Talk:Conversion therapy/Archive 24

This is an archive of past discussions about Conversion therapy. 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 20

←

Archive 22

Is conversion therapy "harmful" or "potentially harmful"?

An anon user removed the word "potentially" from the lede paragraph with this edit, and I reverted the edit since there was no good reason offered for the change and the cited sources directly support the more equivocal wording (see [1],[2],[3] for "potentially harmful" and [4],[5],[6] for "can be harmful"). There are also some sources (cited elsewhere in the article) that use unequivocal language (see [7],[8]). Since there does not seem to be a consensus among the reliable sources themselves as to whether conversion therapy is "harmful" or "potentially harmful", I don't see any factual basis for removing the word "potentially" from the lede.

Based on all of the discussions that have occurred over the years (most recently here), it seems like the original wording of the lede (as a whole) enjoyed a broad consensus. For example, Rhododendrites took no issue with the use of the word "potentially" here.

Of course, scholarly consensus can change over time, and it is entirely possible that recent research not yet cited in this article does support changing the wording in the lede. However, absent verifiable evidence from medical institutions that conversion therapy unequivocally causes harm, the word "potentially" should be restored.Uncle Dick (talk) 07:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Note to editors: 'Potentially harmful' was restored. Sxologist (talk) 11:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

It is false to claim that the groups mentioned "don't ban conversion therapy"

They in fact do for their licensed doctors.Mancalledsting (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Has this been removed? Sxologist (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Conversion Therapy is a theory of psychology, not repentance

There's a huge problem with confusing the scientific approach to fixing homosexuality with spiritual rebirth. This article is mixing up entirely different things! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.18.103.46 (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

There is no scientific approach to "fixing" homosexuality, it's bigotry based on supposedly spiritual beliefs. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Split medical and legal views section?

When I browsed on mobile I didn’t even really notice the medical views section since it’s underneath a large legal view table. Perhaps they should be split, with medical view taking precedent above it? Sxologist (talk) 08:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Maybe the legal status section should be split into its own article and replaced by a summary? Seems disproportionately long for this article, and its likely to grow. Mathglot (talk) 11:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I would agree. If you are willing to start that it would be good. Could start by splitting legal into it's own section beneath medical views. Sxologist (talk) 01:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Mathglot, the "Legal status" section isn't that long. The "Legal status by US state" barely has anything in it and points to List of U.S. jurisdictions banning conversion therapy as the main article. And the "Legal views" section is a short section and points to Sexual orientation change efforts#Legal status "for the legal status of conversion therapy and other sexual orientation change efforts." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think we need to split the article. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

So Called !!!

See wp:weasel for one of the reasons I have rejected (twice) the latest IP suggestion. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 11:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Merge with Sexual orientation change efforts?

It seems like these two articles are mostly about the same concept. Strictly speaking "conversion therapy" is just one type of SOCE, but it seems like in practice there isn't much difference between the two concepts, and a lot of the article content regarding legal status etc is largely overlapping. Is there a clear enough distinction between the two concepts to justify keeping them as two separate articles? And if they are to be kept separate, couldn't some of the overlap be reduced by moving some of the content from one to the other? 119.18.2.248 (talk) 02:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I can see what you mean, although they technically differ in definition. I would say that country-by-country laws need not be included in the SOCE page, and perhaps a separate article with a list of countries by conversion therapy laws is better. I think the SOCE article is a lot messier than the conversion therapy article. In the past 30 days, conversion therapy received ~100,000 views whereas SOCE received ~5000 views. Sxologist (talk) 13:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I also support merge. Zezen (talk) 07:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I also support the merger. Sexual orientation change efforts is a more accurate, umbrella term. Conversion therapy has a biased framing to it as it suggests homosexuality or queerness can be cured in a scientific process and that, with language used such as 'therapy', denotes this is done in a safe and professional environment. This is contrary to the case were conversion therapy often amounts to indoctrination efforts, pseudoscience, or even torture. Changing the article from 'conversion therapy' to 'sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE)' would work towards alleviating this. As Sxologist suggests they 'technically differ in definition', this is true as I have mentioned conversion therapy situates itself as a therapeutic effort, however, very much sits within SOCE as a sub-topic method of SOCE. Placing conversion therapy within SOCE would allow further contextual sexual orientation change efforts to be reviewed alongside conversion therapy to offer further contextual information when reading about conversion therapy. Jamzze (talk) 09:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

For example, Clucas introduces their article with 'In this article, I situate the practice of sexual orientation conversion efforts (SOCE), sometimes known as conversion or reparative therapy' ^[1]. Highlighting that these are not separate topics, but part of the same meaning merging pages between conversion therapy and SOCE would be beneficial to reflect this Jamzze (talk) 09:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn't see this when removing the merge tags, since this discussion is stale. Zezen, one of the supporters above, has been indefinitely blocked. If anyone wants to pursue it, it would need a new discussion with the rules at WP:MERGE taken into account. If merged, at the same time there would be a need to split off some material for size reasons (perhaps the legal stuff). A related but technically separate issue would be which of the two names is the WP:COMMONNAME, and therefore which one would be the title should a merge take place. I strongly suspect it would be "conversion therapy", and Sxologist's data above seems to support that. All in all, it would be complicated. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

References

^ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317255117_Sexual_Orientation_Change_Efforts_Conservative_Christianity_and_Resistance_to_Sexual_Justice

Change framing of page to sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression

The current description of conversion therapy is limited towards a binary of gay/ lesbian to heterosexual.

Conversion therapy can take place across efforts to change sexual orientations, gender identity, and/ or gender expression. Really, this page should be framed as conversion therapy undertaking efforts to change non-heterosexual OR gender and sexual minorities TOWARDS heterosexuality as an ideal of promoting only heterosexual and cisgender people.

This redefining would be more inclusive to the change efforts the whole LGBTQ+ community faces across multiple areas of orientation, identity, and expression. This would be more reflective of wider international efforts to limit conversion therapy such as the UN's '"Conversion therapy" is an umbrella term used to describe interventions of a wide-ranging nature, all of which have in common the belief that a person's sexual orientation or gender identity can and should be changed. Such practices aim (or claim to aim) at changing people from gay, lesbian or bisexual to heterosexual and from trans or gender diverse to cisgender' ^[1] Jamzze (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

^ https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/SexualOrientationGender/Pages/ReportOnConversiontherapy.aspx

Hello Jamzze thank you for your suggestion. As others such as have pointed out in the past, we tend to stick with the reliable medical sources on this. There is still substantial debate in the medical field about what qualifies as conversion therapy for gender identity. For example, it is not clear if discouraging the social transition of a child at a young age qualifies as a form of conversion therapy, because *some* experts claim that allowing social transitions too early puts them on a pathway to transition, and they *claim* many children will simply grow up to be homosexual otherwise. This is not to say that I agree with this, but it has been expressed by experts who are very uncontroversial such as Eric Vilain, who make it on the back of research indicating that many gender dysphoric boys grew comfortably into being gay men. I know this area of research is murky and has been debated. I agree that transgendered people know their gender identity and the maltreatment of them by the medical field is still prevalent. I think until the literature is clear about what qualifies as conversion therapy, we will have to wait. Perhaps you can provide some suggested links if I have this wrong. Hopefully others can comment. Edit: it appears you raised this discussion on this talk page too, where Crossroads has replied. Sxologist (talk) 00:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

My response on this is seen at Talk:Conversion therapy/Archive 23#Conversion therapy is also something that is practised on transgender and non-binary people.

On the topic of gender dysphoria in children, prospective studies have consistently shown that the majority of children cease to desire to be the other sex by puberty and grow up to identify as gay or lesbian (~~and,~~ or, to a lesser extent, bisexual). If the dysphoria persists during puberty, it is very likely permanent. That is what the research has consistently shown. Some transgender activists argue that the desistance rate is inflated because the children in the early studies didn't actually have gender dysphoria/weren't actually transgender and were simply gender non-conforming. While the 80% number may have been inflated, it's still the case that whether it's early studies or ~~older~~ later studies, all of the research thus far shows that the majority of children do cease to have gender dysphoria. As stated by psychologist/sexologist James Cantor in this 2017 PsyPost source (where he addresses all of the criticisms regarding these studies), "The state of the science is made clear simply by listing the results of the studies on the topic. Despite coming from a variety of countries and from a variety of labs, using a variety of methods, all spanning four decades, every single study without exception has come to the identical conclusion. This is not a matter of scientists disagreeing with one another over relative strengths and weaknesses across a set of conflicting reports. The disagreement is not even some people advocating for one set of studies with other people advocating for different set of studies: Rather, activists are rejecting the unanimous conclusion of every single study ever conducted on the question in favour of a conclusion supported by not one. Importantly, these results should not be exaggerated in the other direction either: The correct answer is neither 0% nor 100%. Although the majority of transgender kids desist, it is not a large majority. A very substantial proportion do indeed want to transition as they get older, and we need to ensure they receive the support they will need. Despite loud, confident protestations of extremists, the science shows very clearly and very consistently that we cannot take either outcome for granted." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

There is some research indicating that a sizeable minority of transgender people have been exposed to some form of therapy which in some way attempted to change their gender identity (Turban et al, 2019). I think there may be room for including gender identity in future, or perhaps it requires a unique article. As both myself and Flyer have highlighted, it is a complicated area. Turban et al. have been strongly criticised in an open letter in the Archives of Sexual Behavior for what is said to be a heavily biased sample and a questionable definition of conversion therapy. In the case of sexual orientation, therapy involves undergoing a treatment in an attempt to change orientation. Yet Turban defined conversion therapy attempts as simply any practitioner not affirming identity (which I don't think is ok either). Far more research literature is needed though, especially when it's not clear what is being qualified as conversion therapy. Sxologist (talk) 10:37, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2020

This edit request to Conversion therapy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Spitzer's "Can Some Gay Men and Lesbians Change Their Sexual Orientation? 200 Participants Reporting a Change from Homosexual to Heterosexual Orientation" was published in 2003, not 2001. Cadengee (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Done (Special:Diff/993154059). Thanks for the correction. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 02:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

February 2021 this Wikipedia article is incorrect information. Victoria a state in Australia bans conversion therapy with a $10,000 fine and up to 10 years jail. A Leftist is trying to silence a gay conservative! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.195.157.8 (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

States where it is banned in Australia.

Under Australia the dates and years of when it was banned make no sense when referring to Victoria, it also states that Queensland has banned conversion therapy but the map does not reflect that. According to the latest ABC articles the Victorian bill has passed the upper house. Aidanp96 (talk) 07:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Banned for minors in 5 countries

Is this worth mentioning in the article? [9] --Bangalamania (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Not only for homosexual

There are worldwide fallacy that is based on attitude rather being facts derived from observation. These views are comes from LGBT thrived community that conversion therapy only undergo with homosexual orientation. However, this is not the only definition of conversion therapy. It is based on any sexual orientations, like zoophilia, paraphilia, pedestry, autoerotic tendency. Sexual orientation does not only mean homosexual, bisexual practice. It comes from one's emotion (decision) propelling to being attracted by various entities. Sexual orientation naturally inborn and held as human rights in basis. The Supermind (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I would argue that most if not all cases refer to orientations and not really stuff like zoophilia. In addition, and more importantly, most medical RS (which are very important in a page like this) refer to sexual orientations (which is not exclusively homosexuality) with a few also including gender identity. Remagoxer (talk) 11:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Trans conversion therapy?

The term 'conversion therapy' also applies to conversion therapy targeted towards changing the gender of transgender people back to that assigned at birth - has this been separated out into a different page, and if not, shouldn't this article mention it? Amekyras (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The highest quality - WP:MEDRS - sources show that the term in fact refers to sexual orientation, as is evident from the sources in the article. Sexual orientation and gender identity are different things, of course. This has been discussed before in the archives, most recently here. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated. I would personally disagree with the idea that because some studies show that prepubescent children have a high rate of desistance, conversion therapy aimed at transgender individuals should not be talked about, but I absolutely see your point regarding WP:MEDRS. Some sources, however, do apply the term to both contexts (particularly the memorandum of understanding on conversion therapy in the UK, signed by all organisations listed in the UK but two) - at what point should the definition on Wikipedia be expanded, or at least noted to include transgender persons in some contexts? Amekyras (talk) 09:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

IIRC the discussion I linked to links to another discussion that speaks of that. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

A wikipedia page is not a discussion of a term, but of a topic. If the term "conversion therapy" is also being used to discuss attempts to combat transgenderism, while a parallel topic, it is generally a separate topic, and should get a separate page (just as we have several pages for "Captain Marvel", even though they all have similarities, as they are all about different superheroes with that name.) So a page could be started at conversion therapy (gender identity), and we could add a disambiguation here for that. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I would agree with that, although given that many articles and even laws tackle the two together, I would have thought it would make sense to keep them on the same page. Amekyras (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

A unilateral edit to the WP:LEADSENTENCE changed the definition to include identity, and I've removed it, per WP:PRIMARY, MOS:LEADNOTUNIQUE, and reasons stated above. I invite Wristsquid (talk · contribs) or Bop34 to discuss this change here first, before pursuing it in the article. Mathglot (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Undoing this on the basis of it being controversial is unreasonable. Conversion therapy is a practice that includes gender identity and this is confirmed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and given that conversion therapy is a violation of human rights, I'd say the united nations is one of, if not the, highest authority on this. With the current political situation as it is, with LGB groups advocating for conversion therapy of transsexuals and claiming it doesn't count as conversion therapy if it's on trans people, I'd say that leaving trans people out of the definition on Wikipedia, despite it being included in international law, can't be seen as anything other than a political statetment. Wristsquid (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with what @Mathglot said in their edit summary of the reversion. Move to body, then to lead. bop34 • talk • contribs 21:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wristsquid:, you misunderstand. You are right about one thing: undoing it based on it being controversial would be unreasonable, and unjustified. That is not what happened, here. It was undone because of the preponderance of opinion on the subject, as demonstrated by citations to numerous reliable sources, define it differently. That doesn't mean you can't change it, but changing the definition based on a single source that you found, is not the way.

As far as controversy, the fact that this is a controversial topic, only means that there is likely to be lots of opinion on the topic, including many that may dispute other reliable sources. Wikipedia has the policy of WP:DUEWEIGHT in order to determine how to deal with this. The other problem with your edit, was adding the material first to the lead, instead of to the body; in Wikipedia, the WP:LEAD summarizes the most important points found in the body. Your material was new material, and if you wish to add it, you should first try to add it to the body, and see if that finds support. (It might, or might not, based on WP:DUEWEIGHT and other considerations.) If it passes muster there, and is considered an important point of the article, only then should you try to add it to the lead. Finally, changing the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE of an article really should be discussed first at the Talk page, because it defines what the entire article is about. Hundreds of editors have been here before you, sometimes definitions are hammered out in long discussions by many editors. It's kind of a newbie mistake, to just float in and change the very first sentence of the article. Which doesn't mean that it couldn't, or shouldn't ever happen; WP:BOLD is also a core principle of Wikipedia. But an edit like that, in a controversial article like this, is biting off too much; especially when it is your very first edit at Wikipedia. Discussing here, as you are now doing, is the right approach. It could be that your PoV will prevail, but we need to see that the change you propose, is actually the majority opinion of sources on the topic. Is it? So far, the sources in the article don't seem to support that; but maybe you'll find more. Mathglot (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Given that the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy (UK) defines it as both, along with the sources mentioned by Wristsquid, is that not enough for it to be at least worth considering mentioning somewhere in the lead that the term is used by different bodies to refer to different things, and not solely to refer to sexual orientation change efforts? Amekyras (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Wristsquid's source was problematic as explained by Mathglot. WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY still applies and to elevate this as equal to sexual orientation conversion therapy I think requires more than governmental sources, but MEDRS academic reviews. Mathglot, any thoughts on this? Crossroads ^-talk- 03:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Like Nat (below), I believe most sources are on orientation, not identity. Supposing we both are wrong about that, the WP:BURDEN is on those who wish to add material, to demonstrate that the addition is appropriate per WP:DUEWEIGHT. So far, that hasn't happened. It's UNDUE to add it even to the body, imho, unless there's evidence that it represents more than a "tiny minority" of sources on this topic.

Of course, for the topic Trans conversion therapy, those sources would be entirely WP:DUE and could be used (if they meet MEDRS). However, that topic would need to face questions of WP:Notability and whether they passed the bar for a stand-alone article. And, as in my response below, it definitely requires MEDRS sources. Mathglot (talk) 03:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It certainly is good to have a source that at least links the two together, and yes, a powerful source... but not a medical source. So if we're relying on this source, part of the question is whether this is a medical article requiring us to meet the guidelines at WP:MEDRS, or whether the preponderance of legal discussion regarding it makes it less medical in nature. I will note that if we do seek to include gender conversion on this page, it will likely take more of an effort than just replacing the first sentence, as I think (off the top of my head; I may be wrong) most of the laws are dealing with specifically orientation conversion efforts, and much of the other discussion is too, and it should not be written as if it reflects everything in that new opening sentence. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Nat is on the right track, here. I'd go a step further: it's not only whether the article is on a medical topic, but whether the specific *content* to be added is. WP:MEDRS defines what is "appropriate for medical content in any Wikipedia article." (emphasis in original). Mathglot (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Just gonna jump in and say do you have sources that touch on trans conversation therapy? Because I’m not entirely sure I can trust what you are saying.CycoMa (talk) 04:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect changes to legal status map

I'm not sure how to edit it so I can't make the changes myself but the legal status map of jurisdictions is wrong for Australia. The map was edited to make the changes for what I assume is the legal status changes in Queensland in 2020, but it was altered to add NSW not QLD. 2407:8800:BC61:300:A40A:D735:8355:DF9C (talk) 10:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion for Sigmund Freud section

I feel that the first paragraph of Sigmund Freuds section is slightly cluttered with the inclusion of Eugen Steinach's information as well. I'm wondering, would it be appropriate to create a sub-header for Eugen Steinach and separate his information from Sigmund Freud's a bit? It would look like this,

Eugen Steinach Eugen Steinach, was a Viennese endocrinologist who transplanted testicles from straight men into gay men in attempts to change their sexual orientation,[28] stating that his research had "thrown a strong light on the organic determinants of homo-eroticism".[29] Steinach's method was doomed to failure because the immune system rejects transplanted glands, and was eventually exposed as ineffective and often harmful.

Sigmund Freud Sigmund Freud was a physician and the founder of psychoanalysis. Freud stated that homosexuality could sometimes be removed through hypnotic suggestion,[27] and was influenced by Eugen Steinach. Freud cautioned that Steinach's operations would not necessarily make possible a therapy that could be generally applied, arguing that such transplant procedures would be effective in changing homosexuality in men only in cases in which it was strongly associated with physical characteristics typical of women, and that probably no similar therapy could be applied to lesbianism.[30][31]

(The section continues normally after this edit)

Another suggestion I'd like to present is the first sentence of the second paragraph in Freud's section. I believe it could be more concise if it were phrased like this,

"Freud's main discussion of female homosexuality was the 1920 paper "The Psychogenesis of a Case of Homosexuality in a Woman", which described his analysis of a young woman who had entered therapy because her parents were concerned that she was a lesbian and wanted her condition to be reverted."

I didn't want to make the changes without approval as I have made no edits prior to this, interested to hear the groups thoughts.BWeihsmantel2021 (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Tries to change a person's gender identity to cisgender

Conversion therapy often tries to change people's gender identity to cisgender, it also tries to make any feminine men masculine and any masculine women feminine DSMbomb (talk) 20:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Have you a source linking that to sexual preference conversion? --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

For the first half, see Talk:Conversion_therapy/Archive_24#Change framing of page to sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression. For the second half, (shrug) you gotta do it yourself. Artoria 2e5 🌉 07:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Lead edits

Various people have been editing the article lead recently, and whilst I personally think @TheTranarchist's version (the most recently added) is the best I've seen so far, I'm sure others will disagree and/or have ways to improve it, so could we possibly all hash out a list of things we think should be included? I suspect that it'll save a lot of hassle and hopefully provide a guide for editors rather than adding and reverting sections piecemeal. Amekyras (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Amekyras! I agree we should discuss the main points further here. My two cents is that the page has been solely centered around homosexual conversion therapy and still has work to do to include conversion therapy's larger history. I've been updating the history to include more accounts and the perspectives of modern health organizations but there's still a lot to be done. A few notes on possible next steps for the lead:

I believe the lead should do more to discuss how conversion therapy has been framed. Early conversion therapy viewed gender noncomformity (gender conformity being defined as being heterosexual, cisgender, and fulfilling gender stereotypes) in children, particularly AMAB children, as a precursor to being a transgender and/or gay adult. Thus, gender noncomformity was used as a visible proxy to target people's identities, expressions, and orientations. The goal was also not always to change a person's orientation per se, but rather to help them knowingly suppress their expression so they could "fit" better into society.

In addition, we should discuss how many of the medical "pioneers" of trans rights also engaged in these practices. While supporting the rights of transgender adults to transition medically and socially (since conversion therapy didn't work against them), they also tried to prevent children growing up to be trans. This influence persists in treatment for trans children aimed at preventing a trans outcome rather than supporting the child to this day.

Views from medical organizations can be condensed since they largely agree to condemn the practice. The definition of conversion therapy (most likely the one from the American Psychological Association) coupled with references/ and a short list of organizations against the practice would probably suffice.

The methods paragraph is intense but at the same time, the brutality of conversion therapy practices is worth mentioning to highlight how LGBTQ people have been treated. Corrective rape should also be mentioned. However, the practices used should also include "gentler" (when compared to lobotomy and rape) forms of conversion therapy such as enlisting family to support gender conformity and punish gender noncomformity through praise, condemnation, and corporal punishment. In addition, token systems as employed by Rekers, and talk therapy aimed at convincing children their identity is invalid should also be mentioned. Generally, we should make sure people are aware of the spectrum of conversion therapy.

The reparitive vs conversion therapy split doesn't warrant coverage in the lead, since reparitive therapy is more a rebranding of conversion therapy rather than distinct category and is regarded by various health organizations as such since it explicitly posits that homosexuality can be due to psychological damage and feelings of inferiority.

TheTranarchist (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)TheTranarchist

I reverted Transarchist's recent good-faith change to the WP:LEADSENTENCE as WP:UNDUE. The stated arguments above smack a bit too much of a point of view (which I share) but should hew closer to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In this case, the major problem is with WP:DUE WEIGHT. I checked Google scholar for conversion therapy, and after dropping irrelevant results (regarding gastric tumor surgery), the top ten relevant results all define the term wrt orientation, namely, trying to convert homosexual to heterosexual orientation. A few mention "homosexual and bisexual", and one source, (Byne 2016), after mentioning homosexual-to-heterosexual conversion attempts, also mentions identity and expression as part of the definition in "the language of recent regulations". (A search in Books reflects the same thing, although there are a lot of first-person accounts intertwined with religious and young rebellion-type stories, so you have to search through several result pages to accumulate ten solid references about the topic itself from a scientific viewpoint; results from Scholar are a lot cleaner for evaluating this.)

Recently, there is definitely more focus on trans identity or expression than there once was as part of the definition, especially in the context of legislation, but historically, conversion therapy is overwhelmingly about sexual orientation conversion. Both aspects (orientation/identity) should certainly be covered in the article, but in due proportion to their appearance in reliable sources. As time goes on, this may shift more to an equal weight between identity/expression conversion vs. orientation conversion, but it's not there yet. In the meantime, the article should reflect the reality of what the sources are saying, rather than substituting our own views or assessment of the equality of importance of the two issues. Mathglot (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation Mathglot! A few points, most health organizations have stated conversion therapy includes gender expression, identity, and sexual orientation. As per WP:MEDRS (see previous section in talk page), the lead should include the expanded definition since that is the one used by most medical bodies. It is not our role to define it otherwise. A search through google scholar using the search term [("conversion therapy" OR "reparative therapy") AND ("transgender" OR "transvestite" or "transsexual")] reveals approximately 1,800 results. Even if that were not the case, we still should base medical articles on scientific consensus around the topic not volume of individual articles published. Also, historically speaking, many studies involving conversion therapy practices (such as the ones conducted by Green, Money, Rekers, and Lovass) aren't labelled as such but nonetheless describe attempts to force children into gender conforming molds and fit the definition of conversion therapy as per mentioned medical organizations. Historically speaking, conversion therapy didn't differentiate between trans people, gender nonconforming people, and gay people but tried to convert them all. Trans people and gender noncomforming people didn't get a get out of conversion therapy free card. Conversion therapy targeted gender nonconformity in children as the proxy by which LGBTQ identification as an adult could be detected and changed. In short, the article should reflect the reality of what the sources are saying, rather than substituting our own assessment of the inequality of the importance of the two issues.

TheTranarchist (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)TheTranarchist

Our messages crossed while I was leaving one at your Talk page. There is some truth to what you say, but I don't have time to go into this in detail now. With regard to your search experiment, please read about WP:CHERRYPICKING, which is basically picking your results or biasing your query to achieve a desired end. (For an illustration of why your query is invalid as formulated, please see this discussion about a query-based discussion on a different topic, and search for the word marine.) In any case, resolution should come out of an expanded discussion with more editors contributing, and so far this is a good start, let's hope we hear more from others. Mathglot (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Rhode Island

Hasn't Rhode Island banned conversion therapy as well? The version of the page I just saw doesn't say so or display it on the USA map (where states w/ the ban are in blue). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.65.6 (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

France

Hasn't France also banned conversion therapy? Skyblue lh (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

- Source? Dronebogus (talk) 07:20, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  - Numerous news sources report this eg

https://www.google.com/search?q=france+bans+conversion+therapy&oq=france+bans+conversion+therapy&aqs=chrome..69i57.6921j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Sbishop (talk) 07:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Inclusion of gender-conversion therapy in this article

As major national professional groups, and other national and international organizations, now treat gender-conversion therapy as part of the same "conversion therapy" topic (along with conversion therapy for sexuality), I see no policy-relevant reason to exclude gender conversion therapy from this article. Indeed, most of the recent discussion about "conversion therapy" is, in fact, about gender conversion therapy and not the other kind. Newimpartial (talk) 14:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Put the article back to its status before the edit-spat began. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anyone needs to time-travel back to the early months of covid, just because Crossroads disagrees with consensus reality, Newimpartial (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

IMO this is a good addition on something that's been seriously lacking compared to the recent literature, though I think we can do better than citing legal orgs. We should be looking for WP:MEDRS sources like systematic reviews and position statements, and thankfully there's plenty. (As a more general note, the sourcing in this article is more primary and generally lot older than we generally recommend. Too much to sort thru in one go but the lack of trans stuff is a more general symptom of most of the sources being out of date.) Gather together the recent lit, and survey says:

This is hardly a complete list, but it suffices to show conversion therapy is commonly defined in recent RS as including gender identity. Much as I'd like to go back to the good ol' 2000-2010s days when I was a teenager listening to The Black Parade seeing so many 2006 citations reminds me of, we do need to engage with the recent sourcing on the issue.

I know the idea attempting to change gender identity can be conversion therapy is controversial among the lay public, but so too is like, the idea climate change is real or that abstinence sex-ed doesn't work. If the American Medical Association is regarded as an activist cabal, I genuinely don't know what to tell people. Our articles are but the humble vessel of the MEDRS sourcing, and their words are clear. (There's also a position statement from the Association for Behavior Analysis here, but it's unclear whether they've already adopted this and just haven't updated the page or it's still provisional. Have emailed asking for clarification, but either way we've certainly come a long way since the days of Lovaas and Rekers' experiments.) —0xf₈e₈ 💿 (talk) 23:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

While a change in this direction was probably only a matter of time, and here we are, it's still worth reading and taking into account the recentish detailed discussions on this: this one and this one. There's also this one; all three have ideas about how to cover it if included.

Regardless, right now we have an article that for decades has been about sexual orientation only, but now has gender identity sprinkled in some places and has been redefined to include it. As a result of that legacy it reads or is composed oddly in some places. One idea floated (not by me) in the above discussions was to create separate articles for conversion therapy for sexual orientation and for gender identity. Sexual orientation and gender identity are distinct, but whether sources as a whole sufficiently distinguish the two sorts of conversion therapy is another matter. It seems that position statements usually combine the two, as do at least some review articles. At least historically, singular studies were only about one sort, so some other recent reviews might as well (and older reviews are probably just about sexual orientation). Or recent reviews may all combine the two. I hope some of the longer term watchers of this article can weigh in. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:35, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

As far as this article having for decades ... been about sexual orientation only, that hasn't been true for years; it included information about gender identity (particularly concerning conversion therapy bans) before the worldwide legal status map was added. That map was added almost four years ago, has been essentially uncontroversial since, and has always included gender identity. Newimpartial (talk) 13:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, gender identity is within the scope of Conversion therapy, per 0xF8E8. — Bilorv (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

The sources provided by 0xF8E8 reveal we should make more space for the gender identity topic in this article than what has been here. Since conversion therapy has historically referred to attempts to change sexual orientation, and the article's lead and body mostly show that, how to use WP:DUE and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY with this to consider is something editors can work through. Previous discussions included suggestions to create a separate article for gender identity conversion. Whether that's created, something should be here about it also.

The lead says, "There is no reliable evidence that sexual orientation or gender identity can be changed." At the sexual fluidity article, it's said that "Sexual orientation is stable and unchanging for the vast majority of people, but some research indicates that some people may experience change in their sexual orientation" and "There is no scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed through psychotherapy." So perhaps "There is no reliable evidence that sexual orientation or gender identity can be changed" should also use "through psychotherapy" here to account for people who report a change in their sexual orientation or gender identity, but not a forceable change. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd support a change to "... can be changed through psychotherapy" or "... can be forcibly changed" or similar. Maybe the whole clause is not necessary, as the more major relevant point is that conversion therapy techniques are ineffective (and harmful). — Bilorv (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I’ve made an edit along these lines, changing no evidence … can be changed to can be altered to imply a an active (and cisnormative) attempt to unnaturally/forcibly change identities. For clarity, I’d also support just removing and gender identity from that sentence. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 15:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I imagine the same clarity quibbles might be raised over sexual orientation too, though. I'm thinking it might be simpler just to say There is no reliable evidence any such intervention alters sexual orientation or gender identity... (if intervention is too repetitive with lead sentence, "practice" or whatever works too). That foregrounds that we're talking about the fact no method works to actively change someone's orientation or gender ID rather than someone who reports they were straight five years ago saying they think they're bisexual now or like someone who's genderfluid. —0xf₈e₈ 💿 (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I concur with 0xF8E8. If we need to convey that sexual orientation or gender identity cannot be changed by intervention (rather than through an individual's own fluidity), then let us say so. PepperBeast (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

If we are writing this article based off of medical consensus such as the above quoted sources that say Conversion therapy includes intervention to change a person's gender identity and expression; why is only Transgender to "Cisgender" recognized? "Cisgender" to transgender conversion therapy happens a lot and it's wrong to leave it out ChaseF (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

For the same reason we don't say straight-to-gay conversion therapy, since that's not actually practiced. If cis-to-trans conversion therapy happens so often, please provide medical sources to that effect and we can include it. TheTranarchist (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)TheTranarchist

Israel

It looks like Israel now has a de facto ban on conversion therapy, since the Health Ministry bans it now (as of last month).^[1] Does that meet the requirements of de facto ban? If so, I'm guessing the map needs to be updated in the Legal Status section of this article. RadicalCopyeditor (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

{

References

^ Joffre, Tzvi (February 14, 2022). "Health Ministry formally bans LGBTQ+ conversion therapy".

Citations 1-8 only about sexual orientation

Citations 1-8 are only about sexual orientation. This is very misleading. 100.17.20.147 (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

It's not "very misleading" at all; for decades, conversion therapy was almost entirely focused on sexual orientation, and only very recently have proponents began targeting transgender people. Furthermore, citation 6 (and citations 9 and 10) isn't just about sexual orientation. It also bears noting that "gender confusion" (particularly in children) has long been interpreted as indicative of "homosexual tendencies" in a way that erases the possibility that a young person might in fact be trans. RadicalCopyeditor (talk) 12:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

So you’ve conceded that citations 1-5, 7, and 8 are only about sexual orientation, but think there’s nothing misleading about that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.17.20.147 (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Sam Brinton.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

This issue has been resolved; the original picture had copyright issues and I contacted Sam Brinton, who provided an image that they owned and sent a release to commons-permissions. That image is now on Sam Brinton's article and also on this one. BBQboffin (talk) 05:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Cisgender - NPOV?

The wording in the lead was recently reverted to "cisgender" on the basis of restoring NPOV. Given that many (most?) people have no idea what "cisgender" means and that some of those who do either a) resent a label being applied to them without their consent, or b) deny that "gender identity" even exists, is "cisgender" really NPOV?

I appreciate the sensitivity about language around this issue, and the importance of inclusivity, but surely those cut both ways? JezGrove (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Are you able to present any relevant, reliable sources supporting your idea that "cisgender" might not be the right term, in this context? In general, on Wikipedia we base editing decisions on reliable sources. Newimpartial (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Has the use of "cisgender" as a NPOV term been discussed anywhere? Searching for "WP:Cisgender" just comes up with very ancient discussions about deleting the Cisgender article itself. JezGrove (talk) 21:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think any editors have presented the idea that "cisgender" is a POV term in relation to article content. The closest thing I could find easily was this 2015 discussion, which rested on the sourcing of the term for a BLP subject rather than POV issues. Related matters have been discussed in relation to editor behaviour in 2017 and whether the term is a slur in 2014, but nothing recent. Of course the Culture War has evolved somewhat, even since 2017. (There was also the discussion in 2020 recorded here, in which a now-banned editor lost their shit over the term, but that isn't really a constructive example of anything, much less consensus.) Newimpartial (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Not "therapy"

Conversion therapy has been widely panned by professional organizations and banned in numerous jurisdictions. There is an evolution in the academic literature to move away from the term conversion therapy and towards other terms, because it isn't therapy. Here's an excerpt from Haldeman (2022):

The year was 1983, and it marked the beginning of my interest in what was once known as “conversion therapy” or “reparative therapy.” I should note from the outset that in the mental health literature these terms are being replaced by the less familiar but more accurate acronym sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) because these methods do not constitute a legitimate, accepted form of therapy. There is no empirical basis for the theories of SOCE and no evidence of its success. To the contrary, there is ample evidence that SOCE can significantly harm people. No training protocols for SOCE exist, and nearly every major health care organization in the United States opposes SOCE. Therefore, to refer to these methods as therapy in any form elevates them to a status of which they are undeserving.
— Douglas C Haldeman, p.4, Introduction: A history of conversion therapy, from accepted practice to condemnation

That said, I don't think this yet rises to the critical mass needed for changing the title, as Wikipedia follows, it does not lead, and we should wait for the general view to crystallize, before proposing a rename. However, we should be aware of this trend, and it would be appropriate to add a "Terminology" section to the article to discuss this subtopic. Some terms relevant to a #Terminology section might include: aversion therapy, conversion therapy, reparative therapy, SOCE, gender identity change efforts (GICE), Sexual Identity Therapy (SIT), and others. For some examples of #Terminology sections, see Transsexual#Terminology, Transgender#Terminology, Homosexuality#Etymology, or LGBT#History of the term. Mathglot (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

The Haldeman source is interesting and definitely worth referencing the body. Conversion therapy still seems like the common name for the moment. It has the added benefit of including SOCE and GICE, which are both currently in-scope for this article. Trying to Frankenstein those together would result in an over-long title like Sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts.

It's worth noting that we have an existing article on Sexual orientation change efforts (no corresponding Gender identity change efforts), which views conversion therapy as one of multiple forms of SOCE, but doesn't provide real evidence for such a distinction. Based on a quick skim, it smells like a POV fork which takes a much more "both sides"-y approach to representing viewpoints from the "ex-gay" movement, conversion therapy practitioners, and other Christians who allege to have had their homosexuality cured by their faith in Jesus Christ. There were some past rumblings on that talk page about merging it with this article, but not much attention. While we've got multiple editors' attention, I think a WP:MERGE discussion (with this article as the target) may be worthwhile. RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 00:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Was surprised to learn of the existence of that article, and would certainly think that airing a possible MERGE in a discussion (separate from this, please) would be a good idea. Mathglot (talk) 22:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Done, see below. RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 17:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)