Talk:Conversion therapy

Sentence in lead

Historically, conversion therapy was the treatment of choice for individuals who disclosed same-sex attractions or exhibited gender nonconformity, which were formerly assumed to be pathologies by the medical establishment – shouldn't this be more specific? Conversion therapy certainly wasn't ubiquitous in all cultures. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

i also have concerns about this line. "Historically...was" collapses all of world history into the history of the western world since the mid 19th century, which is roughly the time that the science-informed practice of medicine started to become dominant.

I'm not sure if there is existing guidance on this already. Woke Wiki Wookiee (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I think Buidhe may have written this sentence. Buidhe, if you wrote it can you please take a look at our comments above? I could be mistaken as edit history can be confusing. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

confirmed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conversion_therapy&oldid=1136775213 Woke Wiki Wookiee (talk) 04:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

In thinking and reading about this a little more, it seems increasingly inappropriate, as the idea of talk therapies or intensive behavioral/aversive therapies are themselves rooted in fairly modern concepts like psychoanalysis or behavioral science. i'm going to try and dig up some scholars for this but my sense is that the formalization of conversion therapy is rooted in the US interwar era and the moral panics arising from WW2 and the cold war (e.g. the Lavender Scare). that still limits things mostly to the US though. Woke Wiki Wookiee (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

The source it's from could justify a better wording, particularly in contextualizing it in modern western psychomedical approaches. From Harman: Historically, both SOCE and GICE were uncritically assumed to be the treatments of choice for same-sex attraction and gender nonconformity, as both of these “conditions” were viewed as pathological by the psychomedico establishment. Same-sex attraction and behavior were excoriated in the medical literature as early as the 19th century by Austrian psychiatrist Richard Von Kraft-Ebbing,

As a historical note, AFAICT nobody has ever offered "conversion therapy". The term originated as a description for "reparative therapy" which arose in the 80s as SOCE/GICE shifted from aversive conditioning to talk therapies which sought to find pathological roots of LGBTQ identities. Relatedly, the lead should better cover the shift from psychomedical to religiously motivated SOCE/GICE.

This page, for that reason, should probably be moved to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Change Efforts (SOGICE), the academic name for the broader set of practices covered by the article, with conversion therapy as a redirect / alternative title. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

"should probably be moved to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Change Efforts (SOGICE)", users voted back in 2022 to merge "sexual orientation change efforts" into this article: Talk:Sexual orientation change efforts#Proposed merge to Conversion therapy. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

it seems to me like the question here is ultimately, do we use the academic referent, or the political referent?

i would support a merge, and would genuinely look forward to the work involved, using the political referent "conversion therapy" as a redirect to the term of art in academia. Woke Wiki Wookiee (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• I don't really agree with these concerns. Conversion therapy could only be used for a specific purpose in the cultures, times and locations in which it existed. "Historically, CT was X" reads to me as "During the history of CT, it was X," not "during the history of the world, CT was universally X." ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  I do think it's especially important in the lead to make clear that this approach was not simply widespread historical status quo, but a consequence of pathologization driven by cultural biases. The remainder of the article can go into specifics of time and place in detail. I also think "treatment of choice" is a poor descriptor here, because i think it's mainly in retrospect that we classify all these things as a group under the "conversion therapy" rubric.

  i propose the following as a replacement:

  "Where same-sex attraction and gender nonconformity was pathologized (such as during the Lavender Scare in the US), it was common for some variety of conversion therapy to be attempted on those who displayed or disclosed these characteristics."

  i'll give it a day or so to simmer, invite comment, and maybe tinker at the edges with the phrasing before WP:BOLD-ing Woke Wiki Wookiee (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  Not going to the heart of the manner nor approving/disapproving the sentence in general, but as a sheer wording thing: form rather than variety. "Variety" has two major meanings: type, and various, the implication of more than one. I think we should avoid the implication that more than one method was used in any one circumstance. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Proposal to Clarify "Pseudoscientific" Label for Neutrality

OP blocked as WP:NOTHERE --Dronebogus (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I suggest clarifying the use of "pseudoscientific" in the article to better reflect the complexity of psychological claims surrounding conversion therapy. The term, as currently used, may feel overly blunt to some readers, given the nuanced history of the topic. Could we add context to balance the phrasing? For example: "Major organizations like the American Psychological Association label conversion therapy pseudoscientific due to lack of empirical evidence, though historical proponents argued for its psychological basis [citation needed]." This approach acknowledges the current scientific consensus while noting historical perspectives, aiming for a more neutral tone that serves our readers better. I believe the immediate use of "pseudoscientific" risks appearing biased to those exploring the topic’s complexity. Thoughts? Chumchumlol (talk) 03:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC) chumchumlol (talk 03:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC) No. People considered bloodletting and geocentricism peak science back in the day. Your userpage makes me believe you’re trolling. Dronebogus (talk) 06:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC) Hi chumchumlol, The scientific consensus is that this practice is pseudoscientific, that shoud be very clear. The sentence you propose gives a weight to the historical perspective that is not 'a more neutral tone' but seems to 'balance' the historical and scientific view as if the truth is somewhere in the middle of those views. I agree with Dronebogus. Laurier (xe or they) (talk) 07:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC) Thank you both for your feedback. I’d like to address your points and clarify my proposal to ensure we’re focusing on content, as per WP:PERSONAL. @Dronebogus: My user page isn’t relevant to this discussion, and I’m engaging in good faith per WP:AGF. Comparing historical views on conversion therapy to bloodletting oversimplifies the issue. My proposal aims to provide historical context, not endorse outdated practices, similar to how articles like Psychoanalysis note historical significance without implying current validity. Can we discuss the proposal’s merits based on WP:NPOV? @Laurier: I understand the scientific consensus labels conversion therapy pseudoscientific, as supported by APA and WHO statements. However, WP:NPOV encourages representing significant views proportionately. My suggested sentence doesn’t equate historical and modern views but adds context to explain the topic’s complexity, as seen in other articles covering controversial practices (e.g., Lobotomy). The term “pseudoscientific” can feel blunt to readers exploring the topic, and clarifying its historical evolution could improve neutrality without undue weight. To address concerns about balance, I propose a revised sentence: “Major organizations like the APA label conversion therapy pseudoscientific due to lack of empirical evidence, though in the mid-20th century, some psychologists viewed it as a legitimate treatment [citation needed].” This aligns with WP:WEIGHT by prioritizing the consensus while noting historical context briefly. Regarding the consensus, WP:RS acknowledges that scientific consensus evolves and may not reflect all expert opinions. Some credentialed researchers have questioned the blanket use of “pseudoscientific” for psychological practices, advocating for nuanced discussion. Could we explore sources that document historical perspectives or minority views to ensure the article is comprehensive and non-partisan, per WP:NPOV? I’m happy to search for reliable sources or refine the phrasing further. Thoughts? Chumchumlol (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC) chumchumlol 20:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC) No. The lobotomy article describes it as “discredited” in the first sentence. Psychoanalysis is not the same because it’s disputed whether it’s at all useful, not universally regarded by credible sources as destructive and unnecessary like conversion therapy. You’re literally just trying to create a false equivalency between outdated and/or fringe positions stemming from ignorance and bigotry and modern expert opinions. Can you imagine the reaction if you went and did this whole song and dance at Scientific racism? Dronebogus (talk) 08:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC) Chumchumlol, in your suggested revised sentence, the word 'though' says it all: that does give undue weight to these psychologists in the mid-20th century. Laurier (xe or they) (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC) Thank you for your continued feedback. I’m committed to good-faith editing, per WP:AGF, and aim to enhance the article’s neutrality, per WP:NPOV, while respecting the consensus. @Dronebogus: I’m not creating a false equivalency or endorsing outdated views, as implied. My proposal seeks to add historical context, like Lobotomy and Electroconvulsive therapy, which note past practices without suggesting validity. Conversion therapy’s mid-20th-century psychological context differs from scientific racism, which lacks a comparable professional history. Per WP:PERSONAL's policy, let’s focus on the proposal’s merits and good faith constructing rather than ad-hominem attacking. Can we discuss how to provide context that aligns with WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT? @Laurier: I appreciate your point about “though” suggesting undue weight. To clarify, I propose: “Although major organizations like the APA label conversion therapy pseudoscientific due to lack of empirical evidence. In the mid-20th century, some psychologists viewed it as a treatment [citation needed].” This separates historical context from the consensus, minimizing weight while enhancing clarity, as in other articles on discredited practices. WP:RS allows sourced minority views, and credentialed researchers often advocate nuanced psychological discussions to avoid overly blunt framing. I’m actively seeking reliable historical sources (e.g., 1950s–1970s psychology texts) to support this. Thoughts on this phrasing or source requirements? Chumchumlol (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC) chumchumlol 14:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC) How does "X, though y." differ from "although x. Y."? Laurier (xe or they) (talk) 09:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC) You are just wasting everyone’s time arguing semantics. Your userpage self-description betrays your intent here— WP:SEALIONing to legitimize discredited homophobic viewpoints. This is absolutely the same as going to something like Nazi Eugenics and trying to soften the language to make it seem less disgusting. Dronebogus (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC) The fact that their "pronouns" aren't even the correct part of speech is kind of a giveaway. Those are adjectives. Sumanuil. (talk to me) 18:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC) Note that in 2018, they claimed to have been 11 years old. Youth doesn't prevent one from editing, however, when combined with an edit history like this user's and the arguments above, it does raise serious WP:CIR concerns. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC) Agree that the proposed though and although sentences (which implies some contradiction or false equivalence) are inappropriate here; they might be fine as two separate sentences. We should obviously not prop up historical sources as if they are in contention with the present-day medical consensus. See WP:AGEMATTERS and WP:MEDDATE; a historical reliable source (possible oxymoron) ceases to be reliable once it's been contradicted by newer developments. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 19:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC) From chumchumlol: My mission is to create a non-partisan Wikipedia that upholds truth and scientific data, per WP:NPOV and WP:V, not distorted by modern bias. I will continue pursuing this. Dronebogus, Sumanuil, MjolnirPants: Your accusations of “sealioning,” “homophobic viewpoints,” and incompetence violate WP:CIVIL and WP:PERSONAL. My user page expresses my conservative identity, as others do with pronouns or symbols, per WP:USERPAGE. My 2018 age and edit history are irrelevant—WP:CIR should judge my proposal’s policy merits. Dronebogus’s “Nazi Eugenics” comparison is quite frankly inflammatory and directly misrepresents my call for sourced historical context. I ask for civil, article-focused discussion. Laurier, RoxySaunders: Thank you for policy input. To address WP:WEIGHT and WP:MEDDATE, I am willing to concede and adopt RoxySaunders’s separate-sentences approach: “Various major organizations like the APA label conversion therapy pseudoscientific due to lack of empirical evidence. In the mid-20th century, some psychologists viewed it as a treatment, e.g., Bieber et al. (1962) [Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, DOI:10.1097/00005053-196211000-00008].” This mirrors Lobotomy and Electroconvulsive therapy, noting history without challenging the consensus. WP:RS permits sourced minority views, and credentialed researchers advocate psychological nuance for clarity, not bravado. Thoughts on this source or alternative phrasing? If my efforts for a bias-free Wikipedia lead to sanctions, so be it! My dedication toward securing for truth will endure. I welcome source or policy feedback to advance this article further. Chumchumlol (talk) 01:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC) If you really want Wikipedia to be "bias-free", you could start with your userpage. Deliberately trying to provoke people is not an "expression of conservative identity", it's childish. And those are still adjectives. Sumanuil. (talk to me) 02:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC) We should continue to describe CT as "pseudoscientific" in wikivoice in the first sentence. I assume you're referencing Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytical Study of Male Homosexuals (1962). which has doi:10.1037/11179-000. For the history of medical homophobia, we should prefer an up-to-date source to give us that context. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 04:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC) From chumchumlol: @Sumanuil: Your edit to remove my user page’s “red/white/blue” pronouns text, even if undone, violated WP:USERPAGE, which grants me control over my page within policy. It’s a provocative act, not a good-faith critique. Calling my conservative identity “childish” and “provocative” is a WP:CIVIL violation, attacking me personally rather than engaging my sourced proposal. Per WP:USERPAGE, my pronouns and identity are as valid as “xe/xem” pronouns or other expressions—why the double standard? My user page reflects my fight for a bias-free Wikipedia, per WP:NPOV, not provocation. My proposal—“Various organizations like the APA label conversion therapy pseudoscientific… In the mid-20th century, some psychologists viewed it as a treatment, e.g., Bieber et al. (1962) [DOI:10.1097/00005053-196211000-00008]”—is grounded in WP:RS and aligns with Lobotomy’s precedent. If you disagree, address the source or policy, not my identity. If seeking truth leads to my suspension, my story will inspire others to challenge bias further. I welcome article-focused feedback. Chumchumlol (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC) I never called your "conservative identity" childish. Using a bunch of adjectives as "pronouns" is what I called childish. And nothing on WP:USERPAGES says other people can't edit your userpage. Sumanuil. (talk to me) 02:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC) "says other people can't edit your userpage" There is no strictly enforced rule, but not making major changes to other peoples' userpages is common courtesy in Wikipedia. Dimadick (talk) 06:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC) "Some" is a MOS:WEASEL word here. By WP:PRIMARY policy the most Bieber et al. can be used to source here is the claim that the authors viewed it as a treatment, and well, they sure were a group of psychologists, "some psychologists", however no actual usable information about how accepted this idea was at the time can be sourced to this old book. Flounder fillet (talk) 11:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC) Chumchumlol, in this edit, your edit summary was "Had to drop the bomb. Someone had to do it, I am the chosen one." What do you mean by that? Is that meant as a provocation of some sort...? Laurier (xe or they) (talk) 12:32, 19 May 2025 (UTC) Chumchumlol, so far I have observed absolutely no support from the community whatsoever for your proposal. Even many bad proposals will garner support from those who like the idea behind the proposal, who will then come up with poor-quality arguments to support it. But yours hasn't even gotten that much traction. Please consider what you are likely to accomplish by continuing this. Namely, you are likely to find yourself on the wrong side of a sanction, given the sensitivity of this subject. One essay which was written specifically to help editors in your shoes is WP:1AM. I suggest you read it and follow the advice therein. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC) chumchumlol: Thank you all for your feedback. My goal remains to establish a non-partisan Wikipedia—grounded in truth and empirical evidence, per WP:NPOV and WP:V. I will address each point respectfully and carefuly. @Sumanuil: Your claim that my “red/white/blue” pronouns are “childish” and not identity expression remains a personal attack, violating WP:CIVIL, as it targets my self-presentation rather than my proposal. While WP:USERPAGE lacks an explicit ban on editing others’ pages, Dimadick notes it’s common courtesy not to make major changes. Your edit to remove my pronouns text, even if undone, breached this norm and good faith, it's like if I tried to remove someone's trans flag from their bio because I saw it as "immature." Per WP:USERPAGE, my conservative expression is as valid as others’ pronouns or symbols. I ask for civil, article-focused discussion. @Dimadick: Thank you for clarifying the courtesy norm around user page edits, which supports my concern about Sumanuil’s action. I seek respectful collaboration, per WP:AGF. @Flounder fillet: I appreciate your policy input. To address MOS:WEASEL and WP:PRIMARY concerns, I propose revising to: “Major organizations like the APA label conversion therapy pseudoscientific due to lack of empirical evidence. In the mid-20th century, psychologists like Bieber et al. (1962) [Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, DOI:10.1097/00005053-196211000-00008] viewed it as a treatment.” This avoids “some” and limits the claim to the authors, per WP:PRIMARY, mirroring Lobotomy’s precedent. I’m seeking secondary sources (e.g., Drescher, 2015) to clarify historical acceptance. Thoughts on this phrasing or source requirements? @Laurier: My edit summary—“Had to drop the bomb… I am the chosen one”—was not meant to provoke but to express my conviction to improve the article with sourced context, per WP:NPOV. I apologize for any misinterpretation and will use clearer summaries moving forward. My proposal aims for clarity, not conflict. @MjolnirPants: I acknowledge the lack of community support and WP:1AM’s advice to reconsider. The proposal’s limited traction reflects the topic’s sensitivity, particularly among editors who view conversion therapy as harmful due to its historical impact on gender and sexual minority communities. This perspective, while valid, may lead to resistance against sourced historical context, which WP:NPOV permits when balanced, as in Electroconvulsive therapy. My goal is not to challenge the consensus but to enhance clarity with evidence, per WP:RS. I’m open to refining the proposal to gain consensus and avoid sanctions. Suggestions for compromise? If my efforts for a bias-free Wikipedia face sanctions, my commitment to truth will endure. I welcome source or policy feedback to advance this article collaboratively. Chumchumlol (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC) Chumchumlol, I don't know what efforts you have exerted for a bias-free Wikipedia: your writings here are inscrutable. I urge you to, eh, get a bit more real, lest I apply WP:NOTHERE. Drmies (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC) One more thing: please fix your signature by making the initial "c" a capital "C". Drmies (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2025 (UTC) Wow, Chumchumlol replied to my question about their edit summary"Had to drop the bomb… I am the chosen one" with "will use clearer summaries moving forward" and used "Had to send off the Hiroshima with this one" as edit summary... Anyway, they're blocked now, but I thought I'd mention this anyway, for possible future reference or just for archive purposes... Laurier (xe or they) (talk) 06:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Volunteers

The lede should distinguish between "attempts to change" when the person didn't consent (I'd call these victims) vs. people who actually want the therapy ("volunteers"). Currently, it makes it sound like CT is something that is 'done to' people whether they want it or not.

Thus, there are three distinct though related issues:

1. Whether adults can be forced to endure CT (nearly unanimous opposition, of course)
2. Whether teens and children can be sent to CT by their parents (controversial, with many jurisdiction outlawing it)
3. Whether adults ought to be allowed to volunteer for CT - and of course, whether therapists should be permitted to offer CT to adult volunteers

I'd like to see better coverage of these issues, rather than a one-sided condemnation. In particular, I hope to have summaries of any scientific studies that have found practical benefits from CT and to distinguish between professional associations' condemnation of CT vs. findings of psychologists and sociologists that have been published in reputable journals). --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Genuine volunteers are so rare as to be almost peripheral to subject. Most apparent "volunteers" turn out to be people acting under deception or duress, most commonly young adults acting under financial duress from relatives threatening to deprive them of things like housing, education, inheritance or access to their other relatives. That doesn't mean that there is nothing to say about genuine volunteers but it is, at most, a minor aspect of a topic which, in its contemporary form, is primarily about pseudo-medical fraud and coercion. I don't know if there are studies that explicitly try to deal only with genuine volunteers. Such a study would not be easy. People under concealed duress might go undetected and they would be very strongly incentivised to play along and fake "success" in order to get the process over with, invalidating the results of any study which did not detect that this was the case. (There is good reason to doubt that there is even a single genuine "ex-gay" in the "Ex-gay movement".) Conversion therapy doesn't "work", even on the few who wish that it did. If we have sources dealing with that then there is no harm in covering it but it is possible that no good quality sources might exist due to the difficulty of studying the matter. DanielRigal (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Daniel, for your thoughtful and informative reply. I don't know how to distinguish "real" volunteers from subjects who are coerced or deceived. I leave that to scientists and peer review. But I would like to include in the article published info about reported successes, such as Robert Spitzer's work, despite its methodological flaws. We have an article about the Flat Earth concept, which has been thoroughly debunked. It explains (or should) why believers came up with the idea, as well as showing the scientific basis by which the ancient Greeks (and Egyptians?) determined the Earth was spherical: something to do with wells and the angles of the suns rays.

Before I spend dozens of hours inserting pro-RT text into the article, I want to make sure that anything I include is significant, and has been subjected to scientific peer review (including rejection and repudiation!), but doesn't violate WP:NPOV.

For example, I would like to include some info about the rationale behind reparative therapy, as provided by Spitzer:

• Reparative therapists believe that same-sex attractions reflect a developmental disorder and can be significantly diminished through development of stronger and more confident gender identification. Reparative therapists say that their gay male patients (who comprise the majority of their caseload) suffer from a lifelong feeling of “being on the outside” of male activities and “not feeling like one of the guys.” [1] --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Proposal to add "Gender-Affirming Care as a Form of Conversion Therapy" topic under "Theories and techniques"

	Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Summary: I propose that the article Conversion Therapy include a dedicated section discussing recent critiques and debates concerning gender-affirming care, especially for children and adolescents, that some experts, policymakers, and advocacy groups have characterized as a form of conversion therapy. This addition would provide readers with a broader understanding of the ongoing controversy surrounding certain gender-affirming medical practices, particularly those involving youth, and how they intersect with issues of sexual orientation and gender nonconformity. Rationale: While conversion therapy has a long-documented history of harmful practices aimed at changing sexual orientation, an emerging debate has surfaced around whether some forms of gender-affirming care effectively function as a new form of conversion therapy. Critics argue that these interventions sometimes pathologize gender nonconformity or same-sex attraction by encouraging medical transition to align bodies with societal gender stereotypes, rather than supporting sexual orientation or nonconforming gender expression. In light of recent statements by public officials, systematic reviews, investigative journalism, and advocacy group positions, including this critique aligns with Wikipedia’s commitment to presenting significant viewpoints with reliable sourcing and neutrality. Suggested Section Text: Critiques of Gender-Affirming Care as Potential Conversion Therapy In recent years, some clinicians, researchers, policymakers, and advocacy groups have raised concerns that certain gender-affirming medical interventions, particularly those provided to children and adolescents, may resemble conversion therapy in practice. These critiques focus on the possibility that affirming medical transition could function to suppress or redirect natural sexual orientations or gender nonconformity by enforcing rigid gender norms through physical interventions. Journalist Hannah Barnes, in her book Time to Think, reports concerns among staff at the Tavistock Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) in the United Kingdom. Some clinicians worried that rapid increases in referrals were related to social influences and that medical transition might be offered prematurely to youth who might have otherwise identified as lesbian, gay, or bisexual. Barnes quotes a clinician who remarked, “at this rate, there will be no gay kids left,” reflecting fears that gender transition was being used as a socially acceptable form of gay conversion therapy rather than genuine gender identity support. 1 In December 2023, UK Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch stated publicly that gender-affirming care for children could constitute “a new form of conversion therapy,” advocating for legislative review to protect minors from potentially coercive interventions. 2 Additionally, the LGB Alliance, a UK-based advocacy group, has expressed concerns that some gender-affirming approaches may suppress lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities by encouraging medical transition aligned with traditional gender roles rather than affirming sexual orientation and gender diversity. 3 A 2024 systematic review published in the International Journal of Transgender Health discusses the complexity of gender dysphoria in youth, noting that a significant percentage of gender dysphoric children desist in gender identity-related distress without medical intervention and may grow up identifying as lesbian, gay, or bisexual. 4 These critiques do not represent the consensus of major medical organizations, which generally support gender-affirming care as evidence-based and beneficial when appropriately applied. However, the inclusion of these dissenting viewpoints is important to reflect the ongoing dialogue and inform readers of all perspectives within this evolving field. References: 1 Barnes, Hannah. Time to Think: The Inside Story of the Collapse of the Tavistock's Gender Service for Children. [Swift Press, 2023]. [[2]] 2 “Gender-affirming care for children 'a form of conversion therapy', says Kemi Badenoch.” The Guardian, 6 Dec 2023. [[3]] 3 LGB Alliance "“The government should not add ‘gender identity’ to sexual orientation in any legislation on conversion therapy."[[4]] 4 Turban, Jack et al. “A systematic review of recent research on gender dysphoria and gender affirmation in youth.” International Journal of Transgender Health, 2024. [[5]] Cajun Otter (talk) 02:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC) Your links here to "conversion therapy" appear to be a book written by a journalist and a UK minister... neither of which would qualify as a reliable source for medical topics. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:54, 21 May 2025 (UTC) Your link for the "International Journal of Transgender Health" article links not to an article from that journal nor of that title. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. This seems like text that, unannounced as such, may have been generated by a large language model... which per Wikipedia:Large language models is discouraged. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:01, 21 May 2025 (UTC) Thank you for the feedback regarding sourcing and WP:MEDRS. I am not attempting to assert a clinical conclusion that gender-affirming care is conversion therapy under current medical consensus. Rather, I am proposing the addition of well-sourced, notable viewpoints in this section on the social and ethical critiques of gender-affirming practices. The book Time to Think by Hannah Barnes is cited in its own Wikipedia article as being "meticulously academic, thoroughly footnoted and referenced" (per Katy Hayes, Irish Independent) and has been widely discussed in reputable media. While not a peer-reviewed medical text, it is a reliable secondary source for reporting on sociopolitical and institutional developments in gender care. The quote in question that is used (“at this rate there will be no gay children left”) is attributed to a GIDS clinician and documented by a respected journalist after extensive interviews. It reflects a notable concern raised by clinicians themselves about the potential iatrogenic effects of interpreting gender nonconformity or same-sex attraction as indicators of transgender identity. This does not make a clinical claim but documents a perspective relevant to the historical and ethical discourse around conversion therapy and gender care. Ironically, the entire category of “conversion therapy” is itself classified as a pseudoscientific practice, and even more ironic, one of the historically cited methods of gay conversion therapy - chemical (hormonal) castration - is now used in the context of gender-affirming care. The irony of including a previously condemned practice that is today used as affirming, depending solely on the framing of the person's identity rather than outcome. Wouldn't excluding this discussion simply because sources like Time to Think or government statements aren't published in medical journals, while accepting historical medical justifications for conversion therapy, be an inconsistency in editorial standards? The emerging discussions and criticisms that gender affirmation may function as a new mechanism for enforcing rigid gender norms, particularly among gay and gender-nonconforming youth, deserves to be responsibly and neutrally included. Cajun Otter (talk) 03:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC) Homosexuality is recognized as homosexuality, not as a reason for transitioning. Gender-fluid is again not a reason for transitioning. The person who wants to transition has to want it badly, it is not something imposed by another person unto them. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:38, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Conversion therapy methods

The article states that conversion therapy is an unscientific practice, then goes on to say that "Methods that have been used to this end include forms of brain surgery, surgical or chemical (hormonal) castration, aversion therapy treatments such as electric shocks, nausea-inducing drugs, hypnosis, counseling, spiritual interventions, visualization, psychoanalysis, and arousal reconditioning." This list encompasses a very broad range of methods, some of which are obviously illegal in modern Western counties and are probably never used nowadays. However, the article does not elaborate why methods such as 'hypnosis, counselling and psychoanalysis" are labelled as unscientific and dismissed outright as ineffective for the purpose of changing unwanted same-sex attraction. None of the links provided in the article support that claim. 109.252.121.241 (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

They’re ineffective and harmful because you flat-out can’t forcibly change sexual orientation even if hypnotherapy isn’t as overtly harmful as brain surgery or electric shocks. Dronebogus (talk) 18:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

No links are provided in support of that particular claim. It seems to contradict objective reality, because, obviously, psychoanalysis does not attempt to forcibly change a patient's behavior. 109.252.121.241 (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

the article does not elaborate why methods such as 'hypnosis, counselling and psychoanalysis" are labelled as unscientific and dismissed outright as ineffective for the purpose of changing unwanted same-sex attraction. None of the links provided in the article support that claim, a few years back I added this review which discussed the effectiveness of conversion therapy. Specifically, proponents of conversion therapy have failed to demonstrate actual changes in arousal patterns after their interventions. This is the most important thing. I'll re-add it to the article when I have some time. There are still plenty of reviews cited in this article which discuss talk therapy and it's ineffectiveness. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)