Difference between revisions of "Talk:Conversion therapy"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Are there any other groups besides APA that reject Reparative therapy?)
m ({{protected|RobS}})
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
{{protected|RobS}}
 
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.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 11:13, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
 
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.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 11:13, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
  

Revision as of 01:51, May 9, 2007

! Due to the controversial nature of this article, it has been locked by the Administrators to prevent edit wars or vandalism.
Sysops, please do not unlock it without first consulting the protecting sysop.
Conservlogo.png

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
  2. http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html

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)

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)