforts towards gender identity and gender expression that is currently limited in this article. I would recommend the edit I gave while highlighting its 'neologism', as you put it, or newness. Jamzze (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * For anyone curious, mentioned reversion diff is Special:Diff/985586657. For a better source,, maybe try ? --Artoria2e5 🌉 07:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Propose merge from Conversion therapy
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)
 * FYI: I have read some, although perhaps not all, of the talk page discussions on this topic, namely
 * Talk:Conversion therapy/Archive 14
 * Talk:Sexual orientation change efforts/Dumping Ground
 * Talk:Conversion therapy/Archive 19
 * Daask (talk) 14:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Conversion therapy, as the article notes, is used to describe spiritual or psychological attempts at changing sexual orientation. Those are a subset of the things covered in this article, which also covers biological/medical attempts. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I would describe all of the approaches described in the methods section of this article as "spiritual or psychological", although I see biological approaches in the history section. Contrary to your distinction, I also see lobotomy in the conversion therapy article. I suspect most readers interested in psychological methods would be interested in other methods as well. I also suggest that these various methods form a single history, with various practitioners and programs frequently attempting multiple approaches. Many of the legal and ethical concerns apply equally to psychological and biological methods. I continue to support the merge. Daask (talk) 04:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * If you are proposing merging "conversion therapy" into this article, then you are in effect proposing ending Wikipedia's coverage of conversion therapy as a distinct topic entirely. How much have you thought about whether that would be a good idea, about how difficult it would be to accomplish, and about what the consequences would be? Regardless of the case in theory for a merger I suspect that it would be exceptionally difficult and more trouble than it is worth. I am not saying there is no case for a merger, only that I am not convinced at this point that it should be attempted. You have to think the issue through first. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think I understand your point. I do agree that this is difficult, primarily because these are both fairly long articles, and also because it is a controversial topic. Can you elaborate more on the consequences you see? Daask (talk) 04:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me try again. The consequences would include the fact that Wikipedia would simply not have an article about conversion therapy at all. There would be no article about a topic that is clearly notable, that is discussed in numerous books and articles, and that many people would expect to find a dedicated article about. Didn't it even occur to you that it might be questionable whether that is really desirable? Isn't it in fact intrinsically desirable for Wikipedia to have articles about notable topics, and wouldn't it confuse Wikipedia's readers for there to be no conversion therapy article, but only one about "Sexual orientation change efforts"? You write that you do not "understand a difference in definition" between conversion therapy and sexual orientation change efforts; I don't believe that is a good enough reason for a merger. That you personally do not "understand a difference" does not mean that there isn't one and I do not see why it would be a reason for a merger in itself. Since you are the one proposing the merger, it is of course up to you to explain exactly what benefit you see in it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I support, as they are more or less the same concept. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 10:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems like the actual trouble with this article is the fact that the bulk of it (approx. the bottom two-thirds of the article) is actually about conversion therapy. The conversion therapy article is much better maintained and incredibly exhaustive (and I completely agree that it's important to have both articles); it seems like this article would do better to ditch pretty much everything that is conversion-therapy-specific so as not to duplicate what's on that page. RadicalCopyeditor (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you realize you're replying to a four-year old thread? If you have no objection, I will archive this discussion very shortly to prevent further confusion of this nature. You may wish to copy your 21:05 comment down to section below.
 * Note: If you are here to discuss a MERGE, this isn't it; see below. Mathglot (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Er, they left this comment four months ago, long before I opened the new merge proposal below. I don't think this was done by mistake. RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 00:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's right, and since this thread went nowhere and we now have a newer one, it's worth making that clear. Mathglot (talk) 20:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)