Talk:List of LGBTQ medical organizations

Unanswered questions

Thanks for the reminder to keep on-topic. Looking back to see what the issues are, there are a few things I don't understand. I'll try to keep them simple, and on-topic.

• How do we decide who is LGBT? Are people with unwanted homosexual attractions LGBT? I have never gotten a clear response on that. To me, anyone with homosexual attraction is LGBT.
• How do we decide what organizations are potentially harmful? As I pointed out earlier, one of these organizations have been praised by the Advocate.
• How do we decide what is organization is medical? To me, that belongs to the official medical organizations. Whether we think ego-dystonic homosexuality or persistent distress about sexual orientation is a red-herring, I still think we should go with what most people think.

If I can get an answer to these questions I can figure out where these groups belong. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think these issues have been addressed and a solution has been presented - create a list and link the list to this article via a "See also" link. A list of conversion therapy, or some other meaningful title like List of organizations supportive of the ex-gay movement can be quite inclusive, the lede can spell out that conversion therapy groups are considered supportive, etc. A see also link here would be fine IMHO. -- Banjeboi 03:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Doing this would improve the encyclopedia - producing such an article/list would provide this information to readers who were interested, and a link to such a list could be placed on articles where this would be appropriate, and by ensuring the information is maintained in one place (rather than inserting it here, there and anywhere) avoid the kind of editing here recently, which does not benefit any of those involved, the article/list, nor the encyclopedia. I agree that I am sure this is being done sincerely, but feel it is misguided on this page, for all the reasons discussed - if one individual does not understand this, or cannot accept this, after editors have taken great pains to explain, I don't see what more we can do. There is no point arguing about this further, as it is no longer productive and goes round in circles. Mish (talk) 09:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Is the only issue with conversion therapy? Can we include groups that do not practice conversion therapy? I still do not feel like these questions were answered. I still want to escalate this if I do not get an answer. I also wanted to touch on a few points. Mish talked about the low "success" rate of conversion therapy. I would like to add that some people who did not experience a change in sexual orientation still found the therapy helpful. The goal isn't to change sexual orientation, it is to treat ego-dystonic homosexuality. To address the point that changing sexual orientation means they are trying not to be gay anymore. I would point out that even Nicolosi says that there will still be same-sex attractions. If even the "successful" ones are still attracted to the same sex, that would mean the sexual orientation would at most change from gay to bisexual. LGBT still includes bisexuals. Changing sexual orientation from homosexuality to bisexuality still falls within the scope of LGBT. About the accusation of propaganda, I think they are significant enough organizations to list, and it wouldn't be propaganda anymore than any other organization on this list. Categories like "aversion" to homosexuality implies the POV that anyone going to these organizations only do so out of aversion to homosexuality, which isn't true. Creating another list may help, but I am concerned about the implications that excluding the organizations from this list would imply, that somehow these organizations are anti-gay or aren't real medical organizations, both of which I feel are not NPOV. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:SNOW Dosbears (talk) 04:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

New APA resolution - relates to earlier discussions

This is from Yahoo News, there's nothing on the APA site, but presumably there will be an official statement and something in the media:

Psychologists repudiate gay-to-straight therapy

The American Psychological Association declared Wednesday that mental health professionals should not tell gay clients they can become straight through therapy or other treatments.

Instead, the APA urged therapists to consider multiple options — that could range from celibacy to switching churches — for helping clients whose sexual orientation and religious faith conflict.

In a resolution adopted on a 125-to-4 vote by the APA's governing council, and in a comprehensive report based on two years of research, the 150,000-member association put itself firmly on record in opposition of so-called "reparative therapy" which seeks to change sexual orientation.

No solid evidence exists that such change is likely, says the report, and some research suggests that efforts to produce change could be harmful, inducing depression and suicidal tendencies.

The APA had criticized reparative therapy in the past, but a six-member task force added weight to this position by examining 83 studies on sexual orientation change conducted since 1960. Its comprehensive report was endorsed by the APA's governing council in Toronto, where the association's annual meeting is being held this weekend.

The report breaks new ground in its detailed and nuanced assessment of how therapists should deal with gay clients struggling to remain loyal to a religious faith that disapproves of homosexuality. Mish (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Here too: [[1]] Mish (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)