Talk:Kenneth Zucker

U of T Faculty Status

I removed an uncited sentence claiming he is a U of T faculty member in the Department of Psychiatry and Department of Pschology. He isn't listed in either department's directory.

The weird thing is, on his CV, he claims to be a U of T prof with the department of Psychiatry. He also lists an @utoronto.ca email on his page, but the email isn't valid.

Does anyone have any ideas on how to handle this? Should we just keep it removed or should we say something like

Even though he claims to be a U of T faculty member, his name does not appear on the faculty directory.

Egefeyzi (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC) Egefeyzi (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

"Even though he claims to be a U of T faculty member, his name does not appear on the faculty directory" – Egefeyzi no, you shouldn't do that kind of editing on Wikipedia because this is your own original analysis. Zucker is retired and retired faculty webpages are often removed. That doesn't mean he was never a professor at U of T. You simply look for another source. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

It's already not cited though, that's why I had removed it. I was looking for sources to address the Not verified in body template. I did admittedly stray a little too much into WP:OR going through his CV and stuff, but in all honesty I was just curious and went down the rabbit hole of figuring out where that claim started.

Being familiar with U of T, my guess is that he worked as an adjunct for a while and isn't affiliated anymore, but I can't find any sources for that either. (Or any sources about him being retired, for that matter.)

Unless you/someone else can find a proper source that verifies the claim, I'd say we should remove it.

Egefeyzi (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I found a source in 30 seconds. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Huh ok I guess I'm just dumb lol, thanks for the source. I'll edit to add it Egefeyzi (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

References

"Token conditioning"

Hi Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist, you have inserted a claim under Kens "methods", which claims: "They also included token-based conditioning techniques".

The claim that Ken used token conditioning is untrue as far as I am aware. It is also clearly not verified as something Zucker employed in the source you cited.

Perhaps a well meaning mistake, but this is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and can lead to the creation of WP:CITOGENESIS. I'm going to ask you to remove it after checking.

This is disappointing because I have previous discussed issues with some of your edits on conversion therapy. You seem to reach conclusions that are not stated in sources: WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I've lost access to the source but support the sentence's removal. The issue seems to have been that multiple sources say Green did token based conditioning, and Zucker adopted/built on his work (for example, Rivera et al[1] Green’s methods were adopted by Dr. Kenneth Zucker at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto (Zucker & Bradley, 1995; Zucker et al., 2012) but modified so that the focus was primarily on preventing a child from developing an eventual transgender identity), but I found one clarifying he'd replaced the token system with psychotherapy, and couldn't find references in his work to tokens.

I did not appreciate that you pinged me here, left a message on my talk page, and named me in an edit summary[2]. Just one (the ping here) would have sufficed. When you reintroduced undue claims unfitting of WP:MEDRS, I collegially pinged you once on talk.[3] Going forward, please extend me the same courtesy - if I make a mistake, you only need to point it out once.

I do not recall the issues on conversion therapy you refer to. The closest was this thread[4], where you raised issues with content you noted another editor had added, where you argued that Green and Rekers were more focused on SOCE than GICE, which doesn't mean they didn't do both, a point RS frequently note. I generally appreciate working with you, but the triple ping and erroneously attributing past issues on another article to me don't sit right with me. I'd appreciate an apology and de-escalation because, like I said, I enjoy working with you, but this seemed unduly escalatory. Sincerely, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 06:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding. Apologies for the pinging – I will change my approach moving forward. Yes I agree, mention of other interactions belonged on your talk page, not this talk page. Zenomonoz (talk) 06:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Changes to lead

Hi Spotcorrector, I am opening a discussion on the talk page here to avoid what may become an edit war. Your changes were reverted by HenrikHolen, and I see you have reinstated them.

I agree that a recent change of the lead to state: "Zucker is known for the living in your own skin model, a form of conversion therapy aimed at preventing pre-pubertal children from growing up transgenderby modifying their gender identity and expression" are perhaps an oversimplification of what the sources state. There is a little more contention among the sources. For example, the review of his clinic did not state whether the clinic was engaged in conversion practices but stated that "they cannot state the clinic does not" engage in such practices.

This is probably closer to accurate:

"In his clinical practice, Zucker developed interventions for prepubescent children with gender dysphoria, intended to facilitate acceptance of birth sex and prevent them from growing up transgender. If this was unsuccessful by puberty, Zucker would recommend social and medical transition. Many scholars and activists have argued Zucker's approach constitute a form of conversion therapy."

Note, there is this reliable source which states:

"Prior to 2010, Kenneth Zucker, the psychologist whose practice of discouraging children's gender-nonconforming behavior or gender transition has been vigorously criticized by trans activists, had reportedly referred more gender-variant young people for puberty blockers than any other clinician in North America."

... which may be a useful addition to the article. Zucker was one of the first clinicians in North America to be prescribing puberty blockers for GD. That probably needs to be made clear.

Anyway, the WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY so we need to make sure everything in the lead is discussed in the body. Reply to this post and let me know your thoughts, other editors will likely weigh in.

Zenomonoz (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

This is a response to the edit made by @spotcorrector. I'll try to engage with zenomonoz' comments in the morning but it's getting late.

While I have no reason to believe you were not acting in good faith, I do believe your edit did not improve upon the article. You removed references to published academic literature and replaced it with an article by Jesse Singal, whose reporting on transgender issues is strongly opinionated and who several editors at WP:RSN contend is an inappropriate source on issues related to transgender people.

Moreover, the expression of Zucker's belief that gender dysphoria will resolve with time cannot be presented in isolation, and should specify that this belief is contradicted by the preponderance of evidence, as per WP:FRINGELEVEL

I propose we restore the previous stable version. HenrikHolen (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

"the expression of Zucker's belief that gender dysphoria will resolve with time cannot be presented in isolation, and should specify that this belief is contradicted by the preponderance of evidence" – yes, that could be contextualised if the reliable sources do so.

Here is a quote from a 2015 paper authored by the founder of the Tavistock clinic:

Zucker [38] collated all the long-term follow-up studies of children with gender identity disorder (gender dysphoria) referred to mental health professionals. The study showed that a small minority of children had a transsexual outcome (5.3 %), while the majority had a homosexual or bisexual outcome (45.7 %). More recent studies show that gender dysphoria persists into adolescence and beyond in only about ten to thirty percent of prepubertal children with gender dysphoria [19, 34]. Given the variability of outcomes, some clinicians have defined their approach to the care of children as ‘watchful waiting’. Factors which may contribute to the persistence or desistence are unclear and the subject of current empirical research.

It is important to note that this is clearly referring to prepubescent gender dysphoria. In Zucker's sample, some have argued that because this occurred during the age of gender identity disorder, the high prevalence of desistance may be explained by the broader requirements for diagnosis (i.e. that many gender nonconforming children were diagnosed GID, but would not meet the requirements for dysphoria today). I'm fairly confident there are RS that discuss this, but it should be covered in the body more extensively anyway.

Zenomonoz (talk) 04:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I think you're right that the reported persistence rate will vary depending on how the cohort is selected, and that older definitions of GID might include persons who would not qualify under the modern definition of gender dysphoria.

I imagine there would be agreement that the current reference in the lede is suboptimal. We should try to reach agreement on what reference to apply, since the language of lede would change to reflect the new source which could render the discussion over the current language moot. HenrikHolen (talk) 14:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I also support the previous stable version. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I also want to note, the source does not even support "Watchful waiting"

• Reviewers did find, however, that the clinic focused on intensive assessment and treatment in lieu of more modern approaches. It said today's best practices favour watchful waiting, as well as educating and supporting parents to accept a child's gender expression.[5] - ie, the reviewers found CAMH wasn't doing that

Many high quality sources note that "watchful waiting" and zucker's living in your own skin model are different:

• Following the creation of the Gender Identity Disorder diagnosis in the DSM, many psychologists were influenced by an approach to transgender care called the “live in your own skin” model (Zucker & Bradley, 1995) which was especially dominant in the 1980s and 90s. This model understands children’s gender as malleable and fluid compared to adults who have more stable senses of felt gender and gender expression. This model also assumes that since it is harder to grow up transgender in society, it is beneficial for children to learn to live according to the gender assigned to them at birth. To assist children with transgender feelings in accepting the gender to which they were assigned at birth, Zucker and Bradley recommended behavior modification therapy that may include encouraging children to participate in games and activities appropriate to their gender assigned at birth, giving children toys conforming to their gender assigned at birth, and encouraging parents to socialize children according to their gender assigned at birth. Based on this model, if children consistently hold transgender feelings and a persistent desire to be the other (binary) gender as they approach adolescence, Zucker and Bradley recommend prescribing them puberty blockers – puberty-suppressing drugs which stop children’s development of secondary sex characteristics such as hair growth, voice change, and the development of breasts – followed by hormonal treatment to develop desired secondary sex characteristics. This “live in your own skin” model of treatment has been criticized by transgender activists, scholars, and psychologists for making children with transgender feelings more susceptible to a sense of shame, anxiety, and depression and for not allowing them to assert their sense of self [6]
• Another influential school of research and treatment of children with transgender feelings is the Dutch Model, also known as the “watchful waiting” model (de Vries & Cohen-Kettenis, 2012). The main assumption of this model is that some children with transgender feelings will sustain a sense of gender dissonance or dysphoria whereas other children will stop (or desist) experiencing a mismatch between their felt sense of gender, gender expression, and gender assigned at birth by the time they reach puberty. The Dutch model is one of the first to provide transgender children with puberty blockers since physical changes associated with pubescent development can be especially traumatic for children who do not identify with the gender assigned to them at birth ... Unlike the “live in your own skin” model, the Dutch model does not call for any intervention that aims to adjust children’s sense of gender or gender expression. Rather, the Dutch model provides support for families and gender non-conforming children to assure that they get their psychological needs met. Nevertheless, children and families are encouraged to wait for social and physical transition until the beginning of puberty (Ehrensaft, 2017). This waiting can be painful and traumatic for some children, causing strong cognitive dissonance between their own understanding of being a particular gender and the treatment from their surroundings that misrecognize them as being a different gender.
• Spotcorrector's edit introduced false information, from a source that doesn't support it. The lead should continue to wikilink Zucker's living in your own skin model and reintroduce the high quality sources noting it's a form of gender identity change efforts instead of attributing that view to critics.

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes I don't think Zucker is a "watchful waiting" proponent. In this paper he distinguishes three different approaches in the second paragraph. Ehrensaft also splits it into these three categories [7]. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Living in your own skin model

The lede currently contains this:

known for the living in your own skin model, a form of conversion therapy aimed at preventing pre-pubertal children from growing up transgender by modifying their gender identity and expression.

The citations are three books, two of which are to single-author chapters. These are:

• Diane Ehrensaft (2020) Treatment Paradigms for Prepubertal Children
• Hannah Hirst (2023) How Do Practices to 'Convert' Childhood Gender Diversity Impact a Child's Right to Develop?
• Florence Ashley (2022) Banning Transgender Conversion Practices

There are issues with each of these.

Ehrensaft is an advocate of the "affirmative model" (who I believe coined the term?). Ehrensaft's opinions are due, but arguably, this is a non-independent source and a professional rival, whose opinions should be placed in that context.

Ehrensaft's chapter is basically a rewrite of Ehrensaft 2017 which adds implications about "reparative therapy".

In the 2020 version, Ehrensaft says:

While argued by its developers not to be a reparative technique (though description of their intervention techniques speaks otherwise), the treatment model for pre-pubescent children that had as its goal a change in the gender presentations of a young child became best known in the work of Drs. Susan Bradley, Kenneth Zucker and their colleagues at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto [40, 41]. This model has become known as the “living in your own skin” approach.

I find no source of Zucker calling his own model the "living in your own skin" model. This appears to be what Ehrensaft labelled it, in 2017. However, compare this to Ehrensaft 2017, which actually says:

Setting a precedent for other clinicians of the time treating children who presented as gender nonconforming, Kyle’s treatment at the UCLA program is emblematic of the model implemented during this era, with the goal of helping children accept the sex assigned to them at birth and adopt the culturally defined appropriate gender behaviors that would match that sex assignment, in alignment with the traditional model of gender development. Underlying the treatment was the intent of warding off a homosexual outcome for young effeminate boys. It should be mentioned that this model is still practiced today, referred to by some as the reparative model. Focusing now on contemporary approaches that stand in contrast to the above mode, all of which are to be differentiated from the UCLA program, the three major models, outlined earlier, are typically referred to, in order of presentation, as the following: The “live in your own skin” model, The watchful waiting model,The gender affirmative model

In 2017, Ehrensaft explicitly said the "live-in-your-own-skin" model was not reparative.

So how to square this? Something like:

• Diane Ehrensaft, creator of the gender-affirmative model, referred to Zucker's approach as the "live-in-your-own-skin" model. In 2017 Ehrensaft argued that the approach was distinct from the reparative model. In 2020 Ehrensaft considered it to be a form of reparatory therapy, while noting its proponents denied this.

The relevant portion of the second source, Hannah Hirst is:

A range of conversion practices are currently recommended under the ‘live-in-your-own-skin’ approach to addressing gender diversity in childhood.[58] The model’s ‘treatment’ goal, based on the belief that younger children have a more ‘malleable gender brain’ than older children, is to facilitate a child accepting that their gender identity matches their sex assigned at birth. For Ken Zucker, the approach lowers the possibility that:As a kid gets older, he or she will move into adolescence feeling so uncomfortable about their gender identity that they think that it would be better to live as the other gender and require treatment with hormones and sex reassignment surgery. The live-in–your-own-skin model thus implies that transitioning from one gender to another (or taking up a non-binary identity) is negative and, to some extent, harmful.

So Hirst doesn't actually support attribution of the model to Zucker - it doesn't clearly state he developed it or named it, it just segues into Zucker's opinion about what it implies. This source is very badly worded, IMO. Also, crucially, the citation at 58 is Ehrensaft (2017), which explicitly says the "live-in-your-own-skin" model is not "reparative therapy". I just wouldn't cite this at all, but if cited it really would need attribution.

Ashley (2022) however supports none of the statements it is being cited for - it doesn't confirm the "live-in-your-own-skin" naming and the "definition" is Ashley's own personal definition:

Building upon previous attempts to define conversion practices and the limitations of focusing on changes to gender identity, I propose the following definition of trans conversion practices. Trans conversion practices refer to sustained efforts to promote gender identities that are aligned with the person’s sex assigned at birth and/or to discourage behaviours associated with a gender other than the person’s sex assigned at birth. Trans conversion practices are not exclusively practised on trans people and are often applied to people exhibiting gender non-conforming behaviour independently of gender identity. The belief that being trans or gender creative is undesirable underpins the practices and often comes hand in hand with the belief that being trans or gender creative is pathological. Trans conversion practices take many forms, including behavioural therapy, psychodynamic therapy, parental counselling, and interventions in a naturalistic environment. Play psychotherapy, limit setting on gender non-conforming behaviour, and the encouragement of peer relations with children of the same sex assigned at birth are commonly used in contemporary forms of conversion practices.

The corrective approach, which was promulgated by clinicians at the now closed CAMH clinic, featured prominently in the Canadian conversation on trans conversion practices and in Ontario’s Bill 77, the Affirming Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Act. Also known as the psychotherapeutic, therapeutic, or pathological response approach, it has long played a prominent role in trans health and continues to be defended today. I chose to call it the corrective approach to avoid the positive connotations of “therapeutic” and because the term pithily encapsulates its motivation: to “correct” gender creative children’s identities and/or behaviours. Does the corrective approach fall under the umbrella of conversion practices? If it does, as I suggest in this section, then it is a mark of quality for bans on conversion practices to prohibit it.

The corrective approach plainly falls under the definition of conversion practices that I have proposed.

Combining this with the other two citations is clear WP:SYNTH. All of this has to be attributed as opinion, eg:

• Bioethicist Florence Ashley referred to Zucker's methods as the "corrective approach", and argued it fell under her a definition of conversion practices.

None of these individually support the wikivoice claim in the lede, as written, especially not on a BLP. Void if removed (talk) 09:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Further to the Hirst source, it is downright misleading in parts. For example, read the following paragraph:

The live-in–your-own-skin model thus implies that transitioning from one gender to another (or taking up a non-binary identity) is negative and, to some extent, harmful. Practices include taking away cross-gender toys and replacing them with gender appropriate toys; altering a young person’s friendship circle to include more same-sex contacts; token-based conditioning techniques; and enrolling a young individual in gender appropriate activities.61 While violence against a child is not recommended under the approach, some of the aforementioned practices lead to gender-diverse children experiencing physical punishment. Diane Ehrensaft describes this occurring when a parent used physical violence against his child to reinforce token-based confiding techniques:When he was five, Kyle entered a behaviour modification program. […] Kyle received blue tokens for ‘desirable’ behaviours […] red ones for ‘undesirable’ behaviours […]. Blue tokens were redeemable for treats […]. Red tokens resulted in a loss of blue tokens, periods of isolation, or spanking by father.62

This is from Ehrensaft's 2017 description of the UCLA approach under Richard Green, and not the "live-in-your-own-skin" model. This is really quite poor TBH - what is the reader to expect to understand by "the aforementioned practices"? The approaches of Zucker - which have just been mentioned in the preceding sentence - or the approaches of Green who was mentioned 3 paragraphs earlier? Void if removed (talk) 13:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I do not believe the lede needs to be changed.

You claim Ehrensaft is a «rival» of Zucker, but provide no evidence or explanation for this claim. Could you point to a policy that suggests her claim needs attribution.

You compare Ehrensaft 2017 and 2020, claiming the prior explicitly states that the LIYOS model was not reparative. It does not state so explicitly. 2017 contrasts the LIYOS model with the token based reparative therapy used at UCLA. Suggesting that this precludes LIYOS being conversion therapy is your own inference. Moreover, later in the same article LIYOS is described as having “the intent of warding off a transgender outcome”.

You point out that Zucker did not use the phrasing “Living in your own skin”. That is irrelevant. We use the language most commonly used in reliable sources, not the phrasing of the originator.

You suggest noting that the developers of the LIYOS model object to its characterization as a reparative technique, though I think in this case WP:MANDY applies.

I’m struggling to access an open source version of Hirst, but based on what you have copied here, it seems she groups the LIYOS model together with the reparative therapy practiced at UCLA, which introduces some ambiguity. Hirst could feasibly be removed.

I don’t think the lede in its current form is synth, and don’t think attributing Ashley is necessary. HenrikHolen (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

> You claim Ehrensaft is a «rival» of Zucker

Fair, rival is probably a bit strong/imprecise - but she proposes/names 3 contemporary models and advocates hers is the way forward. Nothing wrong with that - but it is not an independent, neutral source of the sort we need for contentious BLP claims, especially on a CTOP. Ehrensaft is notable and influential so its obviously DUE, but her close relationship to the subject needs noting.

> Suggesting that this precludes LIYOS being conversion therapy is your own inference

That's not what I said. I said that in 2017 Ehrensaft says it isn't reparative, and in 2020 she says it is.

this model is still practiced today, referred to by some as the reparative model. Focusing now on contemporary approaches that stand in contrast to the above mode

She describe's Green's approach as the reparatory model, and says LIYOS isn't that.

I'm just saying what Ehrensaft says, which means that's what we should say.

> I don’t think the lede in its current form is synth

The lede said the "live in your own skin" model is aimed at preventing pre-pubertal children from growing up transgender

Which source says the closest to that?

Ehrensaft 2020 ("live in your own skin") says:

The goal of the treatment is to facilitate young children accepting the gender that matches the sex designated to them at birth.

Hirst 2023 ("live in your own skin") says:

The model’s ‘treatment’ goal, based on the belief that younger children have a more ‘malleable gender brain’ than older children, is to facilitate a child accepting that their gender identity matches their sex assigned at birth.

Ashley 2022 ("corrective approach") says:

Current explanations of the approach often centre on wanting children to become comfortable in their skin and in the gender/sex they were assigned at birth, a description that has demonstrated considerable staying power over the last few decades. Though rarely stating outright that the aim is to prevent adult trans outcomes, proponents of the approach nonetheless note that they find no “particular quarrel with the prevention of transsexualism as a treatment goal for children.” Of course, comfort in one’s body and gender/sex assigned at birth is little better as a goal. Ultimately, it is just another way of saying that they do not want children to be trans or to grow up to be trans.

So the name of the model is derived from Ehrensaft, and the description of its aims is derived from Ashley. That's WP:SYNTH.

and don’t think attributing Ashley is necessary

Ashley explicitly states it is her own proposed model of what counts as conversion therapy. Of course it needs attribution, because that's the only way we'll know what model of what counts as conversion therapy the "corrective approach" fits.

Since this is a paywalled source, citing it to support a statement it doesn't is a breach of trust IMO. Void if removed (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Ehrensaft 2017 said Underlying the treatment was the intent of warding off a homosexual outcome for young effeminate boys. It should be mentioned that this model is still practiced today, referred to by some as the reparative model. Focusing now on contemporary approaches that stand in contrast to the above mode, all of which are to be differentiated from the UCLA program, and The first model, represented in the work of Drs Susan Bradley and Ken Zucker, assumes that young children have malleable gender brains, so to speak, and that treatment goals can include helping a young child accept the gender that matches the sex assigned to them at birth.

• This is not saying it's not reparative, this is saying it's a different model than Greens. Green focused on preventing being trans or gay, Zucker focused on preventing being trans. Other sources we have explicitly say Zucker took Green and narrowed the scope.

What model was Zucker using at CAMH if not that? In this article, we use the common name. Other sources may use different names, but are seriously suggesting there's any dispute that Ashley is discussing the LIYOS model? - It is not WP:SYNTH when different sources use different names for the same topic. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I now see that Ashley only goes so far as saying The work of Susan J. Bradley and Kenneth Zucker, closely associated with the corrective approach, so yes, pretty sure this is WP:SYNTH. Void if removed (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

1) Ehrensaft:

• 2020 While argued by its developers not to be a reparative technique (though description of their intervention techniques speaks otherwise), the treatment model for pre-pubescent children that had as its goal a change in the gender presentations of a young child became best known in the work of Drs. Susan Bradley, Kenneth Zucker and their colleagues at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto [40, 41]. This model has become known as the “living in your own skin” approach. The goal of the treatment is to facilitate young children accepting the gender that matches the sex designated to them at birth. ... the “living in your own skin” model, which got its name from Dr. Zucker’s explanation of his treatment program as helping pre-pubertal children to live in the gender that matches the sex designated at birth and the body accompanying that designation, ergo, their own skin, synthesized behavior modification, social engineering, and psychodynamic psychotherapy to achieve the set goals of gender congruence between designated sex at birth and child’s gender identity.
• 2017: With the parents’ consent, the “live in your own skin” model employs a combination of behavior modification, ecological interventions, and family system restructuring to facilitate the child arriving at a place of accepting the gender matching their sex assigned at birth ... In brief, the live in your own skin model has been challenged as causing potential harm to gender nonconforming youth. A Canadian study conducted by Wallace and Russell assessed that in the living-in-your-own-skin model “there appears to be an enhanced risk of fostering proneness to shame, a shame-based identity and vulnerability to depression.”26 Major health organizations, including the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, the American Psychological Association, and the American Psychiatric Association, have issued statements stipulating that mental health professionals are not to engage in practices that attempt to alter the gender expressions or identity of an individual, including children and adolescents
  • The difference with the UCLA model is the UCLA model practiced it on adolescents too, Zucker believed it should be tried until puberty

2) Ashley:

• • As the following section explains, trans conversion practices should be understood as sustained efforts to promote gender identities that are aligned with one’s sex assigned at birth and/or to discourage behaviours associated with a gender other than the one assigned at birth. Applying this definition, it is clear that the corrective approach that was employed at CAMH is a form of conversion practice.
  • Although the authors are more cautious in their propositions today and acknowledge a plurality of practices, they continue to view the prevention of adult trans outcomes as an appropriate and ethical clinical goal.
  • The reviewers expressed concern that the clinic’s use of play therapy and cognitive-behavioural therapy was directive rather than exploratory and that the clinic’s approach was grounded in an assumption that gender non-conforming behaviours require intervention.12 The clinicians would set out “to reduce [the] child’s desire to be of the other gender,”
  • The external review’s findings do indeed suggest that conversion practices were being employed. Parents reported their children being questioned about their gender in ways that implied a negative judgment of their way of being.16 The report found that the clinic pathologized children and parents and suggested that it inappropriately positioned being “heterosexual [and] cisgender as the most acceptable treatment outcome.”17 The reviewers concurred with participants that promoting comfort with one’s sex assigned at birth was wrong and not consistent with current standards of practices
  • The goal of the corrective approach is to “cure” or “correct” trans and gender creative youth. According to a recent chapter co-authored by Jack Turban, Annelou L.C. de Vries, and Kenneth Zucker, this approach seeks “to reduce the child’s cross-gender identifcation and gender dysphoria” and to “facilitate a gender identity that is more congruent with the patient’s [sex assigned at birth]” through psychosocial interventions.22 The work ofSusan J. Bradley and Kenneth Zucker, closely associated with the corrective approach, identifes the prevention of adult trans outcomes as one justifcation for the approach. They state that “preven- tion of transsexualism in adulthood [is] so obviously clinically valid and consistent with the ethics of our time that they constitute sufcient justifcation for therapeutic intervention.”

3) Hirst

• • Having trouble accessing, will find later

4) There are more sources in the body

• • Green’s methods were adopted by Dr. Kenneth Zucker at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto (Zucker & Bradley, 1995; Zucker et al., 2012) but modified so that the focus was primarily on preventing a child from developing an eventual transgender identity. Zucker called his approach the “living in your own skin” model, in which behavior and pre- sentation were modified to conform to gender role expectations associated with one’s natal sex. His methods included behavioral modification of cross- gender play interests, encouraging greater engagement on the part of the same-sex parent (and less of the opposite-sex parent), as well as psycho- dynamic therapy.https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2021-98492-003

Henrik Holen pointed out some of the flaws in your argumentation.

But VIR, I'm a little confused here, are you actually arguing that therapy with the goal of preventing children from growing up trans, which takes the view gender identity is externally malleable, which relies on behavior modification targeting gender-nonconformity and psychotherapy, is not in fact a form of conversion therapy? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

are you actually arguing

I'm simply saying this is what the sources say. If you want to say, in wikivoice, "Kenneth J. Zucker is [...] known for the living in your own skin model, a form of conversion therapy", on a BLP, especially in a CTOP, you really need independent secondary sources that unambiguously say that.

What you did was add 3 paywalled sources:

• Ehrensaft needs attribution because she's not really independent, says it falls within the category of reparative forms of treatment that have now been rejected by major professional societies as unethical and harmful, notes the objections to this of its practitioners, but notably in 2017 said it stood in contrast to "the reparative model".
• Hirst cites Ehrensaft 2017, and doesn't say Zucker is known for it or created it, his name is just sort of mentioned in the text as if the reader simply knows his relationship to it.
• Ashley doesn't say "living in your own skin" and says what she calls the "corrective model" fits her proposed model of what conversion therapy is, hence needs attribution.

These are all valid things to mention and cite but they don't add up to the wikivoice statement in question. Void if removed (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

1) No, she contrasted it with Green. As two editors have now pointed out to you

2) I need time to find my copy of the source

3)

• A) COMMONNAME - are you arguing when Ashley says "corrective model" she means a different model than the LIYOS one? Unless that's your argument, it holds no water.
• B) her proposed model of what conversion therapy is - her summary/definition of a subset of them
  • Ashley also said The leading trans health organization worldwide, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, afrms that “[t]reatment aimed at trying to change a person’s gender identity and expression to become more congruent with sex assigned at birth [is] no longer considered ethical.”51 Countless leading professional associations have come out in opposition to trans conversion practices, and, recently, the United Nations Independent Expert on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity called on governments to ban conversion practices.52 The professional consensus is clear.
  • Various definitions of conversion practices have been offered in the literature, though few have been extensively discussed, explained, and defended. Most commonly, the definitions foreground the attempt, through psychological intervention, to change gender identity and expression.1 The definition often encompasses gender identity and sexual orientation.2 After reviewing the limits of the existing definitions, I propose the one mentioned in the preceding paragraph

Your argument seems to be that Ashley provides a definition of conversion practices, and notes the LIYOS model meets it, but that's just her definition and wouldn't meet others. But all definitions agree using psychotherapy to alter gender identity is a form of CT, and the explicit methodology of the LIYOS model has been psychotherapy to alter gender identity. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Happy to be a third editor for point #1. Contrasting the models doesn't mean she thinks Zucker's approach wasn't reparative. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

She is not just contrasting it with Green, she is saying that UCLA program is emblematic of the model implemented during this era, that this model is still practiced today, referred to by some as the reparative model, and the other three are contemporary approaches that stand in contrast to the above mode. I don't know how you can read that any other way, but ok.

Perhaps a compromise way of putting it is that In 2017 Ehrensaft contrasted three contemporary approaches, including the "live-in-your-own-skin" model with the reparative model practiced at UCLA, which can fit with later expansion of what she considers reparative approaches in 2020. Void if removed (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

This is a controversial one. I'm somewhat inclined to agree with Void that there are at least some problems with the lead. Today, Zucker seems to be a proponent of multiple models for gender dysphoria, see here. If parents prefer the affirming route, he seems to do so. Second, a person with gender dysphoria may not necessarily have a gender identity that is discordant with their natal sex. Conversion therapy definitions usually refer to gender identity interventions, not gender dysphoria interventions. I believe this may be why Zucker is still able to operate, because Canadian law (and many other conversion therapy bans) explicitly include carve outs for professionals to work in their capacity with gender dysphoric patients. I think a solution is simply to attribute sources that consider Zucker a conversion therapist (*but this would probably depend if there are other RS arguing he is a not a conversion therapist). Zenomonoz (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)