Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:35, 3 October 2021

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Conversion therapy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26Auto-archiving period: 3 months

	Conversion therapy was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 13, 2007 Good article nominee Listed September 30, 2007 Peer review Reviewed November 5, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted February 15, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative views Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Psychology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sexology and sexuality Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows: Neutral point of view as applied to science: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work. Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification. Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about conversion therapy or changing sexual orientation. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about conversion therapy or changing sexual orientation at the Reference desk.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Section sizes Section size for Conversion therapy (27 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 2,791 2,791 Terminology 2,325 2,325 History 52 6,616 Sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) 2,676 2,676 Gender identity change efforts (GICE) 3,888 3,888 Motivations 639 639 Theories and techniques 652 29,818 Aversion therapy 3,917 3,917 Brain surgery 2,293 2,293 Castration and transplantation 2,502 2,502 Ex-gay/ex-trans ministries 2,969 2,969 Hypnosis 1,011 1,011 Psychoanalysis 1,734 1,734 Reparative therapy 1,819 1,819 Marriage therapy 1,746 1,746 Gender exploratory therapy 11,175 11,175 Effects 4,032 4,032 Public opinion 1,256 1,256 Legal status 2,853 7,410 Human rights 4,557 4,557 In media 1,375 1,375 Medical views 4,891 4,891 See also 166 166 Notes 36 36 References 28 28 Bibliography 6,055 6,055 Further reading 849 849 Total 68,287 68,287

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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages, 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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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, stating that his research had "thrown a strong light on the organic determinants of homo-eroticism". 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, 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.

(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)

• Delisted good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Alternative views articles
• Low-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• B-Class Christianity articles
• Low-importance Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• B-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
• WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
• B-Class psychology articles
• Low-importance psychology articles
• WikiProject Psychology articles
• B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Mid-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• High-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Pseudoscience articles under contentious topics procedure
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics