Talk:Conversion therapy/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Dispute over leading sentence regarding 'homosexuals and bisexuals'

IP 92.10.13.209 has repeatedly been changing sourced info in the lead (here, here, and here) about the target of conversion therapy, in order to remove the text about "homosexual and bisexual" orientation, because, in their opinion, that would exclude pansexuality. However, that is original research, and whatever one's personal feelings are about pansexual inclusivity, the fact is that conversion therapy has historically targeted homosexual and bisexual men and women, as seen in any number of reliable sources. For example, the first sentence of the introduction of "Youth in the Crosshairs" is typical:

For almost three decades, the ex-gay movement has been claming that gay men, lesbians and bisexuals can become heterosexual through 'reparative therapy' or 'conversion therapy'.^[6]

We need to stick to the sources, and whatever one's laudable general principles about inclusivity are, the s[urces overwhelmingly refer to conversion therapy as having targeted homosexual and bisexual individuals, and we have no choice but to do the same. For better or worse, a well-meaning concern for inclusivity does not trump the requirement for verifiability based on reliable sources.Mathglot (talk) 05:28, 23 June 2022 ('

Please stop singling me out like this. Multiple other people accepted my revision, and Roxy edited my revision to improve upon it further. If we are going to have a constructive discussion and reach consensus, I'd appreciate it if you acknowledged that you had different concerns from multiple other editors - one of whom you reverted rather than discussing here - rather than exclusively talking about me. I don't mind you pinging me or involving me in the discussion as long as long as it's community focused.92.10.13.209 (talk) 06:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with pointing out unnacceptable editing - it is what Talk pages are for, amongst other things. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 06:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Arf. I checked the talk page archives and did not find a prior discussion of the point Mathglot raises. Perhaps your next step could be to bring sources that support your formulation to this discussion. Changes to Wikipedia articles that stick are collaborative. Meow (comment from Bo, the cat). — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 06:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC) —

(edit conflict) IP 91, in trying to keep to the proper use of article vs. user talk pages, I tried to address the content disagreement aspect here at the article talk page. This is the right place to argue why your point of view at the article is the correct one, and to gather support for it and demonstrate that there is consensus for your view. The behavioral aspect of it I tried to confine to your Talk page (and I won't repeat it here) although there is, of course, some overlap since we're talking about the same edits. Perhaps this is too subtle a point, but on this page I'm not singling you out, I'm singling out your edits, which I believe are not compliant with Wikipedia policy wrt how best to describe the topic of "conversion therapy" to our readers, and fail to reflect the majority opinion of reliable sources on a crucial Five Ws point: namely, who was targeted?. The answer to that, is: "homosexuals and bisexuals". To leave that out, is to omit a central point of the entire topic. That's just a fact. If it's the section title above that you object to, propose something different that you like better that still describes the issue adequately, and I'll change it. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 06:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you changed the section title to 'dispute over leading sentence' or 'Edits with potential OR' 92.10.13.209 (talk) 06:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Done. Mathglot (talk) 07:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for changing it :) I'm behind on sleep so I'll get back to you in a bit 92.10.13.209 (talk) 07:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot: As I see it, a more suitable answer to "who" is LGBTQ people. I don't think saying so is OR, nor does it make the definition less clear. Verifiably, asexuals, pansexuals, and people who identify as queer all report conversion therapy experiences. Unless that was not, in fact, conversion therapy, then "from homosexual or bisexual" is not a necessary or sufficient part of the definition (nor "from transgender", which I removed with relatively little fuss, maybe it got lost in the noise).

What exactly is the source we're sticking to here? I don't see one which explicitly uses "homosexual or bisexual" in describing who is affected by conversion therapy. The ones I've skimmed either say just homosexual (especially the 20th century ones), some variation of lesbian, gay, bisexual, or queer (preferable), or don't attempt to enumerate specific orientations at all, outside of the LGBT(Q)(+)(IA) initialism, which is what I think the lede should do. Tendentiously yours, RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 07:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Why not just turn around and shorten the sentence and say ".....attempting to change an LGBT individual's sexual orientation to heterosexual, or their gender identity....". If you already have the abbrevation LGBT in the sentence, it is a bit redundant to mention any specific other orientation.Sbishop (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Now there's a good idea. :-) RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 17:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm cool with this idea :) 92.10.13.209 (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Why not? Because there's over a century of history of conversion therapy, and for the first hundred years it was only about trying to "cure" homosexuality through various means, and it would be the same kind of anachronism, as talking about "Sigmund Freud's LGBTQ patients" in the article about Sigmund Freud; the term did not exist then, and it erases 95% of the history of conversion therapy to say that it targeted "LGBT individuals" when it did not; it exclusively targeted homosexual individuals (of which bisexuality, barely mentioned, was considered an offshoot) during the vast majority of its history. This attitude extended even to the dawn of the 21st century, as the section § 21st century in the article makes clear. Even in Freud's time (or in Ancient Greece) there must have been ace and pan folks, but they aren't part of the historical record for that time and those articles, because it wasn't known about or addressed.

Same thing here; of course some ace and pan folks (and others) would have been swept up in the unfortunate attempts to "cure" homosexuality, but even they were being targeted because of their perceived homosexuality by those promoting and acting to "treat" them (even when they weren't!); those pushing treatment cared little and knew less about such distinctions. So, of course you can find people who are ace or pan or other identities giving their first-person accounts (and it's no accident that all of your references are very recent 21st century refs, and not from the 1960s or 1970s), just as you could for those ace and pan folks who happened to be present at Stonewall, but that's not why the Stonewall bar was attacked by police—it was attacked because it was a gay bar, period. To police and the public in 1969, "transgender" was absolutely nowhere on the radar, and regardless of the seminal importance of the pioneering trans folk who fought back and led at Stonewall, it was attacked because of what the police viewed as homosexual patrons, regardless of the tapestry of identities of the people actually present there at the time, who were all lumped together by the police and higher-ups as "homosexual".

The same thing is true about the proponents of conversion therapy: the target of their misconstrued and damaging attempts at "treatment" hurt a lot of people, but their target was clearly "homosexuality": that was what they were labeling as "diseased", "perverted" or whatever, and that is what they were trying to cure. I am not aware of a single reference stating that Nicolosi, Zucker, or any of the others of that ilk ever labeled asexuality or pansexuality as a diagnosis they were attempting to "cure", and we should not imply that they did.

That said, we could certainly mention that other LGBT folks suffered from this sorry history (just as you could at a history of Stonewall) but we have to be very clear about who was being targeted for 120 years by the medical establishment, and it was not ace and pan folk. The focus on attempted conversion of homosexuality to heterosexuality has to take precedence in the body of the article, because that's what the historical record shows, and the lead should follow suit. Somewhere in the body, it would be appropriate to mention the minority of other identities (primarily trans, less so for ace and pan and others) that were targeted, but whether they should be mentioned in the LEAD or not should follow the MOS:LEAD guideline, which states that it is a "a summary of [the article's] most important contents". Likely trans individuals could be mentioned, because late in the process they were targeted too; my sense of WP:DUE is that ace and pan individuals could be mentioned in the body, but not in the lead. We should not use the term LGBT in describing who was targeted; the pro-conversion group never specifically targeted or tried to cure LGBTQ+ individuals in the broadest sense of that term (which didn't exist for most of the history of conversion), they targeted and attempted to "cure" homosexuals. Changing that term to "targeted LGBTQ+ individuals" would be an unfortunate lack of precision that doesn't match the historical record. If we mention LGBT (or LGBTQ+, etc.) in the lead at all, it should be exclusively in the context of who suffered from their actions, and should be debated based on WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY and WP:DUEWEIGHT in the context of the preponderance of reliable sources on the topic. Mathglot (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Accurately preserving the historical record in the body does not require us to use incorrect or antiquated terminology in the MOS:LEADSENTENCE. The goal is a "a concise definition ... one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist". We should concern ourselves less with capturing every possible nuance, and more with providing a useful definition that describes this subject in the most accurate, and NPOV manner possible. If the sentence afterwards needs to be Conversion therapy historically only targeted homosexual men and women, because bi/pan/a/transsexuals didn't exist back then, and the sources support that, be my guest.

Unless @Neonorange: has any strong thoughts on the matter, I guess the only way to advance consensus here would be a Talk:Trans woman/Definitions-style list of every possible source on the matter, and how they define the term conversion therapy. Maybe I'll look into that when I have the time.

If we're obliged to include this phrase (and I really don't think we are), I support changing it to "from lesbian, gay, or bisexual". RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 19:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your first sentence above in theory, but not sure how you mean it in practice; can you add a MOS:LEADSENTENCE below that would meet with your approval? I'm also unsure what you mean by "incorrect or antiquated terminology"; in particular, the term homosexual continues to be used in recent scientific context even if in social contexts it is passé, or associated with homophobia. Also, the anti-homosexual stance of conversion therapists is not "nuance", it's 99% of what they were about. Mathglot (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To respond to my own request for a lead sentence, I think the current one is fine, minus the redundant 'LGBT' (the sentence already says that they are non-hetero or non-cis by nature), so this:

Conversion therapy is the pseudoscientific practice of attempting to change an individual's sexual orientation from homosexual or bisexual to heterosexual, or their gender identity to cisgender, using psychological, physical, or spiritual interventions.

This is equivalent to the lead sentence in the version of 08:46, 14 June 2022, just before IP 91's first of three reverts, and goes back at least as far as the beginning of January. Thoughts? Mathglot (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I have major, major problems with the changes you wish to make with the article Mathglot - however, I am having an early night right now so cannot respond. Could you wait til I wake up tomorrow before making any edits - so I can give my input in this discussion? 92.10.13.209 (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

You probably noticed I haven't made any changes to the article since this discussion began, and don't plan to until it concludes. Mathglot (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

What major, major changes are those? I just want to go back to the long-stable lead sentence of 14 June before you changed it, and then changed it twice more when you were reverted. Mathglot (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Just because the phrase 'LGBT' didn't exist then doesn't mean LGBT people didn't exist back then - and that the term isn't relevant - and you know it. This originalism is just a way of ignoring the facts - and the meaning of words - in a way that favours being pedantic about etymology. If a baby is born and their parents name them shortly after - that doesn't mean the baby didn't exist beforehand, and that saying they did is an anachronism. Ace and pan people are part of the historical record and you know it. They are documented throughout history - and even if they weren't - that wouldn't mean they weren't known about or addressed. If they weren't documented at the TIME because of bigotry towards them then that ignores the facts that they existed in favour of said bigotry - which is an example of WP:Systemic Bias that Wikipedia discourages. The idea that "it wasn't known about or addressed" is a biased, ahistorical concept that inherently positions itself with people who didn't know about it. Rather than seeking to find out if they are any reliable, modern sources about ace and pan people who lived in previous decades - written by people without the prejudice and/or limited scientific understanding of said decades - your statement just assumes they didn't without any sources yourself. That is not a good way to determine facts in general, let alone a subject as important and sensitive as conversion therapy.

It doesn't matter whether ace or pan people were targeted because someone thought they were gay. If conversion therapy happened to them, then that was conversion therapy against ace and pan people. The idea that what happened to them wasn't acephobic or panphobic because the conversion therapists didn't perceive them that way is the same idea that gay people have 'straight privilege' when they're in the closet because other people perceive them as straight. Perception isn't what's relevant here. The facts matter here, and the facts are that ace and pan people were victims of conversion therapy - ergo conversion therapy has historically happened against ace and pan as well as gay, bi and trans people. It doesn't matter when sources were written. Reliable sources are reliable sources - and in fact sometimes even MORE reliable then earlier ones - as they are the most academically and socially up-to-date - having expanded upon previous sources in order to have the most information as necessary and therefore the ability to have the best findings. If you wouldn't reject modern reliable sources for other articles, you shouldn't do it for this article. Doing so in general is a form of bias in favour of older sources. To be clear, I'm not upset at you and I know you were completely in good faith. I just mean this as constructive criticism because I think your methodology is deeply flawed.

In addition to what I've already stated - you have no sources for the police who attacked the Stonewall bar thinking that the trans women there were gay men, and you take it as a given to inform your conclusions. And saying "to the public in 1969" is biased in favour of cis people because it ignores the fact that the public included trans people - in addition to their allies, who knew what being trans was. Just because some cis people might not have known about it doesn't mean trans people didn't exist. And the idea that they weren't well-known by cis people is historically false - since Christine Jorgenson became a celebrity in the '50s - the public reaction to which you can read about in her article, which has sources documenting how famous she became to the public and press. Transphobia has been rampant for decades and even when trans people were systemically ostracized in the 20th century more so than they are now - movies like Crocodile Dundee, Soapdish and Ace Ventura: Pet Detective frequently mocked trans people, proving that cis people knew who trans people were - no matter what they'd publicly admit. Transphobia has existed for centuries - and that is a conscious thing. If you read about the history of transphobia, you will find out that the current, systemic nature of transphobia has its roots in colonialism - in addition to victims of transphobia in previous centuries such as Eleanor Rykener. Eleanor was falsely described as 'a man wearing women's clothing' when she was arrested, as trans women still are nowadays. That doesn't mean that transphobes sincerely think trans women are men and that those transphobes are just uneducated. They know trans women are women and saying otherwise ignores the nature of the bigotry itself and is disrespectful to the victims. When perpetuating transmisogyny boys/men treat trans women in the misogynistic way they treat cis women - no matter what they say. Your unsourced methodology goes against the academic consensus of how bigotry works and has worked in the past. If you are not aware of sources targeting asexual and pan people, then you should ask people in this discussion that are claiming they were to provide their evidence to reach a constructive consensus on behalf of all parties. Rather than saying "we should not imply that they did." Roxy has provided a plethora of sources for her claims. She has shown she is willing to research her points to back them up. You should work with someone who is doing this, weigh their sources up with your opposing claims, and cite sources of your own for what you have to say in order for everyone here to reach a mutual conclusion.

The idea that ace and pan folk weren't targeted throughout history is untrue. If that was true, we wouldn't be having this discussion of opposing points. Because, if ace and pan people were - in accordance with your (as I already established) extremely flawed methodology - conflated with gay and bi people, then systemic acceptance of ace and pan people would have happened at the same speed/timeframe as systemic acceptance of gay and bi people. (As in - they would have been more systemically accepted recently than in the mid-20th century). But it didn't - and they aren't as accepted as gay and bi people - because that isn't how discrimination works.

Terms describe the meaning of words - no matter when the specific words were invented (this sounds like I'm being patronizing but I'm absolutely not trying to be - it's just relevant to my larger, ongoing point). Regardless of when they were coined, a word with a different morphology but same meaning to another means the same thing - and is interchangeable with the other word. If you are going to be against describing LGBT discrimination as that, then logically that would lead to trans people who lived in previous centuries - such as Christine Jorgenson or April Ashley - having the word 'transgender' or phrase 'trans woman' excised from their articles and category listings because they lived at least partly in a time period before those words were coined. But, that would be a violation of WP:Manual Of Style#Gender identity which states "Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, "man/woman", "waiter/waitress") that reflect the person's latest expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources." Recent sources matter and it is against this policy to reject them just because older sources do not have the different information of the newer ones. Similarly - under this policy - trans people should be referred to by their name, gender and pronouns throughout the article if they are not notable, regardless of what other people thought was the case at the time. Because, newer sources have changed other people's perception of the past in retrospect. The same methodology should be applied to this article when dealing with other queer people. 92.10.13.209 (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

You said,

It doesn't matter whether ace or pan people were targeted because someone thought they were gay. If conversion therapy happened to them, then that was conversion therapy against ace and pan people.

No, it was conversion therapy against homosexuals and bisexuals that others also happened to suffer from, and yes, it matters if they were targeted. But bottom line is, as with everything else at Wikipedia, if the majority of sources that talk about conversion therapy consistently mention ace and pan individuals, then it is important enough to include in the lead; if only a minority do, then probably only somewhere in the body; and if only selected sources mention it when you search for them explicitly, then it's probably only in a very small minority of sources and shouldn't be mentioned at all, or only in a footnote. That's just how Wikipedia works, and whatever the larger story is about ace and pan erasure (which deserves a hearing at the appropriate article) *this* article is about "conversion therapy" and the sources used here should relate to that topic, and not attempt to coat rack other topics into it. If the sources about conversion therapy generally fail to give what you consider a fair hearing to the ace and pan story, then we're kind of stuck with the situation, for better or worse, and we, as Wikipedia editors, cannot advocate for more inclusion where the sources fail to do so; that could be seen as a form of tendentious editing known as righting great wrongs, or a failure to observe neutral point of view. Mathglot (talk) 01:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

That's not the case and you know it. Ignoring everything I just said about going against guidelines in favour of playing semantics is a bad way to edit Wikipedia, and in this case an awful thing to do during Pride month. 92.10.13.209 (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@92.10.13.209: I basically agree with the points you raised in your prior post, but please assume good faith on behalf of other editors. As a rule, Wikipedia editors tend to find appeals to emotion or social goods generally unpersuasive compared to policy-based arguments. Regards, RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 21:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

There's literally no such thing as conversion therapy against "pan" or "ace" people. For f**k sake, stop trying to have a serious discussion when you're ideologically brainwashed. Take a step back and understand the sheer danger of what you're suggesting!!! Pianistinator (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Pianistinator: In my comments here and here, I've pointed at a multitude of reliable sources which seem to verify that pansexual and asexual people are also affected by conversion therapy efforts. Please do not make personal attacks. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 23:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused as to what you mean - which phrase are you talking about in particular Roxy and what do you support changing it to? :) 92.10.13.209 (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Definitions subpage

 Courtesy link: Talk:Conversion therapy/Definitions

Regarding RoxySaunders' sources, queer is an umbrella term that could be referring to gay or bisexual (or trans) people anyway, and pansexuality is often considered as under the bisexual umbrella (and the idea that it is more inclusive is hotly debated). With asexuality, two of the three sources are advocacy groups that assert it applies, but don't seem to reference research supporting this, and the 3rd article notes (clarifies?) that the individual in question was subjected to it becuse their parents thought they were gay (also, the article is reporting on a Reddit post).

Creating a Definitions subpage and collecting them may be a good way forward. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I've gotten started on Talk:Conversion therapy/Definitions. Any additions there are welcome. RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 01:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Is the definitions list being restricted only to scholarly sources, or are sources from organisations like GLAAD or Stonewall (charity) also acceptable? Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

For now, anything that can reasonably be construed as a RS for defining conversion therapy is welcome. Dictionaries, style guides, and activist groups are all relevant, though they'll obviously need to be considered in due weight. When I have the time, my plan is to dig through all the references on this article, and quote the ones which define the term. RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 01:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good! I'll try and hunt out some good sources tomorrow. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Anything that's a reliable source ought to be welcome. If unsure, consult WP:RSN. Mathglot (talk) 02:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Made an attempt to elicit definitions from reliable books using Google book search, but results were poor, and there may be nothing usable here. Further attempts should be made. See Talk:Conversion therapy/Definitions#Book search trial 1. Mathglot (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@Crossroads: wrt asexuality, according to the 2018 National LGBT Survey ("national" here being the UK), 10% of cisgender asexual respondents reported being offered or undergoing conversion therapy, the highest proportion of any sexual orientation sampled. RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 00:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

@Mathglot, Crossroads, and Sideswipe9th: I think the Definitions list so far gives a solid enough basis for my claim that treating from homosexual or bisexual as fundamental components of the definition is relatively uncommon, and if desired, we could remove it without diverging substantially from the Preponderance of Reliable Sources(tm). Patterns I noted among definitions are:

• defining the term broadly, as any attempt to change sexuality or gender identity
  • sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE), GICE, and reparative therapy are all treated as synonyms.
  • the HRC prefers the terms SOCE and GICE, as scientifically discredited practices cannot reasonably be considered therapeutic.
• emphasis on based in the assumption that any sexual orientation or gender identity is inherently preferable to any other
• listing sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or gender expression as three distinct things, which conversion therapy targets some or all of.
• three sources explicitly call it scientifically discredited or pseudo-scientific
  • While I think Wikipedia has a slight boner for aggressively describing debunked and unproven subjects as pseudo-scientific, it's evidently due here.
• medical sources tend to avoid giving "homosexual/bisexual to heterosexual" and "transgender to cisgender" as defining criteria.
  • dictionaries tend to list these as primary and predominant meanings of the term.
• The most consistent source with the current phrasing is the OED, which says [especially] to make a gay or bisexual person heterosexual, or to make a transgender person identify with their birth sex.

My proposal is still basically just to remove homosexual or bisexual from the definition and leave the introduction as-is. But if I had to (or was spurred on by sheer hubris to) spitball an introduction based on how the majority of RS define this term, I'd want to write something like this:

Conversion therapy is the pseudoscientific attempt to change an individual's sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression through psychiatric, psychological, or spiritual interventions. In contrast to mainstream clinical guidance, such practices typically view same-sex attraction and gender nonconformity (especially in lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people) as inferior, abnormal, or undesirable, and purport to "cure" them to align with heterosexual, cisgender, and binary norms. There is no reliable evidence that such practices are effective,^[citations] and medical institutions warn that conversion therapy is potentially harmful.^[citations]

Thoughts? RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 21:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Definitely fits with the definitions we've analysed on the subpage, and is a lot closer to how our sources define conversion therapy. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I need to take a closer look at the list and look it up more, so no further comment from me on "gender expression" at this time. However, mention of "gender nonconformity" and "binary" should be dropped as these are not in any of the sources, and are somewhat jargony and redundant. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

With respect to dropping gender nonconformity and binary, I disagree. Conversion therapy for gender identity targets both transgender and non-binary individuals, with the goal of making the person align with their binary sex assigned at birth. Conversion therapy for gender expression inherently targets gender nonconformity because the goal is to get the person to conform. They are not jargon nor are they redundant, merely they are stating the obvious desired outcome for those who practice it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The whole point of gathering sources was to see how they put it. Our own reasoning, and putting in something that is not in the sources, amounts to WP:Original research. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I haven't had time to respond in detail (and still don't) but I guess I can mention a couple of things. Regarding "gender expression", I just have a hard time believing anybody was ever treated for that. I realize that my opinion doesn't count, and if that's what the sources say, then end of story. However, I'm trying to picture the cis het Gen Xer influenced by some queer fashion choices which were trendy in their college or art school and getting, what?—pulled in? referred?—and getting "treated" for their skin-tight velour crop pants and matching purple hair streak by conversion therapy. I don't believe this has happened even once, but if most of the definitions mention it, I guess this may be a lost cause I will have to live with.

The other thing, is that the conception of the "definitions" page as limited to "definitions" (by, er, definition) necessarily implies a level of abstraction, and I suspect that in at least some cases, the resulting definition may be greater than the sum of the parts. That is to say, in checking the same articles which are listed in the /Definitions page and looking further into the text of the listed articles, they often give more detail including a historical picture of how gay individuals (overwhelmingly men) were the target; but by the time they develop a definition, either a concern for inclusivity or the presence of even a small number of individuals in other subgroups compels a broader term, and if they had three lesbians and two trans women in their survey of 372 gay men, then the definition is going to be about treating "LGBT individuals". That's not wrong, and I don't have a problem with that, especially if we are mining definitions in order to support our own definition in the article; but in the body where we go into more detail than a bare definition, there we also need to delve deeper into those articles to see who is actually involved in their surveys. Mathglot (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Mathglot, in response to your first paragraph, I think you are inappropriately making light of gender expression as an object of perceived pathology, for no good reason and perhaps reflecting a lack of empathy on your part in this matter. This peer-reviewed paper, for example, discusses a rather harrowing account of prolonged treatment directed at variant gender expression:

The memoir of one GID survivor, Daphne Scholinski (1997), documents her institutionalization from age 15 to age 18 for being "an inappropriate female." During her tenure in a mental hospital, therapists required that Scholinski learn to walk "like a girl," apply makeup, and style her hair. We agree with psychologist Daryl Hill that GID is designed to alleviate the stress experience by gender-rigid social institutions and parents who may not accept a child's gender variance (Hausman, 2003; Hill, Rozanski, Carfagnini, & Willoughby, 2007). The ethical implications of institutionalizing children and young adults for the demonstration of "inappropriate" gender expression cannot go unchallenged.

So if that's what the sources say, then end of story - then end of story, I'm afraid. Newimpartial (talk) 23:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

That paper mentions her briefly in the section "Eliminating GID" (p. 188), but a longer treatment in the L.A. Times discusses her diagnosis for GID, and she later spoke to groups about her experiences, including at international conferences, and a book about her experiences was published. Mathglot (talk) 04:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Right, but my point was that the MEDRS source in question emphasizes that her treatment resulted from her being pathologized as an "inappropriate female" and uses the case to argue that the ethical implications of institutionalizing children and young adults for the demonstration of "inappropriate" gender expression cannot go unchallenged. If you are inclined to treat her three years of institutionalization less seriously because of their goal to wean her from ripped jeans and rock T-shirts - well, as I say, possibly a failure of empathy on your part. Newimpartial (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

If RSs say attempts to change an LGBT person's gender expression rather than attempts to convert gay men to heterosexual, then so does Wikipedia, even if we're accidentally catering to the Evil Wokeist Cabal. Perhaps a more accessible example of an effort to change gender expression would be telling kids to "act more straight". I would imagine that conversion therapies (especially religious ones) would like to quash behaviors stereotypically associated with queerness (e.g. "dykish" manner of dress, "faggy" manner of speech, the love of musical theater, etc.) even though these aren't strictly related to sexual orientation.

As for your insistence on emphasizing the plight of gay men in the first sentence... Respectfully (and seriously, I cannot overstate my immense respect your hard work Mathglot), you seem incredulous that CT has affected anyone besides "overwhelmingly" cis male homosexuals. I agree that 19th/20th century psychoanalytical literature chiefly concerned itself with the conversion of such, but in terms of real-world frequency in the present day (i.e. the era we're writing an encylopedia for), evidence points to the contrary.

I am fully in favor of a section presenting demographic data on the victims of conversion therapy (though perhaps we should wait until after the proposal to split History and Legal status into sub-pages before we make this one any longer! ha-ha). One potentially useful source I found earlier is the 2018 National LGBT Survey, which found:

• "Bisexual respondents were the least likely to have undergone or been offered [conversion therapy] (5%), and asexual respondents the most likely (10%)" (p. 84).
• "Men were generally more likely to have undergone or been offered conversion therapy (8%) than women (6%)" (p. 84).
• "Trans respondents were much more likely to have undergone or been offered conversion therapy (13%) than cisgender respondents (7%)" (p. 89).

Apologies for my long-windedness. Regards, RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 03:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding "gender expression", only 6 out of the first 21 definitions and 1 out of 5 "related statements" mention it, and none from the book search. WP:Due weight hence means not including it, as most sources do not consider it part of the definition. Regarding the example quoted by Newimpartial, that was someone being treated for "gender identity disorder", and hence that falls under gender identity. And yes, part of the problem is that "gender expression" can include just about anything, even a haircut. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Did you read the source I cited? The whole point of the example I referenced was that GID should be removed from the DSM because of its negative impacts on patients being "treated" for variance in gender expression. The example seems clear in that in that instance the patient was pathologized not because of issues with their identity or sexuality, but because of gender expression tout court, of being an "inappropriate female" (quite relatable, but I digress).

The idea that presence in just shy of 30% of definitions in a completely arbitrary corpus somehow rules out DUE inclusion of gender expression from this article seems entirely devoid of policy basis.

Now I know that some editors tire of my Canadian references, but in Canada the recent ban on conversion therapy explicitly defines conversion therapy has having three possible objects:

(a) change a person’s sexual orientation to heterosexual;

(b) change a person’s gender identity to cisgender;

(c) change a person’s gender expression so that it conforms to the sex assigned to the person at birth

(It then lists three more based on "repressing or reducing" these characteristics rather than "changing" them.) But to me it seems incredibly obvious that conversion therapy directed at gender expression is not a subset or epiphenomenon of attempts to change gender identity (or sexuality), and that it deserves explicit treatment in this article's lede.

As an aside, the main reason I offered that RS example was to rebut Mathglot's prior comment, I just have a hard time believing anybody was ever treated for that which, aside from lacking empathy, was clearly demonstrably false. I find it frustrating - though, granted, not surprising - that Mathglot's response was to switch his attention to another article and your response was to accentuate aspects of the case different from the point the MEDRS was using it to make. Sigh. Newimpartial (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I will now make the quite obvious point that RoxySaunders' proposal above follows the same structure as the language used in conversion therapy bans, e.g., in Canada, and is therefore almost self-evidently correct (the object of this article being essentially the thing those bans, ban). Newimpartial (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, that naturally raises the question of how bans in states and countries other than the Great White North word it. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how that line of consideration would be WP:DUE. :p Newimpartial (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I checked out Germany's law and as far as I can tell it targets both sexual orientation and gender identity but I didn't see a mention of gender expression. (gender affirmative care is explicitly excluded from the ban) (t · c) buidhe 04:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Crossroads: Why did you remove gender expression from the lead? Both the sources at the definitions page, and consensus here is for inclusion of it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not seeing consensus for it; I don't think Mathglot agreed, for instance. And a supermajority of subpage sources do not include it. Given that, I don't think it should be added without an RfC. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

It has been in the lead for six months, and you haven't achieved consensus for removal. Malta included it in their conversion therapy ban back in 2016, for example - how about we look at the actual evidence before you power up your supervote. Newimpartial (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? "Gender expression" has not been in the lead for any appreciable length of time, let alone 6 months. That's why it's being discussed now. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

It's in this version, for example. Newimpartial (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

While Mathglot can of course speak for themselves, they did say I realize that my opinion doesn't count, and if that's what the sources say, then end of story. As the sources do say it, I take that as support for adding it.

And a supermajority of subpage sources do not include it. Supermajority? Is that supported anywhere in the WP:PAG? Because otherwise that seems as though an inordinately high bar to meet. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

It's about WP:DUE. If the large majority of definitions don't include it, then neither should we. And this can cause problems with OR when we report what sources say about conversion therapy when those sources define it as sexual orientation and gender identity only while we've defined it to include gender expression too.

As for Newimpartial's statement that it's been in the lead for 6 months - that was as part of a quote attributed to one source. In no way was it defined as such in wikivoice and in the lead sentence. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, your edit would have removed it from the lead section completely. Before we make a "final" decision, I would like to have a sense of how frequently gender expression is included in the conversion therapy bans. What I know right now, off the top of my head, is that at least two bans include it and at least one doesn't. Is someone willing to be more systematic about that, or will I have to come back to it when I have time for a rabbit hole? Newimpartial (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

That's a great idea to check, and definitely something we should add to the definitions subpage if we're keeping it. When searching for sources for that page I stuck primarily to MEDRS and charitable organisations. I'll see if I can get the time to read through the list at Legality of conversion therapy before broadening that to check for any proposed/in progress laws in English language sources, but I can't guarantee that it'll be fast if you need/want something sooner. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing in DUE that says we need a super majority, or as you say if the large majority of definitions don't include it, then neither should we. What DUE says is that if the viewpoint is in the majority then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts, that for a significant minority viewpoint it should be easy to name prominent adherents, and that extremly small minority viewpoints either don't belong on wiki or if it can be proven potentially in another article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

So, that conversion therapy includes gender expression is a "significant minority viewpoint". Thus, we shouldn't be presenting it as though its inclusion is the majority or scientific-consensus viewpoint. But given that Newimpartial did find it was "in the lead" already as part of an attributed quote, and some major definitions like that do include it, what if we just changed it to say 'some definitions also include gender expression' as a second sentence rather than including it in the first sentence alongside the undisputed sexual orientation and gender identity types? This would also help alleviate the OR issue I pointed to. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I support RoxySaunders's proposed text. It is particularly important not to narrowly construe conversion therapy to sexuality, when it applies to transgender people and other gender-based concepts. For instance, in my country there was recent outrage over the government failing to ban conversion therapy for trans people in a bill that banned it for LGB people and was initially written to ban it for trans people; the reliable sources discuss the incident using this language, making it clear that transgender conversion therapy is a type of conversion therapy.

Per Crossroads, 6 out of 21 sources aggregated show "gender expression" in the definition—this is a substantial number and means that the phrase should be included in our introduction. Our aim is to collate overlapping definitions as holistically as possible, rather than stick to the narrowest text possible so it is verified independently by each of a strict majority of sources. For instance, in the field of mathematics, our lead discusses how there is a majority definition of natural number that includes 0, and a significant minority definition that excludes 0. Here, where the evidence is exclusion by omission of explicit text, there is even shakier ground on which to argue that 15 of 21 sources contradict including "gender expression" in the definition. — Bilorv (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

For amusement, if nothing else, I actually wrote a little code to find the subset of words shared by every definition in the list. The narrowest text possible is [ "attempts", "was", "to" ]. The supermajority of reliable sources hath spoken!

In seriousness, while I'm not personally precious about or gender expression, it's a Herculean stretch to say that minority prevalence in an arbitrarily-sampled set of reliable sources equals fringe. If the fraction is what matters, then the natural thing to do at this point would be to start cherry-picking sources to bring it closer to 50%. I'd never, of course. RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 06:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific?

I personally think claiming trying to change someones gender/sexuality is pseudoscientific when it is quite common for people to go from bi to straight or the other way, and de-trans people also exist. People change their sexuality , and gender all the time there are even gender fluid people. 176.72.21.145 (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The weather also changes all the time. That doesn't that someone who claims to be able to change the weather can actually do it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:45, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

So you're saying trans people are themselves proponents of pseudoscience, since they are in fact "trying to change the weather"? BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

That's not at all what I said, but don't let that fact stop you from claiming it. (Or maybe you should.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

It is pseudoscientific in that it produces long term harmful mental health effects, fails to change gender or sexuality, and has been denounced by many medical associations. These are the hallmarks of pseudoscience. Individual people may and do change sexuality or gender from time to time, but generally, conversion therapy is pseudoscience, ineffective, and causes lasting damage in people who are subjected to it. Iscargra (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Shortdesc

The current {{short description}} describes this topic as a Pseudoscientific intervention, which is certainly a true statement, but (as Louis implied in this edit summary) it doesn't do much to indicate the field covered by the article, which is the first purpose stated by WP:SDESC. I think reformulating it could be worthwhile, to emphasize that this is both a gen/sex and medical article. I'd be bold, but this revert indicates discussion is necessary, as such a change could involve removing "pseudoscientific" to fit within the desired length of 40 (and absolutely no more than 60) chars. Spitballing some options:

1. Pseudoscientific intervention (29 chars) [current]
2. Efforts to change sexual orientation or gender identity (55 chars)
3. Pseudoscientific gender/sexuality conversion efforts (52 chars)
4. Sexual orientation/gender identity change efforts (49 chars)
5. Therapy attempting conversion to heterosexuality (48 chars) [suggested here]

Ping @Louis P. Boog, TheTranarchist, and Mathglot: Any preference among these? –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 19:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that pseudoscientific doesn't belong in the short description (and not because of anything having to do with accuracy). Of those options, I like the last one best; however, use of the term therapy (especially in the absence of pseudoscientific) tends to legitimize it, so I'd avoid that word, too. How about:

6. Intervention attempting conversion to heterosexuality

or, Efforts to attempt instead of the first two words. Thanks for looking into this. Mathglot (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

TheTranarchist, in her edit summary, took issue with only saying "heterosexuality"; I think I have a similar qualm. Conversion therapy practitioners also variously allege to "cure" people of transness, asexuality, and of non-conforming gender expression (i.e. effeminacy/tomboyishness). I'd strongly prefer a description which (in keeping with our sources), which doesn't exclude the gender aspect. If cisheterosexual were a more accepted word, I'd insist on using that. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 00:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd be fine with keeping 1 per WP:SDNOTDEF, but if it should be changed I choose 2. If length is a concern, that may also be shortened to Efforts to change sexual orientation or gender or Efforts to change sexuality or gender. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:16, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I think Efforts to change gender risks being mildly misleading here due potential overlap with legitimate forms of gender change and gender-affirming therapy. Relevant because certain people have taken to misusing the term "conversion therapy" as a pejorative for such. The OED entry actually makes note of this sense, quoting a single 1967 journal who used "conversion therapy" to mean SRS, but admits that this was "apparently an isolated use."

SDNOTDEF is a good point. It makes perfect sense that (for example) Homeopathy is just "Pseudoscientific system of alternative medicine", but here I think "conversion of what/from what/to what?" is a valid question about the article's scope, which an SD might help answer.

It's probably editorializing, but another possible variation is to replace "change" with a scare-quoted """cure""", as in

7. Efforts to "cure" homosexuality or gender variance (46)

–RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 00:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

You're right, it may be best to keep 2 unmodified. I'd also be fine with 4 either as is, or expanding the slash: sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts (53). ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 13:42, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I think 2 or an expanded 4 work well, preferentially 4 since it scans a little better for me. I think "cure" for 7 works well, but also not all conversion therapy attempt to "cure", sometimes just to "treat the symptoms": some conversion therapists knew it wouldn't work internally only modify people's external behavior. However, I see the issue with possibly misleading people, I've seen a lot of anti-trans groups frame coming out as trans as gay conversion therapy, so perhaps 2 could be modified to Attempts to modify sexual orientation or gender identity: I think attempts feels like it gives less weight than efforts in terms of efficacy and modify implies a more external reshaping than change. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

That version looks good to me too. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

This article misrepresents history

This article falsely ascribes modern views and values pertaining to "sexual orientation" into history, without giving any evidence to back it up.

The historical clinics and treatments in question were merely providing treatment for what they (and society) at the time regarded as a disorder. None of them ever made any suggestion of any belief in "sexual orientation", or that they were attempting to "convert" people from one to another, since such concepts were not invented until the 20th century and did not gain widespread acceptance until the late 20th century. The article is therefore inserting modern political philosophies into antiquity where they did not exist, using misleading language to mischaracterize historical values and intentions.

I recommend the article be renamed to something like "Treatment for homosexual desires", which is an accurate description of the phenomenon. A section could be added called "Conversion Therapy", which provides verifiable modern examples of such treatments that are based around the framework of "sexual orientation" ideology, where the intent is actually to "convert" from one sexuality to another. But since such values did not exist in antiquity, "conversion therapy" could not exist in antiquity. Grand Dizzy (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

This article's examples of conversion therapy's beginnings, and the discussion of the history of sexual orientation investigation in the article on sexual orientation both go back to the mid-19th Century, so don't seem much out of kilter. Nothing in this article about 'antiquity' either. Sbishop (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to make distinct sections for sexual orientation and gender identity

The History section is mostly content which should also be a part of Theories and techniques.. Perhaps it would be useful to rearrange this page into sections Conversion therapy for sexual orientation and Conversion therapy for gender identity. Nearly all of the Theories and techniques section is about sexual orientation, in part because that is where the bulk of the therapy has been focused. It would make the article clearer if we put the content under these two headings, which could incorporate history, methods, techniques and critique etc. The present article was structured pre 2010s when conversion therapy literature largely referred to sexual orientation conversion therapy.

Editors, please weigh in! Zenomonoz (talk) 10:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. There is enough confusion in many people's minds already between sexual orientation and gender identity without adding to it by mixing up the two issues within this article.Sbishop (talk) 10:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I think they should be separate pages; the fact that they are both called "conversion therapy" doesn't make them both the same topic (although they are problematic in similar ways.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I see what you mean, although the term has been expanded to include both so it might be confusing having two articles. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

We have plenty of paired sets of articles for differing things of the same name, and even related things on the same name. We have ten different articles for Church of God, because even though they are all churches in the same general religion and tus many things could be said that apply to all of them, they are still different. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I would agree that this needs to be much better organized to distinguish between the two categories.

The only caveat with this, though, is that sometimes these were overlapping or conflated in the past. Hist9600 (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it won't be hard to include that detail. Most of the overlap is in prepubescent therapies of Stoller, Green and Rekers. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

What does Crossroads think? Zenomonoz (talk) 09:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I think we can try this. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC)