Talk:Conversion therapy/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

New Russian Research

Dr. Dimitri Yusrokov Slamini of the Russian Institute for Medical Science in Novosibirsk and his team of researchers have discovered what they claim to be a new vaccine which could prevent early symptoms and even cure humans of homosexuality if treated at a young age. Russian scientists developed the so-called «antidote» based on a 1959 scientific research published under the title “Organizing action of prenatally administered testosterone propionate on the tissues mediating mating behavior in the female guinea pig” by Charles H. Phoenix, an American researcher. The study concluded that “INAH [part of the hypothalamus] is dimorphic with sexual orientation, at least in men, and suggests that sexual orientation has a biological substrate”. «Xenoestrogen are a type of estrogen mimickers found in synthetic or natural chemical compounds. Synthetic xenoestrogens such as PCB’s, BPA and phthalates have been also been found to have estrogenic effects on living organisms and to disrupt the endocrine system» explains Dr. Yuri Krutchev, who took part in the experiment. «Injecting specific quantities of testosterone helps to «Injecting specific quantities of testosterone helps to upset this artificial biological unbalance which occurs mostly in part because of environmental pollution and an excess of estrogen mimickers in our modern environment» he adds.

https://worldnewsdailyreport.com/russian-scientists-discover-cure-to-homosexuality/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.187.90 (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I think we can discount that as a WP:MEDRS-compatible source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Article on Russian research seems genuine and gives scientific explanation how the injection works for it addresses a hormonal imbalance. I appreciate that one may disagree with what the scientists are attempting to do but if you wish to discount the source then please give proper reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.247.139 (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

The source is rubbish. That's a reason. If you look at worldnewsdailyreport.com's front page, you will see such edifying stories as, "BABYSITTER TRANSPORTED TO HOSPITAL AFTER INSERTING A BABY IN HER VAGINA", "FBI SEIZES OVER 3,000 PENISES DURING RAID AT MORGUE EMPLOYEE’S HOME", and "COLORADO: HUNTER CLAIMS HE WAS SEXUALLY ASSAULTED BY A SASQUATCH". The story about Russian scientists developing a cure for homosexuality is about on the same level as those other stories. It is a website specializing in sensational stories and claims and is clearly not a reliable source per WP:RS. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Indeed it is rubbish: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources#WorldNetDaily. Mathglot (talk) 10:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

You are confusing World News Daily Report with World Net Daily. It's still rubbish, but a different brand of rubbish. (And World News Daily Report admits to being fiction and claims to be satiric, at the bottom of the page.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@NatGertler: Thanks for that clarification; missed it earlier. Did they catch the Sasquatch, by the way? Mathglot (talk) 07:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I think we would have heard if they had; while it is common for those accused of sexual transgression to claim consent (thus creating what is called a "he said/she said" situation regardless of the gender of those involved), even consent would not be a defense in this case, given the species of those involved. Under Colorado bestiality law, Sasquatch would've been given at least six months in prison or a $500 fine (which, while it may sound like a small amount, is a big bill for a sasquatch to foot), and may have been sentence to take anger management classes. Any such sentence would've been picked up by more mainstream news sources, I'm sure. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The UK has already introduced legislation to ban conversion ban

It is noted on the Parliament's website.[1] Even humanists confirm it.[2] It is a poor excuse to say that because the first reading last July that it should not be included. Even the EU Withdrawal Bill took a year to pass.2601:447:4101:5780:25D8:1668:B28D:F04D (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The humanists promoted it so are not independent. Most bills fall after first reading, there is no credible evidence that this will become law, as your edit suggests. This needs more sources, to establish significance and likelihood of success (which, in the current climate, is probably zero, unfortunately). Guy (Help!) 18:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but Parliament says second reading is scheduled for a "date to be determined." Not exactly evidence that it fell. Please keep your politics aside and follow the NPOV policy2601:447:4101:5780:25D8:1668:B28D:F04D (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Another source also stated that its Second reading was scheduled to occur on October 26 after it passed its first reading.[3] Apparently, it did not fall and Parliament delayed it.2601:447:4101:5780:25D8:1668:B28D:F04D (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with "my politics" - if it was up to me this abuse would have been banned decades ago. The problem is that your edit is simply not compliant with policy. This article is on pending changes due to long term POV-pushing, and we police that whether we like the POV of the edit or not.

The Counsellors and Psychotherapists (Regulation) and Conversion Therapy Bill, which will enact a ban on conversion therapy, passed its first reading on the House of Commons on 18 July 2018.<ref>https://humanism.org.uk/2018/07/19/bill-to-ban-gay-conversion-therapy-passes-first-stage-in-parliament/</red><ref>https://rightsinfo.org/is-the-uk-government-about-to-commit-to-its-plan-to-outlaw-gay-conversion-therapy/</ref><ref>https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/counsellorsandpsychotherapistsregulationandconversiontherapy.html</ref><ref>https://services.parliament.uk/Bills/2017-19/counsellorsandpsychotherapistsregulationandconversiontherapy/stages.html</ref>

You say "it will". No, it won't, unless it's passed, which seems unlikely with the current parliamentary timetable. If it's not done and dusted by Easter, it's pretty much dead and would have to be reintroduced in the next session. You say it passed its first reading, which is true, but this needs an independent source for context because most bills that pass first reading, die. You suggest three sources. One is primary, one is affiliated (humanists promoted the bill), and one is unreliable. Theyworkforyou is not a reliable independent source, it merely collects primary data from Hansard.

What you need is a weighty newspaper article that describes the bill, notes its first reading, and gives some indication of the likelihood of making it any further - which is dependent on government time being found for debate, and that seems unlikely given the malign influence of Arlene Foster and the DUP right now. The government is much more likely to simply not schedule it and avoid a fight with the DUP, I think.

Also if you continue trying to crowbar this in, you will very likely end up blocked. Guy (Help!) 18:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Your blocking threat does not concern me. You can also "will" and "if passed." You too are presenting yourself as politically biased. Even the EU Withdrawal Bill took a year to pass. A newspaper also may not report it. However, the UK Parliament did. Please don't use something more reliable than a newspaper against me.There were also a few secondary sources too.2601:447:4101:5780:25D8:1668:B28D:F04D (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The sources just keep piling up.[4]. That source even mentions it among other UK bills2601:447:4101:5780:25D8:1668:B28D:F04D (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Source also lead me too a documentation of its first reading.[5]2601:447:4101:5780:25D8:1668:B28D:F04D (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

What you are basically saying here is that inserting your exact version of this claim is so important to you that you are prepared to be blocked for it, even though I have pointed out the problems with it, and the problems with the sources you are using, and in your view that makes me the POV-pusher.

As an alternative, you could try reading what I wrote above and refactoring your edit so it is (a) correct, (b) neutral and (c) properly sourced. Why not try that? Guy (Help!) 19:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Very funny, because my edits were already correct, neutral and properly sourced from the Parliament and other sources. Please accept what the sources say for a change and skip the amusing political nonsense. The record even notes at the bottom that it was originally scheduled to have a second reading on October 26[6] The original source, which is the Parliament record, also states that it passed its first reading too.[7] Clearly, it has been delayed2601:447:4101:5780:25D8:1668:B28D:F04D (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

You say another source - sw1a.net. Look at the fucking thing! It's just another scraper, showing exactly the same status from exactly the same primary sources.

The problems, just to repeat them:

You say it will enact. That is factually incorrect. It would enact, but it would have to pass first, and the majority of bills do not.

You insist we include it based on a variety of sources all of which are compiled direct from feeds from parliament (so fail the test of independence an being secondary, and at least one is unreliable), plus the humanists, who pressed for the legislation and thus have a dog in the fight. Again, the solution is to find a reliable independent secondary source that discussed the legislation. Otherwise it's WP:UNDUE, scaring up multiple repeats of the same primary source in order to pretend there are multiple independent sources. Guy (Help!) 19:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Newsflash, JzG and Guy are the same user, I discovered this when Guy sent a message to JzG's talk page and it didn't light up. I am now seeing JzG|Guy on this edit as well.2601:447:4101:5780:25D8:1668:B28D:F04D (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Personally I've never confused JzG and Guy, but I have confused JzG and Guy Macon quite often. That really has nothing to do with this issue though.

IP, JzG ("Guy") is trying to work with you to make this edit acceptable for the page, and you're just digging yourself a deeper hole with every comment. Wikipedia publishes only information which is factual and reported by reliable sources; your edit does not comply. If you want to add something saying that the bill has passed first reading, that is probably okay, Parliament is a reliable enough source for that. You cannot say that passing first reading indicates anything about the eventual status of the law, because that's your opinion, or it's the opinion of the not-clearly-independent sources you have provided, and Wikipedia does not publish original research. JzG is correct that most bits of legislation that pass an initial presentation in a parliamentary legislature do not actually become law, especially not without amendment and compromise. If you have decent reliable and independent sources saying that this bill is definitely bound to become law, please provide them. If not, please drop this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Here, in fact, is a handy list (in part) of bills banning conversion therapy which have passed an initial reading in U.S. state legislatures but later failed, starting from about 2015. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

When it has failed, only then should it be removed. So far, however, that is not the case. No, the user os not trying to work with me and neither are you. You only give me laughs. The no original research policy also refers to "for which no reliable, published sources exist," so please don't use it as a poor excuse. I prefer mature cooperation. Please don't invoke U.S. states as an excuse either, for it only gives away your own political bias too. I also never stated it would become law, but rather used the word "will" in the preliminary sense, and stated on this page that I was willing to accept "if passed" as an edit.2601:447:4101:5780:89F8:CF30:2EFE:6EA1 (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

No, that's not how this website works. When it passes, only then should it be added. We don't predict the future. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Or when we have non-trivial independent sources discussing its passage through Parliament, we do that quite often too. The issue here is that we have no coverage outside of the primary source other than one group who were actively involved in promoting it, so we can't say any of the important things about the Bill, like how widespread support might be, which parties are onside, if any, and what the chances are of getting Government time for a debate. As noted above, the majority of bills that pass the first reading, fall in the end, especially private members' bills, which this is - a private member's bill is presumptively doomed unless it gets support from government. Only this week the execrable Chope talked out a bill banning FGM, which has far greater support than this somewhat obscure issue. Guy (Help!) 21:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

This stuff does not belong here. IP 2601/48, it looks you've got an understanding of WP:V and WP:RS, but just because something may be reliably sourced, does not make it automatically appropriate for inclusion in an article. Issues like WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:CRYSTALBALL, and especially WP:INDISCRIMINATE also apply. Encyclopedias don't tend to care much about the latest bills that failed, or that were read and might soon pass; they care about passed bils, or sometimes failed bills that were important enough in their failure to attract significant media attention. How is this anything like that? The Congressional Record is a highly reliable source for legislation in the U.S. Congress, but simply citing it accurately for something you want to add to an article is not enough, or the encyclopedia would quickly be bloated by masses of trivial garbage that has no rightful place here. That an assertion is verifiable by reliable sources is a minimum bar. While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Mathglot (talk) 11:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Para 2 needs to be amended

The line "patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation"needs to read "a patient should change his/her sexual orientation" or similar 2404:4408:205A:4B00:F992:95C1:4C75:BBFE (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Can't do that. First, it's a quotation, so you can't change it, period. Secondly, it's from the APA, quoting supporters of conversion therapy, and why the APA thinks it's unethical, and is supported by two references. Mathglot (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Transgender, legal protection and medical definiton

Many of the legal bans in "legal status" cover both sexual orientation (the current APA definiton used in the lead) and gender identity. It appears that while whether the term applies to transgender people is still a topic of debate (see the many past discussions [search "gender" or "transgender"]; a recent acedemic source that does so is doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022425), it should be appropriate to mention that legal protection does occasionally extend to gender in conversion therapy sensu lato. CC User:FreeKnowledgeCreator --Artoria2e5 🌉 00:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." I would argue that the treatment of transgender people is not one of the most important aspects of the article. It is a secondary issue. I am aware of WP:LEADCITE, but it seems to me that your addition to the lead goes beyond, although perhaps only slightly beyond, anything that the body of the article would support. I am not interested in an an extended discussion of, or argument over, this issue, however, and will gladly respect a consensus in support of your addition, should one emerge. You might try asking for a third opinion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

North Carolina Ban

North Carolina recently passed legislation banning conversion therapy. The article should be updated accordingly. 24.188.70.118 (talk) 06:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Sidebar

• Treker, regarding the sidebar you added to the article, let me explain why I removed it. Simply put, I removed it because conversion therapy is not primarily a gay rights issue. It certainly is not a gay rights issue in the same sense that, for example, same-sex marriage or Sexual orientation and gender identity in military service are gay rights issues. Conversion therapy is a form of psychotherapy. I am well aware that from one point of view its available can be considered a gay rights issue, but that doesn't make an "LGBT rights" sidebar more relevant than other sidebars, such as those about psychotherapy or psychology. Hence, there is no reason why readers should see a sidebar proclaiming "Part of a series on LGBT rights" in the lead of the article. (Note that I didn't intend to revert you without an edit summary here; the lack of an edit summary was accidental on my part; I clicked too quickly). FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• Conversion therapy is about psychotherapy like same-sex marriage is about law and sexual orientation and gender identity in military service is about the military. This subject is fundamentally an LGBT rights subject, which is made clear from the very first sentence. So agree with adding the sidebar as long as the sidebar includes a link to this article. (Discussions as to whether this subject is fundamental enough to the sidebar subject can happen at the sidebar's talk page -- if it's removed from the sidebar, the sidebar should be removed from the article). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

No, the subject is not "fundamentally an LGBT rights subject". A discussion of conversion therapy is not by definition a discussion of LGBT rights, and it is simply false to claim that it is. It is a discussion of a form of psychotherapy that might be held to have implications for LGBT rights, which is something quite distinct. The sidebar is inappropriate inasmuch as it is a way of pushing the view that discussion of conversion therapy is discussion of gay rights, a view that is incorrect. If the article were titled something like, "The politics of conversion therapy", or "Opposition to conversion therapy", then you would be correct, and the sidebar would be appropriate, but it isn't and you aren't. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it absolutely is a gay rights issue. Gay people have the right not to be subjected to abusive and ineffective "therapies" to change who they are based on religious bigotry. Guy (Help!) 07:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with both Rhododendrites and Guy, and assert that conversion therapy is most emphatically a gay rights issue. It attacks the idea that sexual attraction is effectively immutable, thereby attacking the very foundation of LGBT+ rights. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 06:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Conversion therapy is also something that is practised on transgender and non-binary people

Conversion therapy is also something that is practised on transgender and non-binary people. So I am wondering why the definition of conversion therapy in the lead dose not reflect this reality. And why there is no info regarding trans and non-binary conversion therapy anywhere in the article, I would say this is a grave over site. I know gay conversion therapy will be the mane focus of this article, but not to at lest put a mention to the fact that trans and non-binary people also experience conversion therapy dose this article and the readers of Wikipedia a disservice. I will add that I was bold and did change the definition of conversion therapy in the lead to "Conversion therapy is the pseudoscientific practice of trying to change an individual's sexual orientation from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual or trying to change an individuals gender identity from transgender or non-binary to cisgender using psychological or spiritual interventions.", but was reverted by fellow Wikipedian Freeknowledgecreator with this shaky reasoning "Thank you, however, it is not usually defined as being about transgender or gender identity". I would be bold and add some info about transgender conversion therapy, but as the article is currently structured I can not see a good place to add it. And any help from fellow Wikipedians with this would be appreciated. --Devin Kira Murphy (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello. The relevant policy is WP:RS: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources". Personal opinions about how "conversion therapy" ought to be defined are not really relevant. If you view this statement from the American Psychiatric Association you will see that it defines "conversion therapy" as being about attempts to change homosexuality and does not mention gender identity. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I see that Freeknowledgecreator reverted here. I agree with that revert. Back in September, I made this revert, stating, "Not sourced, and is not what is usually meant by this term, as is clear by the article. Definitely WP:Undue in the first sentence and lead." I then clarified with this WP:Dummy edit the following: "In other words, that aspect (which has gained traction in recent years) should be covered lower in the article first (before we consider including it in the lead). This is per WP:LEAD. But the literature under this term is overwhelmingly about sexual orientation." So given that the literature and article are overwhelmingly about sexual orientation, I really don't think that the gender identity aspect should be added to the lead. It can maybe have a section lower in the article. With sources, I suppose the section would state that the term conversion therapy has broadened in recent years and may now sometimes refer to trying to change someone's gender identity. And then include a bit of the media material out there on it. I state "media material" because academic sources on this aspect are severely lacking. But I do see this, which is apparently a first-of-its-kind study. And this, which says it's a narrative systematic review. Maybe an article titled "Gender identity conversion efforts" (the term used by the "first-of-its-kind" study) should be created, or should eventually be created. I mean, the term conversion therapy, with its history, will always be mainly tied to sexual orientation. And we do have a Sexual orientation change efforts article in addition to the Conversion therapy article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Conversion therapy is about more than sexual orientation

Conversion therapy, according to the website Born Perfect is "when someone attempts to change another individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression". The article doesn't mention about how these interventions are also about gender identity and gender expression. Ignore that is also about that totally removes the reality of how this kind of procedures also affect transgender and gender non-conforming people, specially youth. We need to work more on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.63.244.197 (talk • contribs)

Cool story, bro. We go by reliable sources, which does not include the website Born Perfect. Guy (help!) 12:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Conversion therapy, according to the website Born Perfect is "when someone attempts to change another individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression". The article doesn't mention about how these interventions are also about gender identity and gender expression. Ignore that is also about that totally removes the reality of how this kind of procedures also affect transgender and gender non-conforming people, specially youth. We need to work more on the article.

Here are more sources about how conversion therapy is about more than sexual orientation:

https://www.glaad.org/conversiontherapy?response_type=embed

http://www.nclrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Conversion_Therapy-Juvenile_Justice-July_2018.pdf

Also, ILGA, the biggest worldwide LGBTI association puts conversion therapy as about gender identity too:

https://www.rainbow-europe.org/

More: https://www.stonewall.org.uk/campaign-groups/conversion-therapy

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/transgender-conversion-therapy-associated-severe-psychological-distress-n1052416

https://www.hrc.org/resources/the-lies-and-dangers-of-reparative-therapy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3Uru5FuEcU

There's lot of sources about it.. a quick google shows it.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.63.244.197 (talk • contribs)

This goes back to what I stated in the #Conversion therapy is also something that is practised on transgender and non-binary people section above, including about media sources.

Please do not keep creating different talk page sections on this topic. I combined your latest section into your previous section. Also, always remember to sign your posts. I tagged your previous two posts as unsigned; a bot will take care of those. If you were to sign them now, your time stamp would be misleading. So just leave those to the bot. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Adding Conversion Therapy for Gender Identity

Definitions of conversion therapy, including that from The American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry also include trying to change gender identity (https://www.aacap.org/AACAP/Policy_Statements/2018/Conversion_Therapy.aspx). Can we add that conversion therapy includes transgender conversion therapy and include the research showing it is associated with bad mental health outcomes (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abstract/2749479). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesciencenewsonline (talk • contribs)

I agree that it would be appropriate to add a section to the lead, or a subsection of the article, related to this topic. If this topic has been discussed by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and has been the subject of research, then it is reliably sourced and merits inclusion in the article. LittleFrozenRoses (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

As the two sections above this one explain, this is not warranted by the reliable sources as a whole. The latter source posted by Thesciencenewsonline is a WP:PRIMARY source that carries little weight per WP:MEDRS. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps being posted on an advocacy website would not be considered a reliable source, but I believe that when the same study in question is published by the American Journal of Public Health, as it is here, that is qualitatively different: https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305237 LittleFrozenRoses (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of the JAMA Psychiatry article, The American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry policy statement is a reliable source. The American Medical Association also notes that conversion therapy includes gender identity conversion therapy. Same thing with the American Psychiatric Association. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesciencenewsonline (talk • contribs) 01:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the comment by Crossroads above. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Mention of NARTH in the lead

The lead states, "The main organization advocating for conversion therapy is the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH)." Though I won't make such a change immediately, I think that some thought should be given to eventually removing that statement, for two reasons.

1) In the first place, the statement is cited to an article by Kenji Yoshino, "Covering", that dates to December 11, 2001. That makes it more than eighteen years old now. It may well have been true that NARTH was "the main organization advocating for conversion therapy" in 2001, but that does not mean that it must still be the main organization nearly two decades later, much less that it will always continue to be the main organization in future. The more time passes, the more that statement is going to look like something that eventually ought to be removed, unless more up-to-date citations are provided supporting it. (If anyone can find more up-to-date citations, that would be great).

2) In the second place, the name "NARTH" is no longer officially used. The organization now operates under the name, "Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity" (see the article on NARTH). So again, we have to consider that the information in the lead is outdated or potentially misleading. It is odd to state that NARTH is the "main organization advocating for conversion therapy" when there is no longer an organization that even uses the name "NARTH". Perhaps the statement in the lead could be clarified or corrected somehow, but if not, then there is a case to be made for removing it. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 04:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I saw that you changed the lead so that the past tense "was" is used for NARTH. I think that because of NARTH's prominence, they should continue to be mentioned in the lead. And their new name is not their WP:Common name. It's not the name they became notable/famous under. So it makes sense to use that (or have it placed within parentheses after the new name, or the new name placed within parentheses after the old name). It especially makes sense to use the old name when speaking of NARTH in the past tense or in a historical sense. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I am content to leave the mention of NARTH in the lead (I had been thinking about removing it, but after considering the issue, I agree it makes sense to keep it there). However, given that there is no longer an organization that uses the name "NARTH", the NARTH reference does have to be in the past tense. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Pseudoscience? No reliable evidences? What sources are you depending on?

This talk page is not a venue for soapboxing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think this page is very misleading. Does this mean that psychotherapy is pseudoscience in general? Cuz there is no such thing as conversion therapy, good therapy leads to changes in symptoms and character structures. In that sense homosexuality can and does disappear, which lead us to the fact that it is a symptomatic formation, based on unresolved emotional conflicts. There are plenty of evidences. Freud (1920a, 1920b) reported that a homosexual could change sexual orientation if strongly mo- tivated to do so; however, he thought that such change was not always possible or necessary (Freud, 1951). Mitchell (2002) reported that while Freud thought that some degree of change was possible, Freud was pessimistic about the possibility of a full reversal from exclusive homosexuality to exclusive heterosexuality. Carl Jung reportedly helped a homosexual man to become heterosexual through dream analysis and the breakdown of the negative child-mother bond, which had interfered with the man’s sexualorientation development (Fordham, 1935). Following the tradition of Sigmund Freud, Gordon (1930) reported a case in which his homo- sexual patient made a heterosexual adjustment. After a one-year followup, Stekel (1930) reported four cases of success using psychoanalysis. Stekel’s benchmark for success was that these patients married and were happy. In 1952, Anna Freud (1968) reported four cases involving two patients who were exclusively homosexual at the onset of treatment, and “became heterosexual” (p. 251) as an outcome of treatment. London and Caprio (1950) reported successful psychoanalysis with two men who were consid- ered exclusively homosexual at the onset of treatment, and who made a heterosexual adjustment as a result of treatment. Allen (1952) recorded two cases of overt homosexuals (one man, one woman) who were “completely cured” (p. 139). Allen stated that he or she was cured “if by treatment he [or she was] weaned from [practicing homosexual behaviors] and indulg[ed] in sexual behavior with one of the opposite sex” (p. 139). Caprio (1954) asserted that lesbianism could be changed through the psychoanalytic process that helped patients change personality patterns and eliminated mental blocks that stood in their way of heterosexual adjustment. Although not providing specific numbers, Caprio reported that “many patients of mine, who were former lesbians, have communicated long after treatment was terminated . . . that they are convinced they will never return to a homosexual way of life” (p. 299). Bergler (1956) reported that in his 30 years of practice, he had successfully used psychoanalysis to help approximately 100 homosexuals change their orientation, and that a real shift toward genuine heterosexuality had indeed occurred. Using psychoanalysis, Bergler and his associates reported a 33 percent cure rate—that is, following treatment these patients were able to function as heterosexuals, whereas before treatment they were exclusively homosexual. Eidelberg (1956) reported that two out of five cases were still successfully functioning as heterosexuals three years after treatment. Albert Ellis (1956) concluded that those who engaged in psychoanalytically oriented psychotherapy could be “distinctly helped to achieve a satisfactory heterosexual orientation” (p. 194) if they sought such change. In a sample of 40 individual cases, Ellis concluded that 18 men and 12 women had outcomes of either “distinct or considerable improvement” (p. 192). This meant that they began to lose their fears of the other sex, to enjoy effective heterosexual relations, and to lose their obsessive thoughts about or compulsive homosexual activity. Not all patients were identified as exclusively homosexual prior to treatment. Six of the men and 6 of the women had moderate or considerable heterosexual activity prior to treatment, whereas the rest had little or none. An unpublished 1956 report of the Central Fact-Gathering Committee of the American Psychoanalytic Association was one of the first surveys that compiled results of treatment of unwanted homosexuality. Of those who completed treatment (total number not reported), 8 were cured and 13 were improved. Another 16 who did not complete treatment were also considered improved. In the 8 reported cures, followup showed that the patients had assumed full heterosexual roles and functioning (Socarides, 1978). Using Kinsey’s scale of sexual orientation (Kinsey et al., 1948), Curran and Parr (1957), in a followup study of 59 patients in private analytic practice, found that 9 patients “reported less intense homosexual feelings, or increased capacity for heterosexual arousal” (p. 799). Only one of these patients was diagnosed as exclusively homosexual at the onset of treatment. Treatment “consist[ed] of a mixture of physical, psychological, social, and environmental measures in varying proportions according to the case” (p. 799). In Berg and Allen’s (1958) study, Allen wrote, “It definitely is not true that homosexuality is incurable” (p. 104), and he discussed 14 people that he considered cured. “Cures” ranged from compete attraction change—as in the case where a man, homosexual from the onset, married a women to whom he became “sexually adjusted” at the termination of therapy and had “lost all attraction to other men” (p. 77). Allen also reported other, less exclusive changes, as in the case when the patient was able to be “nor- mal sexually with a girl, but admitted that he had had occasional homosexual dreams.” Allen explained that “since [the patient’s] heterosexuality [became] so much stronger than his homosexuality . . . it was felt that this could be regarded as a cure” (Berg & Allen, 1958, p. 80). Allen concluded, “Obviously from such a small number of cases no statistical conclusions can be drawn. Nevertheless, these sample cases are typical of others in my long experience with the . . . treatment of homosexuality” (p. 104). Hadfield (1958), who conducted treatment with patients over a 30-year period, discussed nine men who were freed of their unwanted homosexuality. In the example of one patient, Hadfield reported that “[he lost] his propensity to his own sex and his sexual interests [were] directed towards those of the opposite sex” (p. 1323). Hadfield emphatically noted that these men were not merely able to manage self-control; they had changed their attractions. Four cases were later followed up by Hadfield; all four reiterated that they “were completely cured . . . with no further episodes” (p. 1324). Robertiello (1959) gave a detailed report of a homosexual woman who developed a deeper under- standing of her unconscious after analysis with free association and dream interpretation. This led to Oedipal resolution, and she became heterosexually adjusted. Two years later, she had not returned to her previous homosexuality. Monroe and Enelow (1960) treated seven men using classic psychoanalysis with free association. Theoretical orientation for treatment was based on classical psychoanalytic theory, which explained homosexuality as a deviation that originated from constitutional-developmental issues. At onset of treatment, the men were described as “homosexual” with minimal prior heterosexual activity (i.e., they met Kinsey scale criteria of 4—predominantly homosexual, but more than incidentally heterosexual, or 5—predominantly homosexual, only incidentally heterosexual). Lengths of treatment ranged from 3 to 18 months, and followup with four patients continued for at least five years after termination. Three of the seven cases were considered successful. In one case, a patient’s successful outcome was that he avoided previous destructive homosexual activity. Another had “overcome his impotency . . . and discontinued most of his homosexual soliciting” (p. 484), while the third, at the five-year followup, told the analyst via letter that he was married, had a child, and was happy in the marriage (p. 485). Glover (1960) discussed a series in which he treated 103 adults and 10 juveniles, with the duration of treatment varying from five months to five years. In seven cases, hormone treatment was used, either with or without psychotherapy. In terms of successful outcomes, 44 percent of the exclusively homosexual patients showed no further homosexual impulses after treatment, and 51 percent of the bisexuals lost all of their homosexual impulses. Beukenkamp (1960) treated a homosexual man with individual and group psychoanalysis. The treatment resulted in his reorientation to heterosexuality in both behavior and experiences. In a nine-year comprehensive study of homosexual men, Bieber et al. (1962) used an analyst team of 77 members, and provided information on two patient samples consisting of 106 homosexuals who undertook psychoanalysis. They concluded that 29 of the 106 patients (27 percent) who completed treatment became exclusively heterosexual (Kinsey score of 0). At the onset of treatment, 14 of these men were reported as exclusively homosexual and 15 were reported as predominately homosexual but with some heterosexual activity in their histories. In a five-year followup of patients from the original study, Bieber (1967) reported that 15 of the 29 had maintained contact with their analyst. Of those 15, 12 had remained exclusively homosexual (Kinsey score of 0), and 3 reported being predominantly heterosexual with sporadic homosexual episodes under situations of stress. Bieber explained that patients who did not become heterosexual still benefited from improvements in self-esteem, social relationships, assertiveness, and work effectiveness. As Bieber and Bieber (1979) wrote: A shift to heterosexuality does not mean that the potential for homosexual arousal has been totally extinguished, though in some cases this does occur. Should a post-analytic patient be faced with a recurrence of homosexual interest, he may short-circuit it by identifying the situation that has triggered anxiety about heterosexuality. (p. 419) Bieber and Bieber (1979) also reported that since the original study (Bieber et al. 1962), they had seen more than 1,000 homosexual men and that “the data obtained [were] in accord with the [1962] research findings, thus strengthening [their] validity and reliability” (p. 417). Without giving specific numbers, the researchers reported that “we have followed patients for as long as 20 years who have remained exclusively heterosexual. Reversal rates now range from 30% to an optimistic 50%” (Bieber & Bieber, 1979, p. 416). Coates (1962) examined 45 cases of homosexual patients who were treated at the Portman Clinic between the years of 1954 and 1960. He found that 7 of 45 cases (16 percent) were classified as “better” (p. 180), meaning that patients reported no active homosexual behaviors (but some still experienced homosexual fantasies). Unlike many other studies, this study examined the extent to which clients were exclusively homosexual at the time that therapy began. Their clients ranged from men who had samesex fantasies, but who had never had sex with other men and had had some heterosexual experiences, to men who had had many homosexual liaisons. The group that had never had sex with men before treatment was found more likely to be classified as “better” in terms of treatment outcome. Followup was reported in several cases. One patient was found after one year to have had no homo- sexual activity, and after two and a half years to be “very happy and getting married” (p. 187). Another patient, after three years of treatment, was “able to have successful heterosexual intercourse. Shortly after treatment ended, he married and all seemed to be well” (p. 188). After a four-year followup, a third patient was reported as still “better.” Ovesey, Gaylin, and Hendin (1963) reported successfully treating three men who had homosexual inclinations. After being followed for as long as five years, the men reported that they were able to maintain pleasurable heterosexual behavior, which had been the goal of their therapy. Cappon (1965) reported treatment outcomes of his clinical work with 150 patients using psycho- analytic-based treatments (including individual, group, and combined therapy). He found a 50 percent cure rate for homosexual men and a 30 percent cure rate for homosexual women. For those identified at the onset of treatment as bisexual, Cappon reported a 90 percent cure rate. After an average 20-month followup, only 10 percent lost part of their previous level of improvement and had to be reclassified or, when possible, treated further. Mayerson and Lief (1965) conducted a followup study of 19 patients (14 men and 5 women) who had originally presented with “homosexual problems” (p. 331). The mean duration of analytic-based therapy was 1.7 years, and the mean interval between end of therapy and followup was 4.5 years. In addition to sexual identity, the followup evaluation studied psychosomatic and psychological adjustments, social relationships, and depth of insight. At the time of followup, 47 percent of patients were found to be “apparently recovered” or “much improved” and identified themselves as “exclusively heterosexual.” Twenty-two percent of them had originally identified themselves as “exclusively homosexual.” Mintz (1966) reported that after using a combination of individual and group psychoanalysis for two or more years, 3 of 10 men who had identified themselves as exclusively homosexual reported “satisfactory heterosexual adjustment” (p. 193). She described them as such: “Two are enjoying heterosexuality and report freedom of conflict” and “one [who was still in treatment at the time] has lost interest in homosexuality and enjoys satisfying heterosexual relationships” (p. 194). Criteria for successful outcome included becoming conscious of heterosexual defenses, developing a stronger sense of personal identity through contact with heterosexual men and women, dealing with anxieties and avoidance of women, and making corrective emotional responses that led to greater self-esteem. Kaye et al. (1967) sent 26-page surveys to more than 150 psychoanalysts who saw homosexual women in their practice, and received back 24 completed surveys. Eight of the 15 cases that were reported to be in the “homosexual range” (Kinsey scores of 4–6) at the onset of treatment had shifted to a Kinsey score of 0 (exclusively heterosexual) either at termination of treatment or when the analyst filled out the survey. Kaye et al. concluded, “Apparently at least 50% of them can be helped by psychoanalytic treatment” (p. 633). Socarides (1978) reported that from 1967 to 1977, 20 of 44 patients (45 percent) whom he treated using “full-scale psychoanalysis” developed full “heterosexual functioning.” This included having “love feelings for their heterosexual partners” (p. 406). Jacobi (1969) reported treating 60 patients, 6 (10 percent) of whom made a satisfying transforma- tion to heterosexuality. In another report, Lamberd (1969) reported three case studies, in which after a one-year followup, each of the patients could be considered as successfully treated. After a followup of five or more years, Ovesey (1969) reported the case studies of three successfully treated men. According to Ovesey, “success” for men who were being treated to change sexual orientation from homosexuality to heterosexuality was not just “potency” with women, but satisfaction in the “total relationship,” including marriage (pp. 123–124). Treatment focused on understanding unconscious motives that had compelled the patients to flee from women and to seek contact with men. Such insight reportedly “facilitat[ed] reversal of a homosexual pattern and . . . establish[ed] . . . heterosexuality” (p. 154). Wallace (1969) also conducted analysis with a homosexual man who subsequently achieved hetero- sexual adjustment. After a six-year followup, the patient’s reported successes included strengthened ego functions and deepened insight into both his fear of heterosexuality and his unconscious fantasies about homosexual encounters, as well as the initiation of satisfactory heterosexual activity. Siegel (1988) reported what she described as “the most comprehensive clinical investigation [of female homosexuality] . . . derive[d] from the largest sample [12] of female homosexuals treated by a single psychoanalyst” (p. xv). As an outcome of treatment, more than half became “fully heterosexual.” At the onset of treatment, these women saw themselves as exclusively homosexual (sought same-sex liaisons and had only homoerotic fantasies). The phases of analytic therapy cited by Siegel included ideal mother transference, hypochondria- cal preoccupation, denial of the need for mother, body image projections, analyst introject fantasies, homosexual actions as a defense against aggression transference, and complete working through of transference neuroses. Siegel did not set out with the goal of changing sexual orientation; therefore, no set parameters for change were identified. According to her, criteria for successful treatment were met when transference was finally resolved, whether a client’s orientation had changed or not. By the end of treatment, half of her cases reported having changed their sexual orientation. Berger (1994) described two cases of reorientation success. One “resulted in the patient marrying and fathering three children and living a heterosexually fulfilling and enjoyable life” (p. 255). The other was a “successful long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy treatment [that] helped relieve the patient of his original presenting symptoms and enabled him to become comfortably and consistently heterosexual” (p. 255). Finally, a survey of 285 anonymous members of the American Psychoanalytic Association conducted by MacIntosh (1994) revealed that of 1,215 homosexual patients analyzed by those members, 23 percent changed from homosexuality to heterosexuality and 84 percent received significant therapeutic benefits. Behavior and Cognitive Therapies Behavioral-based therapists successfully treated not only unwanted homosexuality, but also a variety of sexual dysfunctions and paraphilias, including voyeurism, exhibitionism, and transvestic and other fetishism (Rachman, 1961). Aversion therapies aimed at changing the sexual behaviors of homosexuals were used as early as the 1930s (Max, 1935). By use of adaptational therapy, a 40-year-old man who had practiced homosexuality for 22 years was successfully treated in the early 1950s. He ceased his homosexual behavior, married, and reported himself completely cured, evidenced by the fact that he stopped finding men attractive (Poe, 1952). Using the process of “rational therapy,” which he later developed and promoted first as Rational Emotive Therapy (RET) and then as Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT), Albert Ellis (1959) reported that a homosexual client changed to heterosexuality and that the change remained in effect after three years. More than a decade later, Shealy (1972) reported another patient who changed from homosexuality to heterosexuality with the use of RET. Through use of assertiveness training, Stevenson and Wolpe (1960) successfully treated two homo- sexuals who succeeded in making a heterosexual adjustment. The treatment was still deemed successful four years later. Mather (1966) reported that of 36 homosexuals treated with behavioral and aversion techniques, 25 were considered much improved on the Kinsey scale. MacCulloch and Feldman (1967) successfully treated 43 homosexual men with aversion therapy and dedicated their careers to the treatment of homosexuals using aversion therapy. After using an adaptation of MacCulloch and Feldman’s approach to anticipatory avoidance learning, Larson (1970) also reported treatment success but did not provide specific numbers. Kraft (1967, 1970) treated two homosexual men with a combination of systematic desensitization and psychoanalysis and found that they responded as heterosexuals after treatment. Serban (1968) reported treatment of 25 homosexuals using existential therapeutic approaches. He concluded that after their erotic perceptions changed, their sexual orientation also changed. Fookes (1969) summarized five years of clinical experience providing aversion therapy to 27 people with sexual disorders. Success ranged from 60 percent for homosexuality to 100 percent for fetishismtransvestism, and no harmful effects of aversion treatments were discernible. Fookes reported that the patients welcomed the changes, which consisted of the loss of desire for the behavior (which the patients saw as a perversion). McConaghy (1969, 1970, 1975) and McConaghy, Proctor, and Barr (1972) found successful subjective and penile plethysmography responses after applied aversion therapy was used to treat a number of homosexual men. In Bancroft’s (1970) study, 5 of 15 homosexuals (33 percent) treated with desensitization had sig- nificant shifts toward heterosexual behavior. Hatterer (1970) found in a followup of his treatment of 143 homosexuals that 49 (34 percent) achieved a satisfactory heterosexual adjustment. Using covert sensitization techniques, Cautela and Wisocki (1971) reported a 37 percent success rate one year after treatment. Feldman and MacCulloch (1971) worked with 36 patients using anticipatory avoidance learning therapy. They found a 57 percent success rate after one year. Feldman, MacCulloch, and Orford (1971) reported followup results on research done with 63 homosexual men between 1963 and 1965. They found that 29 percent of the men who had no prior heterosexual experience had changed. “Change” was indicated by ceasing homosexual behavior, having only occasional homosexual fantasies or attractions, and developing strong heterosexual fantasy, behaviors, or both. Van den Aardweg (1971) reported that 9 of 20 patients were completely cured through the use of exag- geration therapy. “Cure” meant that they reported no homosexual fantasies or behaviors after treatment. Hallam and Rachman (1972) administered a course of electrical aversion therapy to seven patients complaining of “deviant sexual behavior,” including homosexual impulse. Four made discernible progress, while three failed to respond. After treatment, significant changes in heart rate response to sexual stimuli were detected. Those who were successfully treated experienced a significant increase in the time required to imagine sexual material. The results were seen as providing some support for the conditioning theory of aversion therapy. Barlow and Agras (1973) found a 30 percent decrease in homosexual behavior six months after treatment in patients who were treated with the flooding technique. Maletzky and George (1973) reported on 10 homosexual men who were treated with covert sensitization behavioral therapy. A 90 percent success rate was found at the 12-month followup assessment. Utilizing avoidance conditioning, classical conditioning, and backward conditioning, McConaghy and Barr (1973) found that one fourth of their patients had totally ceased homosexual behavior one year after treatment. Freeman and Meyer (1975) used behavioral approaches and reported a 78 percent success rate 18 months later in patients who had been exclusively homosexual. Cantón-Dutari (1974, 1976) used desensitization, aversion, and contraction-breathing techniques to help active homosexual men control sexual arousal in response to homosexual images. Cantón-Dutari reported that 48 of 54 patients (89 percent) were considered successfully treated because they were able to control sexual arousal in the presence of a homoerotic stimulus. Forty-four of 49 (90 percent) also performed satisfactorily during heterosexual intercourse. The researchers followed 22 of the men for an average of three and a half years. Eleven of these remained exclusively heterosexual and 4 of these 11 married; 11 masturbated to homosexual imagery but did not involve themselves in other homosexual behavior. Using systematic desensitization, Phillips, Fischer, Groves, and Singh (1976) reported a success- ful behavioral outcome with a homosexual man. Their definition of “success” meant the man had no homosexual activity 18 months after treatment and was able to initiate heterosexual contact. Similar behavioral results using systemic desensitization were reported by Kraft (1967), Ramsey and van Velzen (1968), Bergin (1969), Huff (1970), and S. James (1978). McConaghy, Armstrong, and Blaszcyzynski (1981) tried to evaluate behavior therapy for homo- sexuals in response to ethical objections of such treatment. Twenty people requesting behavior therapy to reduce compulsive homosexual urges were randomly assigned to receive aversive therapy, covert sensitization, or both. Both groups were studied for one year. There was no consistent trend for one therapy to be more effective than the other in reducing the strength of compulsive homosexual urges, and the successful responses to both were similar to those reported in previous studies. The researchers suggested that aversive therapies in homosexuality do not work by establishing a conditioned aversion or by altering a person’s sexual orientation. The authors concluded that they reduced aversive arousal produced by behavior-completion mechanisms when people try to refrain from homosexual behavior in response to stimuli that repeatedly provoked such behavior in the past. Using covert sensitization methods over a period of several years, Callahan, Krumboltz, and Thoresen (1976) reported that at the four-and-a-half-year followup that their client said he experienced “no problem with homosexual arousal and he has a good sexual relationship with his wife” (p. 244). As measured on the Kinsey scale, after treatment the man was considered predominantly heterosexual. Others using covert sensitization also reported successful outcomes in shifting clients from homosexual behavior to heterosexual behavior (Mandel, 1970; Kendrick & McCullough, 1972; Segal & Sims, 1972). Herman, Barlow, and Agras (1974) studied the use of classical conditioning in three men who iden- tified themselves as homosexual. The men were conditioned to respond to female stimuli, and slides and films with homosexual content were also used. Critical variables in the classical conditioning procedure were systematically introduced and removed while objective and subjective measures of homosexual and heterosexual behavior were recorded (such as penile responses and self-reports of sexual urges and fantasies). Subjects completed the KSOM before and after each experimental phase. In two of the men, classical conditioning was effective for increasing heterosexual arousal. In the third man, classical conditioning was not effective. Orwin, James, and Turner (1974) reported the effective reorientation of a homosexual man by using aversion therapy. Following pretraining assessment, Tanner (1974) assigned eight men who identified themselves as homosexuals to an automated aversive conditioning group and eight others to a waiting list control group. At the end of eight weeks, all subjects participated in a second assessment. The aversive conditioning group showed significant decreases in erectile response to slides of nude men, a decrease in the amount of arousal they felt in response to slides of nude men, and a decrease on the masculinity-femininity (MF) scale of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). At the same time, they reported having significantly more sex with women, socializing with women, and sexual thoughts about women versus men. Tanner (1975) used avoidance training on 10 men to modify homosexual behavior through either a booster or a no-booster group. Those in the booster group received five additional sessions during the year following treatment, while the others had no contact during that year. One year after the treatment was finished, the men returned for an evaluation consisting of erectile response to slides of nudes, self-report of arousal while viewing the slides, the MF scale of the MMPI, self-report of frequency of sex with men and women, frequency of thoughts about sex with men and women, frequency of socializing with men and women, and number of categories of sexual behavior engaged in with both sexes. No significant difference was found between the two groups for any of the measures. When repeated measurement tests were used, however, five of the seven tests showed significance at the .05 level or beyond, indicating that the avoidance training itself was effective but that the booster sessions did not increase the effectiveness of the initial training. Pradhan, Ayyar, and Bagadia (1982) demonstrated that by utilizing behavioral modification tech- niques, 8 of 13 homosexual men showed a shift to heterosexual adaptation that was maintained at a six-month and one-year followup. Van den Aardweg (1986a, 1986b) reported treating 101 homosexuals with cognitive approaches. About 60 percent had at least a satisfactory outcome, while one third of those changed substantially toward a heterosexual adaptation. As Throckmorton (1998) concluded, many behaviorally trained counselors—mostly from the 1970s—advocated the use of a variety of behavioral techniques to achieve sexual shifts from homosexuality toward heterosexuality (Barlow, 1973; Barlow & Durand, 1995; Bergin, 1969; Blitch & Haynes, 1972; Freeman & Meyer, 1975; Gray, 1970; Greenspoon & Lamal, 1987; Hanson & Adesso, 1972; Marquis, 1970; Rehm & Rozensky, 1974; Tarlow, 1989; Wilson & Davison, 1974). Behavioral therapists report that their level of success in decreasing homosexuality is essentially one third or more (Birk, Huddleston, Miller, & Cohler, 1971; Bancroft, 1974). Sixty percent of 200 behavioral therapists surveyed reported that they were at least moderately successful in helping clients shift toward heterosexuality (Davison & Wilson, 1973). Even though researchers have demonstrated that behavioral therapy has been successful in assisting sexual reorientation (Byrd & Nicolosi, 2002), aversion procedures are now prohibited because of ethical considerations. Group Therapies Eliasberg (1954) conducted group psychoanalysis by way of dream analysis with two groups of six men who were on probation and who volunteered for the study. Eliasberg wrote outcome narratives for five cases in which success was reported. Success varied for each case with no absolute criteria. Shifts from homosexual to heterosexual were reported for all five. However, these men showed bisexual behaviors from the onset of treatment and, with one exception, they had either been married or had prior sexual involvement with women. For these patients, complete shift of orientation had not been their goal and was not their outcome. Instead, the patients described positive outcomes, such as: • I feel stronger all around, as to resistance. • There are fewer relapses. • I can see from my dreams that I am in a better position to reject those men. • It comforts me that my interests are shunted away, unconsciously, from homosexuality. (p. 224) One of the men was followed for three years, and during this time, “no trouble was reported” by the patient (p. 223). Hadden (1958) reported in the American Journal of Psychiatry that he treated three homosexuals in group therapy and that one of them shifted to heterosexual adjustment. Smith and Bassin (1959) treated two men in group therapy and reported that one of the men had a marked reduction in his compulsive homosexual behavior, while the other achieved a satisfactory shift toward heterosexual adjustment. According to Litman (1961), a homosexual man changed his sexual orientation through group ther- apy. Hadden (1966) reported a 38 percent success rate after treating 32 homosexuals in group therapy. The people in the group progressed to an exclusively heterosexual pattern of adjustment and showed marked improvement in or disappearance of other neurotic traits after followup. Birk, Miller, and Cohler (1970) reported a similar success rate. After two years of group therapy with male-female cotherapists, 9 (35 percent) of 26 overt homosexually identified men “shift[ed] to or towards heterosexuality” (p. 37). Bieber (1971) reported a success rate of more than 40 percent through the use of group therapy. Hadden (1971) confirmed a one-third success rate. Pittman and DeYoung (1971) reported that two of six, or one third, of homosexuals treated in group therapy received maximum benefit and achieved their goal of a satisfactory shift toward heterosexuality. Truax and Tourney (1971) reported that group treatment of 30 patients—compared to 20 untreated controls—resulted in increased heterosexual orientation, decreased homosexual preoccupation, reduced neurotic symptomatology, improved social relations, and increased insight into the causes and implications of their homosexuality. Changes in sexual behavior included increased heterosexual dating, decreased homosexual experiences, and increased heterosexual intercourse. While heterosexual functioning improved with further therapy, even more improvement was seen in associated neurotic symptomatology. Birk (1974) reported that of 66 patients treated, 27 remained in treatment for 1.5 years or longer and that 85 percent experienced “at least partial heterosexual shifts,” while 52 percent experienced “striking, nearly complete heterosexual shifts” as measured on the Kinsey scale (p. 41). Birk (1980) later reported that 10 of 14 (71 percent) exclusively homosexual men in treatment for more than two and a half years were married to women at followup. Researchers reported over a 10-year period that group therapy combined with other therapies showed varied yet consistent treatment successes (Ross & Mendelsohn, 1958; Finny, 1960; Buki, 1964; Mintz, 1966; Miller, Bradley, Gross, & Wood, 1968). As with behavioral therapy, approximately one third or more of group therapy clients reported a desired shift in sexual orientation. Hypnosis Although Charcot and Magnan (1882) held to the theory that homosexuality was congenital, they applied hypnosis to an undisclosed number of homosexual men and reported success because those patients “became heterosexual” (as cited in Horstman, 1972, p. 5). Schrenck-Notzing (1892) had similar findings (Fine, 1987). Cafiso (1983) reported successfully treating a homosexual man by strengthening his ego through hypnosis. After the patient had developed a stronger sense of self, he was capable of approaching women sexually. This corresponds with other reports of the effective use of hypnosis to promote sexual reorientation (Regardie, 1949; Alexander, 1967; Roper, 1967). Sex Therapies Pomeroy (1972) noted that as early as 1940, Kinsey had reported treatment, “of more than eighty cases of men who had made a satisfactory heterosexual adaptation adjustment which either accompanied or largely replaced earlier homosexual experiences” (p. 76). Although not a sex therapist, Kinsey reportedly helped these men by training them to relate to the opposite sex and to finally begin “physical contact of the simplest kind, working up slowly to intercourse” (p. 76). Kinsey did caution, however, that homosexual fantasies were not always eradicated. According to Pomeroy, Kinsey gave this advice to one homosexually-oriented youth who wanted to change: Do not be discouraged if you find the male still arousing you more than the female; it may take time and abundant heterosexual experience to bring you satisfaction equal to what you have known in the homosexual. Sometimes, however, I have known the homosexual to change almost overnight, as a result of a fortunate, satisfactory heterosexual experience. (p. 77) In Masters and Johnson’s (1979) treatment of 90 homosexuals, a 28.4 percent failure rate was reported six years after treatment (Schwartz & Masters, 1984). Masters and Johnson chose to report failure rather than success rates to avoid vague, inaccurate concepts of success; however, by implication, more than 70 percent of their patients achieved some degree of success toward their self-identified goal of diminishing unwanted homosexuality and developing their heterosexual potential. Pharmacological Interventions Owensby (1940) reported that six patients ceased all homosexual behavior after taking the drug Metrazol (pentetrazol). Buki (1964) conducted a clinical trial using Parnate (tranylcypromine) with 36 male patients between the ages of 19 and 34 who had engaged in homosexual behavior. After expiration of the trial time periods (as many as 90 days), “the clinical examinations show[ed] an unexpected good control over homosexual activities and impulsions with 13 patients” (p. 306). Kraft (1967) reported similar findings with Brevital (methohexital), used in conjunction with Wolpe’s (1964) relaxation methods. Golwyn and Sevlie (1993) reported change in the sexual orientation of a 23-year-old homosexual man who, after taking Nardil (phenelzine) for shyness and anxiety, reported that he no longer had sexual interest in other men. The authors concluded, “Social phobia may be a hidden contributing factor in some instances of homosexual behavior” and that Nardil, “like other dopaminergic agents, might facilitate male heterosexual activity” (p. 40). A serendipitous finding of fluoxetine-associated suppression of ego-dystonic homosexual activity in a 53-year-old man for a period of 13 years was reported by Elmore (2002). The patient’s determination to remain sexually abstinent had been essential to his successful treatment. Nicolosi (in press) found that while conducting reparative therapy, a 50-year-old male client re- ported a sudden and dramatic freedom from unwanted homosexual thoughts, feelings, and behaviors after taking Lexapro. The client reported that he continued to be free of these unwanted symptoms more than 18 months after starting the anti-depressant medicine. ROY MASTERS - /The Foundation of Human Understanding/ - “The homosexual urge was not a matter of chance, but an attraction to a forbidden object,” explained former U.S. Representative Robert Bauman. “This was a frightening force from deep within my being, an involuntary reaction to the sight, smell, and feel of other boys. I neither understood it, nor accepted it.” This admission by Congressman Bauman is evidence of a classic case of trauma conditioning and post-traumatic stress disorder. The angry struggle against the image of his mother only made him ever more like her, with terrible conflict. Like throwing fat on a fire to extinguish the flames, every emotional struggle only fed the identity of his mother. The more he struggled with anger, the more of a homosexual he became, with endless conflict and misery. All he could do was to accept the fact that he was what he was. The cure? To stop being angry with the memory of his mother. Forgive her for she knew not what she did. EDMUND BERGLER M.D. /Expert on homosexuality with more than 30+ years of clinical experience. He has been referred to as "one of the few original minds among the followers of Freud. Delos Smith, science editor of United Press International, said Bergler was "among the most prolific Freudian theoreticians after Freud himself"/ A male homosexual is a person who predominantly uses the unconsciously-based defense mechanism of man-man relationship to escape his repressed masochistic attachment to the mother - and who shows predominantly in his personality the mechanism of the "injustice collector." Only the combination of the two ingredients constitutes the homosexual. Paradoxically the homosexual never "escapes mother" although his overdimensional inner fears push him into "another continent" in his frantic flight. His main character trait - "injustice collecting" - belongs genetically and historically to - mother. The penis of the partner for which he allegedly craves is a disguised breast or breast-equivalent of - mother. His quick "turnover" of partners is a pseudo-aggressive defense directed intrapsychically against – mother. These persons are so angry with the disappointing breast or breast-substitutes that they discard the whole disappointing sex: woman. They run in life after the "reduplication of their own defense-mechanism" - the penis. Every analysis of homosexuals confirms the fact that behind their frantic chase after the male organ the disappointing breast is hidden. How can this seemingly fantastic connection be proved clinically? Simply by analyzing without bias the unconscious conflicts of homosexuals. CHARLES SOCARIDES M.D. /Expert on homosexuality with more than 50 years of clinical experience, graduated from Harvard College and received his certificate in Psychoanalytic Medicine from what is now the Columbia University Center for Psychoanalytic Training and Research./ Awards • Distinguished Psychoanalyst (Association of Psychoanalytic Psychologists) • Sigmund Freud Lectureship Award (New York Center for Psychoanalytic Training) • Physicians Recognition Award (American Medical Association) • Sigmund Freud Award (American Society of Psychoanalytic Physicians) The homosexual transiently obtains masculinity through incorporation of the partner's body and penis and thereby avoids the dangers connected with the mother, all the while remaining close to her. He substitues the male for the female, the penis for the dreaded breast and the genitalia of the maternal body. My clinical findings indicate that most homosexual patients endure suffering, massive unconscious guilt feelings masked by defensives, profound psychopathology in many instances, and severe overall impairment in functioning, except in those cases which are fixated at the higher levels of development. The unconscious guilt feelings are kept in repression by the construction and enactment of the perverse act - an end - defensive product, and these transformations make homosexual acts “ego-syntonic” wiping out all traces of conscious guilt derived from unconscious conflict. Masochism is, of course, not only a way of neutralizing aggression, but of keeping the tie to the mother. The homosexual must no longer fear the all-powerful retaliative forces of the mother; he does not dare to cease being her masochistic, thingly-disguised sexual slave. MELANIE KLEIN /An Austrian-British author and psychoanalyst who is known for her work in the world of developmental psychology. She was a formative figure in the theory of object relations theory./ In my analyses of boys and adult men I have found that when strong oral-sucking impulses have combined with strong oral-sadistic ones, the infant has turned away from his mother's breast with hatred very early. His early and intense destructive tendencies against her breast have led him to introject a 'bad' mother for the most part; and his sudden giving up of her breast has been followed by an exceedingly strong introjection of his father's penis. His feminine phase has been governed by feelings of hatred and envy towards his mother. Dr. LIONEL OVESEY /Psychoanalyst who has treated and studied men troubled by homosexuality for more than 18 years/ Dependency fantasies are a common feature in homosexual patients. They reflect the inhibitions of assertion which stem from parental intimidation in various behavior areas. Failure of assertion in dependent males are generally misinterpreted as failures in masculine roles, hence as femininity, and in the end as castration. The magical repair of these failures is most directly accomplished through the fantasied incorporation of the maternal breast. There is an alternative pseudo-homosexual route, however, based on the equation penis-breast. Here the developmental prototype is the relationship between the child and the father. There are two ways in which this equation can be used, and both are acted out by the overt homosexual in the relationship with his partner. The first conceives the father’s penis as a feeding organ similar to the mother’s breast. The reparative fantasy is then sucking the penis in which he semen is equated with milk. The second involves incorporation of the father’s penis, usually by mouth or per anum. In this way the dependent male undoes his castration, and the donor’s “masculine” strength becomes available to him. ARTHUR JANOV - /Well-known author and psychotherapist and creator of Primal Therapy/ I treated a gay man who loved sucking penis; and now I shall simplify. His feeling when his partner came was “mother’s milk.” His basic need was for a warm father and for sucking and having the breast, both of which went missing. His need became sexualized but it is still basic need. His sexual response is keeping the need alive. It is a point of access, not for punishment but for accessing the need and his pain. He may be acting-out the need for a loving father or out of fear of angry women (his mother). There are those who think I have taken an antihomosexual stance. So let me clarify. I have no “stance” about homosexuality. I only try to follow the science and not shy away from facts that are politically incorrect. That helps no one, especially those who want to change. So if homosexuality is normal it cannot ever be treated and changed? I have found that not to be true. A few of my homosexual patients do change after many many months of therapy and very deep probing into the brain and the unconscious. And we never assume anything about it, only that after perhaps of in-depth feeling there is an automatic change in some patients. Sometimes science is fascist; it doesn’t care about our feelings and where their findings lead. It cares about truth. JOSEPH NICOLOSI Ph.D. /Clinical psychologist with more than 30 years of psychotherapeutic work with homosexual patients/ - Mothers must always be sensitive to the healthy physical and emotional boundaries that are required by the young boy to develop heterosexually. To the male, the feminine must always be mysterious and “other than me,” rather than intrusive, controlling, over-familiar, and suggestive of the threat of incestuous attraction, as so many of our homosexual clients report from their childhoods. For the man who develops homosexually, the male body, in contrast, has no negative childhood associations of boundary violations and therefore, it represents a “safe haven” from the intrusive feminine. Homosexual behavior is an attempt to “repair” the wound that left the boy alienated from his own innate masculinity. A client and I were doing Body Work on an attractive female image. As he gazed at the photo, he felt himself slowly developing warm, close feelings. But just as he was beginning to enjoy the pleasant sensations in his body, he hit a sudden block. He felt a rigidity in his chest (i.e., fear). When we analyzed the problem, a jolting memory came up of his mother “playfully treating me like baby” by taking her breast out and putting it to his mouth. He was 10 years old—a preteen at the time—and the incident, which was supposed to be a joke, had brought up alarming, incestuous feelings at that time which he had felt an anxious need to suppress. In fact, he had “forgotten” those feelings until this moment. HARRY GERSHMAN M.D. /A Diplomate of the American Board of Neurology and Psychiatry; Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association and the Academy of Psychoanalysis; Training and Supervising Analyst, American Institute for Psychoanalysis of the Karen Horney Psychoanalytic Institute and Center./ The homosexual-to-be experiences a great deal more anxiety both qualitatively and quantitatively in his early formative years. As a result of this anxiety a number of maturational processes are partially or completely blocked. The homosexual's identification with his mother is not his clever way of possessing her but represents his inability to feel separate from her. Although the homosexual often speaks of love for his partner, the basic unconscious motivation is an aggressive destructive incorporation of that which he covets because of his own lack. This may account for the frequent observation that the homosexual act is impersonal. When two homosexual participants become friendly, the sexuality gradually diminishes until it ceases entirely. Friendship and sustained homosexuality seem to be a rare occurrence and, to my knowledge, incompatible. ...this perversion does not coexist with a healthy personality. SAMUEL HADDEN M.D. /More than 30 years of group therapy with a large population of men troubled by homosexuality/ Homosexuality is only a symptom of an underlying personality disorder. One reason why homosexuals are so rarely cured is that they rarely try treatment. Too many of them actually believe that they are happy and satisfied the way they are. Certain experiences are observed to be common to the early years. Disturbed relationships with either or both parents along with intra-parental strife are rather consistent findings. SHERVERT H. FRAZIER M.D. /He was Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. He held the position of Psychiatrist-in-Chief at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass. He was Director of the National Institute of Mental Health in Bethesda, Md./ - All well-structured perversions (including homosexuality) are ego syntonic. One cannot equate ego syntonicity simply with conscious reactions of shame, loss of pride or guilt due to societal attitudes. Ego syntonic formation such as perversions may be acceptable to the ego of the patient in varying degrees, but they are already the end result of unconscious defense mechanisms. Splitting mechanisms lead to an ego relatively free of anxiety and help repress the deeper anxieties which the perverse homosexual act masks and hides. All homosexual acts of the obligatory type are the end result of severe conflict, regardless of the degree of conscious acceptability or the production of orgastic pleasure. With our current knowledge, a number of ego syntonic phenomena can be successfully analyzed. It is psychiatric nonsense to state that ego syntonic homosexuals do not suffer from a disorder because they do not seem to be distressed by it or complain about it, while ego dystonic homosexuals are disordered because they do not wish to be homosexual. This view completely misleads clinicians, homosexuals, their families, and the psychiatric review boards who determine indications for psychiatric treatment. That's a long and unimpressive list of tidbits, mainly from at least 50 years ago. The article is extensively referenced, so there's no need to ask what sources it is depending on, and your question about whether psychotherapy in general is pseudoscience is completely fatuous. PepperBeast (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)