Talk:Conversion therapy

From Conservapedia

(Redirected from Talk:Reparative therapy)
Jump to: navigation, search


Proposed Changes

In the very near future , I'd like to expand the article to include some more detail of techniques (the article in its current form is not very informative). I'd do it now but it requires research to fully flesh it out complete with citations. I planned to include a detailed list of common techniques and a bit more information on the reasons given why much of the medical community is not in favor of these techniques. My question I allowed to make it as detailed as possible (no matter where the data takes me) or must I follow guidelines to ensure that it is presented in the brightest light possible? --DavidS 14:56, 21 December 2013 (EST)

The Conversion therapy article was unprotected on 29 December 2007 by Ed Poor (talk)

I made these changes after an argument with Ed Poor on IRC. In an effort to be fair, I have divided the page into sections for & against.-AmesGyo! 11:13, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

For and against is a good division. This is a hot topic, i.e., hotly debated. The fur may fly. Let's try to keep it cool. --Ed Poor 10:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Example 1

This is flawed citation, American Psychiatric Association, [1] it is the American Psychological Association. I'll give AmesG one warning, as I believe he understands the issues. This is integral to this discussion and debate regarding representation of the science and research on homosexuality. I will accept it as a one time error in good faith, henceforth "errors", and misrepresentations of citations like this, will be regarded as deliberate deception, and trolling. RobS 11:06, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

If you block him, please make it a short one. I myself have trouble keeping the two psych groups apart in my mind.
Also, we need to distinguish between "brainwashing" (coercive changes attempted on prisoners) and "counseling" (voluntary changes attempted on clients). --Ed Poor 11:16, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
That's a very easy mistake to make and there's no particular advantage to citing one APA over the other. I doubt it was an attempt to be misleading. Murray 11:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Murray, I disagree.
Ed and AmesG, I haven't had much interaction with AmesG in editing, but he should understand, I can handle all kinds of personal abuse, etc., one thing I am intollerent of, is misrepresentation of sources. This instance was as plain as the nose on your face, however when someone cites a source to make it say something other than what it says, or does not say at all, I am as equally intollerent. IOW, read your cites, understand completely what they say, before using them. RobS 11:25, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Well, that's the part I agree with 100%. It's one of the main reasons I'm so inactive at Wikipedia.
The desire to make the source seem to say what you want it to say ... --Ed Poor 11:31, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
A very recent discussion appropriately enough on the Deceit talk page is the best example yet. [2] An editor claimed Paul Wolfowitz said such and such on a date specific. Click on the link, and it was his interviewer quoting Wolfowitz from a previous interview. After I pointed out to the editor this was an extremely bad "example" of deception, to my surprise he immediately returned with the original interview. Reading the first two exchanges of that original interview, [3] it quickly became obvious why this editor deliberately engaged in this calculated deception. I wish to make the emphatic point, I personally get offended when someone insults me with this kind of garbage, as if I am too stupid to discern the facts. It really is very much a personal attack. (Full discussion). RobS 11:44, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, that's a whole can of worms + another full can of scorpions!
I remember when the liberal press decided how to gang up on Bush about the invasion rationale, because it came right after one of the few times I actually listened to a presidential address on live radio.
There's a whole lot of misinformation "out there", which simply underscores the need for us to make a trustworthy encyclopedia.
I only hope we can do it with ulcers, heart attacks or strokes! ;-) --Ed Poor 11:47, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
You mean Bush and Hillary; as Hillary said, "this is something that I have followed for a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming....there is no accounting for the chemical and biological stocks." [4] Let's be fair about this. RobS 12:15, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I fail to see what the problem is here, yes the citation had an most likely unintentional spelling error on it, if that is the problem, why not just correct it, no need to remove all of the content. Allso American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association seam to share the same opininnion that reparative therapy isn't usually helpfull, on the contrary it's usually harmfull [5] So i see even less reason to over react to this error. Timppeli 13:58, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Correction was done, and as stated above, the editor understands the issues, which is not an unqualified statement and I can personally attest to. What flowed from that "errant" citation was a whole series of faulty, and deceptive references and editing. RobS 14:42, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
After going thro the page history im quite baffled, what series of faulty and deceptive refrences and editing do you mean? This article only has few edits and only one even touching the whole subject is you when deleting AmesG:s edits. This all makes one wonder what your true motivations where. Either way, i take you don't then oppose me adding that information again with small modifications and the right citation? Timppeli 15:59, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
Let me make this clear, the text that was reverted has been rejected. RobS 16:41, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
On what grounds? After correcting the citations and mayby few small modifications it should be well sourced and supported claim. To remove it there would need to be some reason. Might you specify one? Timppeli 16:58, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Example 2

  • the theory maintains, homosexuality can be "cured" or remedied.[1]

Neither citation, the original Sexual Activity and the Gay Agenda, or what it is quoting from, Healing Homosexuality: Case Stories of Reparative Therapy, use the word "cured", yet it is represented here in quotations. This misrepresention will not be tolerated. So AmesG has been put on notice. RobS 12:42, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

In other words, don't use scare quotes in an article, especially in a sentence or paragraph with footnotes. It seemed apropos to check the APA Publication Manual, and here's what they say:
  • "Use double quotation marks to introduce a word or phrase used as an ironic comment, as slang, or as an invented coined expression. Use quotation marks the first time the word or phrase is used; thereafter, do not use the quotation marks." (2001, 82)
  • "Do not use double quotation marks to hedge. [For example,] the teacher "rewarded" the class with tokens." (2001, 83)
I can certainly see the slangy nature of the word "cure" in this context, as most authorities would state that "curing" homosexuality is a prima facie impossibility; it is not an illness. On the other hand, that's almost the same as hedging an expression. APA isn't very helpful here. I would say the sentence should be reworded to make it clear that the word "cure" is not being quoted from the cited material, or do away with it.--All Fish Welcome 14:50, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
  • most authorities
    • Who? the American Psychiatric Association or the American Psychological Association? It would have helped to begin this discussion with a little good faith (on the original editors part). However, its all moot at this point. RobS 15:17, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Example 3

  • the American Psychological Association flatly rejects the theory as insulting, degrading, and potentially damaging..[2]

Nowhere does the word "insulting" appear in the mirepresented link. RobS 12:54, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

  1. Sexual Activity and the Gay Agenda

Keeping Balance: Let ME Make this Clear

Reparative theory is controversial. Most of the legitimate medical world rejects it. Both perspectives need to be offered, or the article will be wrong.-AmesGyo! 16:42, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Ames. Czolgolz 16:50, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I have no objections to telling both sides of the RT story. Now, let's see, where's that nice book Dr. Laura endorsed? --Ed Poor 16:53, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Hey Rob, great job discussing it on the talk page. You need to raise the objections to the "theory" from the APA; otherwise it's wrong. Say it's the APA; not "some groups." And remember, it's just a theory ;-) -AmesGyo! 17:04, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Well you can begin straightening out any bogus text and citations you wish to add here on talk before the page gets unlocked. RobS 17:11, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Tell me how your version's better. Mine is more balanced, better organized, and cites more than just sources that support one perspective. So, yours is...? -AmesGyo! 17:12, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Read the above three Examples and respond specifically, otherwise it's just trolling. RobS 17:13, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

I fixed your comments as requested. How is yours better than my fixed version?-AmesGyo! 17:14, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

That's what I thought. My version was better. Change it back.-AmesGyo! 22:20, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

"Not Any Scientific Reasoning"

You realize there's no scientific basis for calling homosexuality a mental disorder, right? And, assuming arguendo no evidence for NOT calling it a mental disorder, don't you think it's best to err on the side of declassifying, so as not to offend? And do you not further realize, that "disorder" is a relative term, judged by society's values, et al, not an objective term of art?-AmesGyo! 17:09, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

See Gender identity disorder. RobS 17:11, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

...which is different than homosexuality in many important elements. And I'm not talking about your hatchet job on that article, I'm talking about this hatchet job.-AmesGyo! 17:13, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Not what the DSM IV says. [6] RobS 17:15, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

They seem to suggest that homosexuality is necessary for a diagnosis of some, but not sufficient for it. You are aware of the distinction?-AmesGyo! 17:17, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Who would this diagnosis apply to other than latent or active homosexuals? RobS 21:23, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Let's draw a Venn Diagram! "Gender identity" seems to be, from the perspective of the article, a subset of homosexuality. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that's what your source argues. It does not argue that "gender identity disorder" = homosexuality.-AmesGyo! 22:20, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Let's qualify my source first. My source is the APA DVM IV. This is the diagnositc manual of psychiatric disorders. All subsidiary pschyotherapists bow and genuflect to this source. It is the textbook of medical conditions and diagnosis. If it's not in here, its not a medical or psychiatric condition. If it is here, it is a profressionaly recognized and treatable psychiatric condition. Would you agree with that characterization, or can you cite a more qualified source than the APA on recognized psychiatric conditions and mental illness? RobS 22:55, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
I never impugned the quality of your source. I said it doesn't support the equation of gender identity disorder with homosexuality.-AmesGyo! 22:59, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
I have heard only theological speculation (from lay Christians) about gender identity disorder being related to homosexuality. Feeling that you're the wrong sex tends to lead to cross-dressing. Feeling that you need to unite with the opposite sex leads to homosexuality. The two disorders might be similar, but for our purposes they're distinct enough for separate articles. We need to dig into authors like Socarides, Medinger, Cohen, Schlesinger, Dobson, etc., for solid psychological and religious views. --Ed Poor 23:07, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
What an embarassing typo (thinko?) I made! I meant unite with the same sex, of course. :-( --Ed Poor 07:23, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

AmesG, who, other than a latent or active homosexual, could be diagnosed with gender identity disorder? RobS 23:17, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Sigh, right, your source argues "all gender ID sufferers are gay," not "all gays are gender ID sufferers." Do you understand the distinction?-AmesGyo! 23:19, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
The diagnosis is, all gender ID sufferers are gay who complain about it. Point being, cancer symptoms are not symptoms of gender ID disorder, whereas homosexual desires are a symptom of the mental illness. RobS 00:04, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
The source demonstrates that homosexual desires in some people are the result of a mental illness, not anything else. Nematocyte 03:42, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
I'm not certain I understand this. You mean the gay gene causes mental illness? RobS 13:03, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
No. I'm afraid I don't understand why you don't understand this issue, so I'll put the logic out in a step by step fashion. Apologies if it seems condescending, but I see no other way.
  1. Gender ID disorder is a mental illness
  2. According to how the source is reported on this page, all gender ID sufferers are gay
  3. Gender ID disorder is not the "gay gene"
  4. Not all gay people have gender ID disorder
  5. Therefore, only a subset of gay people have Gender ID disorder
  6. Therefore, only a subset of gay people have a mental illness.

Nematocyte 13:24, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

  • According to how the source is reported on this page, all gender ID sufferers are gay
Where does it say this, and what language would you propose to clarify it? RobS 14:28, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Not all people with GID are gay, either. The DSM only gives stats for men who were diagnosed in childhood. Of those, 75% as adults are either gay or bisexual, 25% are heterosexual. And Rob, "homosexual desires" are not a symptom of GID. It's about wanting to be the other gender. For example, in kids, one symptom is a "strong preference for playmates of the other sex" (p537 of DSM). Sexual desire isn't even mentioned in the diagnostic criteria. Murray 13:31, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

So the arguement is, "strong persistent cross-gender identification" refers to something other than homosexuality.[7] RobS 14:28, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Yep. I'm not sure why you think otherwise. You have several times linked to the site that lists the DSM diagnostic criteria. Perhaps you could point out where it says that it refers to homosexuality? I can't find anything in my copy. Murray 14:45, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Define "strong persistent cross-gender identification" then. RobS 14:47, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
The feeling that one should be or would rather be the opposite gender. Wanting to take on roles that traditionally belong to the other gender. Often to the point of feeling so uncomfortable with one's gender as to try to pass as the opposite gender, or to have surgery to actually become the other gender. Read the entry again - it says virtually nothing about sexuality at all. Murray 14:55, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Ok, let's confine this discussion to humans. So this means a man wants to have a baby? RobS 15:08, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
I guess I missed the point at which non-humans came up. Sure, that would be consistent, though not necessary. And? Murray 15:30, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
So we can rule out asexuals then. But "strong, persistent cross identification" goes beyond wanting to wear high heals. It deals with sex, either a man wants to have a baby, or woman feels she can impregnate someone, or there is a desire to have sex with members of ones own sex. Would that be fair characterization? RobS 15:37, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

No, I don't think it would be. If a man wishes he could get pregnant, it doesn't follow that it's because he wants to have sex with another man. If it was about sex with another man, why would pregnancy come into it? It's more likely a desire for motherhood (see 2nd para under Diagnostic Features). It is beyond wanting to wear high heels, but that doesn't make it about sex. It's about (assuming we're talking about a man) wanting to live as a woman, with everything that encompasses. High heels, makeup, etc., are symbols of womanhood. Murray 15:46, 1 May 2007 (EDT) Adds: There may be a desire to have sex with someone of the same gender but that's peripheral to the definition of GID. And it's more about wanting oneself to be the opposite gender, and therefore be having sex with someone of the opposite gender, if you know what i mean. Murray 15:49, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

So homosexuality enters into the equation. And by definition, this diagnosis could not apply to anyone other than homosexuals. RobS 15:53, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Then how is it that the symptoms usually fade as childhood goes on, and that 25% are heterosexual by late adolescence? The diagnosis still has nothing to do with whether a person wants to have same-sex sex. Murray 16:02, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Sorry I missed that stat. It does say men outnumber women who seek sex change operation by a 3/1 ratio. This is an interesting stat, given that nature provides roughly a 50/50 ratio of births, men to women. You'd think, since nature screwed up, the ratios would be somewhat more equal. How do we explain this disequilibria? RobS 16:24, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
There are any number of diseases/disorders which effect one sex more than the other. Nothing particularly unusual about that.--WJThomas 16:33, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
That's true. Prostate cancer is extremely rare among women. RobS 16:42, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

It should also be pointed out that individuals diagnosed with gender identity disorder typically also present some form of mental stress because of the identity crisis and subsequent conflict. Many who are homosexual but not diagnosed with the geder identity disorder do not exhibit stress due to their sexual orientation per se, but because of the reactions they observe from others. -Prof0705

I get it, others are making them sick. Their victim status leads to an illness, or is it the other way around, their illness leads to a victim status not enshrined in law yet? RobS 16:49, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Nature screwed up? I don't necessarily agree with that but I'm glad to see you accepting that homosexuality is biologically determined. Regarding the gender distribution of GID, a reasonable hypothesis is that something about prenatal brain development (eg, hormone levels) was different. Murray 19:31, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Actually no. I didn't express a personal opinion. I am reciting the theory of science behind both gay gene theory and this diagnosis. RobS 20:23, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

I shall list the specific DSM-IV criteria here, and express why they do not apply to the vast majority of homosexuals:

1. There must be evidence of a strong and persistent cross-gender identification.

"Cross-gender" identification includes but is not limited to the persistent desire to be the opposite sex, or to associate with the opposite sex. This includes for Male-to-Females, makeup, heels, and dresses. While it has been claimed above that it doesn't just cover "wanting to wear heels" in fact, it does, if that desire is sufficiently persistent. In order to meet the criteria for GID however, all criteria must be met. This can also refer to strictly gender roles, which are not necessarily connected to sexual or reproductive habits and behaviors. There are a number of social and cultural differences in the behavior of men and women, and anyone who wishes to fill the gender roles of the opposite gender qualify in this parameter.

The best test for this is to ask a man, "Do you want to be a woman?" and to ask a woman "Do you want to be a man?" A response in the affirmative is a positive indicator for this criterion, a response in the negative is a definitive contra-indication of Gender Identity Disorder.

What if (a) the person is lying, or (b) the person is incapable of making a rational judgement, or (c) due to social or cultural homophobia the person feels pressure to go along in order to get along, or (d) due to internalized homnophobia, he's in denial? RobS 17:55, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
Well then, (a) this presumption can be made of any disease, that's why there is counciling to determine the reasons and appropriateness of treatment. (b) GID is not to be treated in the case of a coinciding medical/psychiatric condition, this means not for people who potentially have multiple personality disorder, or some other psychiatric disorder where treatment would only result in worse results for the patient. In the case of a defense mechanism in response to a sexually tramatic experience, GID is contraindicated. For instance, a girl was raped and as the only way she can resolve the issue psychiatrically on her own, she presumes that she needs to have a gender change. GID, and its therapy is also contraindicated in this event. (c/d) gender identity therapy begins with vetting the patient to ensure that they're not simply distraught with being gay, or some other such reason. Gender therapy begins off immediately with the idea that gender reassignment therapy (which consists of counselling, hormones then surgery over the course of at least one year) should be the last option chosen. If there is anyway for a person with GID to live in their assigned gender, then they are recommended to persue that, and not face the discrimination, and unnecessary nature that would be their treatment. There is also significant interest in ensuring that treatment is only given to those for whom it is appropriate.
If the treatment would cause more harm than good, then the treatment is contraindicated. In Iran, I mentioned that transsexuality is accepted, as a result gay, and lesbian people are pressured to change gender in order to have sex with the people they are attracted to, this is widely regarded as inappropriate in the western world. If gender reassignment therapy is carried out upon someone who is not transsexual, or significantly transgendered, the situation which they are placed in is just as emotionally and psychiatrically damaging as the situation that you are moving transsexuals out of. As a result, hormones and therapy are denied without approval from an appropriate therapist, and surgery in particular requires the sign off from a Ph.D. This intented to raise the bar sufficiently that anyone doing it on a whim will not be able to do any lasting damage to themselves by lying in order to gain treatment. Therapists are well accustomed to behaviors and stories that indicate a person lying about their experiences of GID. In all cases however, if someone were to simply express that they have homosexual desires, the therapy would not travel towards treatment, but towards treating that person's discomfort with their homosexuality, whether than means resolving them to their heterosexuality, or having them come to acccept and embrace their homosexuality. Either way, homosexuality alone is immediately a disqualifying factor for treatment and diagnosis of GID. --Puellanivis 18:37, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

While gay men and butch lesbians typically express their gender roles quite broadly, and may take up gender roles typically considered outside of their traditional roles, such as men paying more attention to their looks, clothes, and fashion, and women caring significantly less about it, and acting more physical, reardless, if you ask them "Do you want to be a woman" and "Do you want to be a man?" they will answer in the negative. They are happy with their gender, they're simply attracted to the same sex.

2. This cross-gender identification must not merely be a desire for any perceived cultural advantages of being the other sex.

The person can't have these feelings simply because for instance, a woman wants to "break through the glass ceiling", or a man wants to enjoy having their dates paid for, doors opened for them, etc.

There has to be distinct evidence, that even if changing their gender meant total loss of all advantages that they would still be willing to undergo the change. A good example here would be male to female transsexuals in Iran. As men they have significant advantages, and as women they lose enormous amounts of rights, yet they still change. (Yes, Iran condones gender change, they make it mandatory once approved, and the health care system pays for it.)

3. There must also be evidence of persistent discomfort about one's assigned sex or a sense of inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex.

This is the easiest contra-indication that gays have Gender Identity Disorder. They are quite happy with the sex they're assigned, and feel appropriate in the gender that they live in.

This is quite different from someone suffering from severe stress, and depression over their body being the wrong sex, such to the point that they would consider mutilating it in order to acheive a correction of their body.

4. The individual must not have a concurrent physical intersex condition (e.g., androgen insensitivity syndrome or congenital adrenal hyperplasia).

"Intersex" means that you're born somewhere in between the genders. Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (the body does not properly matabolize testosterone) only affects genetic males, and can vary significantly from simply low infertility, through infertility, through ambiguous genitalia, all the way until you reach a female external form, with internalized testes, and significant lack of pubic and ancilliary hair (arm pits). Pubic and ancilliary hair grow as a response to testosterone, and thus, when the body is insensitive to it, it will not grow. In the later case, few people have any idea that anything would be wrong with their daughter until she didn't start her period in a timely manner, and they brought her to her doctor to figure out why. It's estimated that 6% of all cases coming to fertility clinics are because the mother has undiagnosed AIS. The reason AIS only affects males is because women do not have sufficient testosterone to affect their external development anyways.

Congenital adrenal hyperplasia only affects females, as it refers to an abnormal amount of testosterone affecting a developing fetus, which results in the genetically female body developing externally down the path of virilization.

There are a slew of other intersex conditions, basically, this criteria is to ensure that GID is only indicated in those who have no known biological reason to have cross-gender feelings.

5. There must be evidence of clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

The most common response to "why did you change to a woman?" by male to female transsexuals is that they came to an impass, and it was either change or commit suicide. The stress upon their life creates severe depression, it can lead to socially abberant behavior, antisocial behavior, and numerous other issues.

Basically, the person cannot be able to function in their current life without therapy to resolve their feelings.

Gay people are normally quite successful, they don't have such odd social behaviors, or psychological stress (to the degree of GID patients) that cause them to really require the necessity to transition. If you ask them, "Would you be able to continue to live your life as your current gender?" their response would be positive, while someone with GID will expressly respond in the negative, stating that if they were unable to change, that they would face catastrophic life consequences, such as suicide, total failure of work life, decent into "uncurable" depression, etc.

There are a lot of reasons why gay people do not typically have GID... the biggest indicator is that they are happy with their life. When lay people get ahold of some DSM criteria, they may not understand the actual meanings and intentions of that text, while even a psychiatrist/psychologist who is not familiar with GID itself would be able to assess the GID criteria, and state blatently, that it would not apply to gays and lesbians. --Puellanivis 15:55, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Ok, so you've made the case why "the vast majority of homosexuals" do not suffer from GID (in the United States). Yet in the Gender identity disorder article you've stated, "in Iran Gender Identity Disorder is recognized and sex reassignment therapy, and surgery is compulsory, and paid for by the state." Neither claim is supported by the underlying document you provided. [8] In fact, the underlying document contradicts what you have claimed:
  • state health organisation may also subsidise...
  • such theologian even writing a thesis..."Teachers, colleagues and officials from the judiciary have been very encouraging towards my thesis... We have to differentiate between sex changes and homosexuality."... Kariminia acknowledges that he is under pressure...
This is a far cry from "surgery is compulsory," as you have claimed. This needs some explanation, or proper sourcing, or you may be blocked from further editing for violating several of CP's core Commandments and Guidelines. Thank you. Rob Smith 15:24, 15 August 2007 (EDT)
Widely available sources, and information. Why don't conservatives papers tend to cover this topic? Because they generally take the opinion that transsexuality is homosexuality, and thus a Sin. Another source is I have however altered the "will pay for" section. Although saying that a socialist healthcare system "will pay for a heart transplant" ignores that medical reasons may play a reason why a heart transplant would not be allowed, and thus not covered by the state. Certainly at least saying "The state will pay for approved sex reassignment therapy and surgery" is also a definitively true statement.
To follow up on your questions regarding compulsory, for legal recognition of your gender, you require surgery, without legal recognition you are legally a male engaging in sexual acts with another male. Legally, that is homosexuality, and homosexuality is punished by death. Therefore, opting to not have surgery, will keep you legally your original gender, and thus a homosexual. Simple and clear extension of legal fact. --Puellanivis 16:05, 15 August 2007 (EDT)
Very good. I think you've come close to putting your finger on the point. This subheading, for example, is "Not Any Scientific Reasoning," you proceeded to make a lengthy and rather thoughtful exposition about how GID is not necessarily the same as homosexuality, and how DVM doesn't consider it homosexuality a disease or disorder. Fine. We know all that. This appeared to be really very scientifically based and keeping with the topic under this subhead questioning "scientific reasoning." Ok, fine. Then your next edit to mainspace appears highly ideological, and politically motivated, what I would refer to as activism. That has little to do with the ongoing discussion of the science. Then, in what would appear suspiciously motivated circumstances, you make various claims to a mainspace article regarding social policy and Islamic law unsupported by an illusory source. All this does not look good, and I hope you can understand our concerns.
Bottomline is, we are not a propaganda mouthpiece for disinformation. Subtley in any context will be meticulously reviewed. Mixing a poltical agenda with science, which either misquotes or misinterprets the underlying science, or conversely uses junk science to push activism, I personally am rather disposed to prevent. Rob Smith 17:04, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

The purpose of Exodus International and Reparative Therapy in their eyes

The mainspace edit was not politically motivated, but rather truthfully motivated. Not all reparative therapy sucesses end with "I'm a heterosexual now." Rather, the goal of reparative therapy is to correct homosexual behavior, and have the people overcome that. That still leaves the option of the person going to asexuality, and celebacy as an alternative to heterosexuality, and bisexuality.
Being that the article specifically is addressing Exodus International, let's use their words exactly:: "What is Exodus? Exodus is a nonprofit, interdenominational Christian organization promoting the message of Freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ."
The purpose and intend of Exodus International is to "help practicing homosexuals to overcome their homosexual desires." Not the further goal of ensuring that everyone who successfully goes through it is heterosexual at the end. --Puellanivis 18:28, 15 August 2007 (EDT)
Well again, you appear to be on some sort of mission, or other. This mainspace page is entitled "Reparative Therapy." You have placed a description of an organization about its primary mission, and not what the organization says about Reparative therapy. What Exodus International in fact says about Reparative Therapy, (and not itself which is what you are using to define Reparative Therapy), is,
reparative therapy — a holistic, counseling approach to addressing unwanted same-sex attraction — can be a beneficial tool. Exodus International is not a clinical facility and does not conduct clinical treatment of any kind....
Frankly, at this point, it now appears you've gone from using a biased journalist with Agencie France Presse as a source for statements that the jounralist himself never reported on, to alleging a "Christian organization promoting the message of Freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ" is "Not Any Scientific Reasoning." [9]
I would suggest you get off this track you're attempting to pursue. Contrary to many stereotypes, many Christians are not fools and idiots. Many of us are very familiar dealing with the types of distortions and disinformation you are attempting to place here, and have had decades of experience dealing with it. It is just not going to work. Rob Smith 18:48, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, it went off topic, I've now split the two discussions, so that it no longer appears that Exodus International is "Not Any Scientific Reasoning". In fact, I make no such claim at all. Reparative therapy can be a good thing in many cases.

My desire in my mainspace edit was simply to note that Exodus International and Reparative Therapy, even as you present their statement, do not make people heterosexual, they make them non-homosexual. This allows for celibacy and asexuality, of which the later's existince you have acknowledged. I am not trying to "push an agenda" here, and I understand that you would see my actions as some sort of mission. Which I sort of am, my mission is for the truth.

I *am* a Christian, and I know we're not fools. But certainly you wouldn't call an apple purple when it's red... If the goal of reparative therapy is to help an individual overcome their homosexuality, that is not the same as making them heterosexual. It also includes making them asexual. --Puellanivis 19:18, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

This article is currently of poor quality. It is mighty thin on citations.

This article is currently of poor quality. It is mighty thin on citations. Conservative 19:34, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Are there any other groups besides APA that reject Reparative therapy?

What other groups besides the APA reject Reparative therapy? Danbarker 22:00, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Off the top of my head, the other APA (American Psychiatric Assoc) and the American Medical Association. Murray 22:04, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
And after a quick search, the American Counseling Association, National Association of Social Workers, American Academy of Pediatrics, National Association of School Psychologists, American Association of School Administrators, National Education Association, and American Federation of Teachers. Murray 22:06, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
I think we've covered this ground. These groups all follow the lead taken by the American Psychiatric Assoc. None of them go contrary. RobS 22:16, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Pardon me for answering the question. The American Psychological Association came first, actually, 1990 vs 1998. Murray 22:20, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
That's not the issue. The issue is over what the diagnosis of the illness is. RobS 22:38, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Umm, What "illness"? Rob Pommertalk 22:40, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Well, we've been having discussion on several pages over varius diagnosis. Gender identity disorder is one, Homophobia is another. RobS 22:54, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

(unindent)Oh, okay, for this article I'd guess you'd being thinking of something along the lines of Sexual orientation dysphoria. Rob Pommertalk

RobS, you raised the issue, I was pointing out that in this case that's not correct. The relevant diagnosis (ie, what someone would likely be in reparative therapy for) is sexual disorder not otherwise specified, one example of which is persistent and marked distress about your sexual orientation. Murray 23:03, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
So, we see there is not only disagreement in the therapeutic community over treatment, there is disagreement over diagnosis as well. RobS 23:08, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Not sure what you mean. Those are 2 different diagnoses, given for 2 different sets of symptoms. Murray 23:10, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
There is controversy over those diagnosis, and then there are other controversies as well. RobS 23:22, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

It's an issue of sourcing. There is a controversy in the American Psychiatric Assoc. These controversies need to be articulated. What is not acceptable, are non-medical and non-psychiartric sources for criticism of this psychiatric therapy. That means no LGBT, no American Psychological Association, etc. etc. etc. as sources. Sources as critics of this therapy must be Psychiatrists. RobS 23:27, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

That's ridiculous. On what basis? Psychiatrists are not particularly well-trained in therapy compared to other fields. And what is the controversy over the diagnoses?Murray 00:03, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
The question is over a medical diagnosis. American Psychological Association takes its lead form the American Psychiatric Assoc. No one else is qualified, and even at that, the question is extremely controversial in the psychiatric profession. We have an unknown variable, there are many gay activists who have permeated the professions. They may have a conflict of interest in pushing pseudoscience in pursuit of a political agenda. This is well known and has been occurring for decades. And how would we know if they had this conflict of interest or not, unless it's disclosed. There are other factors as well. RobS 00:42, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
The claim that only a psychiatrist is qualified to assess the value of this or any form of psychotherapy reveals a lack of understanding of the profession. The vast majority of psychiatrists don't do therapy and even in med school don't get a great deal of training in it. And how would we know that a psychiatrist doesn't have a conflict of interest, in the same or the opposite direction? You seem to be claiming a conspiracy of some gay cabal that has taken over other professions as far as this issue is concerned. Also, I believe you overstate the controversy. Murray 00:55, 2 May 2007 (EDT)
Controversy has been raging for decades now, and again, it's not so much the therapy at the heart of the controversy, it's the diagnosis. It was a scientific fact one year ago there were 9 planets; today its a scientific fact there are only 8 planets. It was a scientific fact homosexuality was considered a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Assoc thirty-odd years ago; who's to say it won't be considered as a scientific fact a mental illness again tomorrow. The true facts are, we demand much from these experts and professionals, but maybe they just don't want the rest of society dumping all its unsolvable problems on them. Who knows. RobS 01:04, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

(unindent) Why should M.D. psych's get priority over Ph.D. psychs? Are we assuming that the human mind is a purely physical thing? Is the mind only a manifestation of the brain? What about the human soul? If there is life after death, then some part of you or me must continue to exist even after the brain turns into dust. --Ed Poor 08:52, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Because it's a medical diagnosis. Name one other instance where pschyologists recognize as a mental illness that the field of psychiatry does not. RobS 12:37, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't understand why the American Counseling Association, National Association of Social Workers, American Academy of Pediatrics, National Association of School Psychologists, American Association of School Administrators, National Education Association, and American Federation of Teachers weren't enough.-AmesGyo! 14:16, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Because even if the entire Catholic Church said the Earth is stationary, it would not make Galileo's defense of the Copernican system of "planets revolving around the Sun" any less true. Citing scientific bodies is a political strategy, same as the anthropogenic global warming advocates citing the "scientific consensus" of the UN assessment (see IPCC). --Ed Poor 17:49, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Ed Poor's recent edits.

Recently Ed Poor made the edit of removing: "Reparative Therapy is the idea that homosexuality can be cured by prayer and reflection. It is based on the idea that homosexuality is a choice." That's a very clearly POV edit, as the sentence following and describing Reparative Therapy is accurate, and factual. That is unless, and only unless it can be shown that there exists a Reparative Therapy method that does not rely upon religious tenants.

There is now a very strong bias on this page against Reparative Therapy. Not only does the last section criticize Reparative Therapy, but the first quote in the first section biasedly criticizes Reparative Therapy.

The edits to the first section are simply unacceptable from an accurate and factual point of view. If the first quote should be kept, then it should be placed in the section "Misinformation about reparative therapy" which first of all is entirely biased simply by the language.

Would someone PLEASE revert these edits, they're entirely unacceptable.(except the changing to the reflist template.) --Puellanivis 16:33, 7 November 2007 (EST)

It occurs to me that perhaps Ed Poor's edits were at the behest of someone else. In either case, the edits are inappropriate. --Puellanivis 16:39, 7 November 2007 (EST)

It's better to refer to the content of the editor, rather than the name of the editor. --Ed Poor Talk 09:06, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Arguments of opponents

Cut from article:

  • Richard Cohen says in rebuttal, "No one chooses to have same-sex desires."

We need to distinguish between PR campaigns which put words in people's mouths or otherwise distort their positions - and arguments which correctly state a position and then rebut it. The two sentences above confuse the issue (a typical gay agenda tactic).

There are two main anti-homosexuality views, the religious and the psychological:

  • Religious people stress the effectiveness of prayer, even to the exclusion of therapy. They also emphasize the role of choice (see free will) in regard to sexual acts.
  • Psychologists tend to ignore prayer entirely, or to give it merely a supporting role in therapy.

Both schools of thought recommend reflection. A homosexual needs to consider what he gets from maintaining his condition: for example, is homosexuality making him happy or unhappy in the present? What are the longterm consequences? Would a course of prayer and/or therapy be helpful? (No one says, "Just do it.") --Ed Poor Talk 09:06, 5 November 2008 (EST)

Excellent summary of opponent's approach

Hi Ed, I recently left a comment for you regarding "reparative therapy." It's here, but the substance follows.

Ed, by pushing the idea that homosexuality can be "cured" or somehow altered, you're foisting a deliberate and damaging falsehood. The only scientific studies ever to look into conversion/reparative therapy found that any "success" was offset by the nearly doubled rates of depression and suicide in the victims of this treatment (see?). Any belief that reparative therapy works is only wishful thinking. You may not like homosexuality, and even think that it's a sin or an abomination. But by trying to change it - or suggesting that it CAN or SHOULD be changed - you're encouraging the negligent homicide of thousands of gay Americans. Please, please read the facts on this dangerous "treatment" and consider its results objectively before arguing for it here.-LuciusF 15:29, 21 February 2009 (EST)

An admin told me to post this to your talk page rather than there. So here we go! I look forward to your reply.-LuciusF 20:53, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Well, it wasn't an Admin who made the request, but since you placed your comment on the Mystery: Where is Hell, its no wonder you were asked to post somewhere else. All things, BTW, with God's help, and a sincere desire to do so, can be changed. --₮K/Admin/Talk 01:38, 22 February 2009 (EST)

I copied the above from my talk page. --Ed Poor Talk 14:13, 22 February 2009 (EST)

I am, of course, opposed to the spreading of deliberate falsehood in any encyclopedia. But you are right about one thing: the central claim of reparative therapy is indeed "damaging" to the campaigns of the gay rights movement. The mainstay of their ship is the notion that homosexuality is an unalterable trait. They argue that it's either inherent and inborn (presumably we'll locate a "gay gene" someday) or that it develops so early in childhood as to be incurable. And they've gotten the APA to vote that way.

But science is not actually done by vote. It's done by proposing theories and formulating hypotheses, which are then put to the test. Results consistent with the theory give us a measure of confidence, but results which contradict the theory require us to discard the theory immediately (or at least to get working on modifying it.)

What makes you think that the only scientific studies had negative findings? How hard did you look for opposing studies? I bet you didn't even check out NARTH. I love the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance, because they are the biggest website that gives my own church a fair shake, but they are utterly biased when it comes to homosexuality, which they regard as not being any kind of sin.

Your appeal to emotion is also out of line, suggesting that advocacy of RT is akin to "negligent homicide". I wonder if you are aware of the differences between modern RT offered to those who want to change and some of the atrocious forcible methods tried in the past. RT also contrasts with merely resorting to prayer and determination.

I have yet to find an opponent of RT who knows anything about it. They just quote authorities who condemn it, without giving any rational basis for that condemnation. This is being very unscientific, which would be ironic if it weren't so downright sinister, since you opened your rejoinder with an appeal to science. --Ed Poor Talk 14:26, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks for you reply Ed. I appreciate the time but I take issue with some of your characterizations.
Firstly, I don't think any argument for gay rights need be premised on the existence of a "gay gene." Religion, for example, isn't "immutable" or genetically coded, but we still protect it through nondiscrimination laws. The question predicate to whether something ought to be protected is whether forcing someone to change the trait would work a great and unjustified hardship. I aim to prove that reparative therapy DOES work such a hardship.
You suggest I look to NARTH as an example of an "unbiased" survey of the effectiveness of reparative therapy. NARTH - the National Association for the Research and Treatment of Homosexuality - is the epitome of a biased source. Its entire existence is predicated on the effectiveness of reparative therapy. I would take their research with a grain of salt, and also internalize the grave errors pointed out by the Religious Tolerance group. For one, it wasn't published in a peer reviewed journal, or even error-checked!
I'll submit to you that you've failed to rebut my argument that reparative therapy is useless at best, and affirmatively damaging at worst. I'll bolster it with this anecdote: have you ever met anyone who's undergone reparative therapy? I have. It nearly killed him. His "treatment" involved sleep deprivation, starvation, isolation, and all the other horrors typically associated with torture, added with daily shaming and deliberate attempts to subvert any notion of his self-esteem or individuality. Thankfully, the treatment failed: years later, he's still gay and comfortable with himself. Is that so wrong?-LuciusF 23:45, 22 February 2009 (EST)

Will science examine the issue?

The primary argument against reparative therapy seems to be that no unbiased organization supports it. This is not a scientific argument, but a political one.

Science proves something is harmful (or useless) by running actual experiments, not by taking opinion polls or citing authorities.

Lucius's example of (supposedly) meeting one person is flawed:

  1. One case is never sufficient. Several hundred is considered a minimum study size.
  2. The "treatment" is merely a parody of RT - a program filled with coercion, which is not which RT is.

We need a better description of RT. We need to describe the public relations campaign against it, which as my encounter with LuciusF shows, is mainly a smear campaign.

Most of all, we need to summarize the scientific studies of RT, even if only its supporters have studied it.

The refusal of opponents to take a look at something is by no means evidence that it's flawed, but more likely an indication of the opponents' anti-scientific bias. --Ed Poor Talk 09:39, 12 April 2011 (EDT)

Hatred of Father

This idea of homosexuality being about a man's hatred of his father sounds a bit Freudian to me. Perhaps it should be made clear that the idea is not actually taken seriously here in case we come across as Freud-lovers. BarrySM 16:51, 21 February 2014 (EST)

The Prodigal Son predates Sigmund Freud by about 1900 years.--Andy Schlafly 17:10, 21 February 2014 (EST)
It still sounds Freudian to me. I see nothing about homosexuality, or even hatred for that matter, in the Prodigal Son. Furthermore the interpretation in the linked article points out that it wasn't literally his father that the story was about, unless the son in the story was actually Jesus. Surely Jesus wasn't actually saying, "I used to be - I mean my friend used to be a screw-up when I - I mean he - left his dad's house ... long story short this unnamed friend of mine is an ex-gay."
Personal tools