Talk:Ex-gay movement/Archive 3

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Merge with reparative therapy? (again)

I propose merging this article into reparative therapy. Almost all of the content on the two articles is duplicative. A user above argued not to merge them, citing an ex-gay group that merely encourages celibacy, not reparative therapy. But such a group is a small minority within a small minority, and can be dealt with in a section in the article. Fireplace 16:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Just curious, why would this article be merged into reparative therapy and not the other way around? I could be mistaken but I believe more people have heard of Ex-Gays than know the name for the specific therapy involved.-- ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 23:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

As Aristotle might say, ex-gay may be first in knowledge, but reparative therapy is first in nature. That is, even though more people have heard the term "ex-gay," ex-gays are a byproduct of reparative therapy. Reparative therapy is also broader, as most subjects don't become ex-gays. Fireplace 23:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll go along with that, very sound reasoning. I assume that anyone searchiing for 'Ex-Gay' will get a redirect to reparative therapy anyway, so it's all six-of-one... I say go ahead with the merge.-- ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 23:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Support proposed merge. Rosemary Amey 02:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Support proposed merge. ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 00:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

With three supporting and none opposing (and I know a lot of you have this on your watchlist), I'm going to go ahead with the merge. I've already moved most of the non-duplicative, sourced content over the reparative therapy. Fireplace 01:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Questions & Suggestions

As someone mentioned above, I think the opening line in the article should explain first what an ex-gay is and then address the movement. Sorry if I'm asking something already answered here but is the ex-gay movement really synonymous with Exodus? I'd like to see a reference for that, it seems POV. Not trying to be difficult, I'd just like to help the article.-- ParAmmon (cheers thanks a lot!) 23:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It is well known at least by ex-gay ministries, NARTH professionals and their associates and friends that the overwhelming majority (somewhat like 90+%) of those who identify as ex-gay in fact do not report to having had reparative therapy, as in psychological individual or group therapy. Both Spitzer, 2002 and Jones and Yarhouse, 2007 in their research studies have found this to be the case. Yes, the majority have come to self-identify and experience an ex-gay reality via Exodus ministries; but many more have through Courage (Roman Catholic), Jonah (Jewish) and Evergreen (Mormon) than the NARTH reparative therapeutic process as well. The umbrella organization of these ministries, supports, and NARTH professionals is called PATH (Present Alternatives To Homosexuality). This organization does much more accurately represent the aggregate means to one's adult ex-gay identification and experience.Shrink0505 (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Restoring Original Article

I have not come here in a while, but I oppose the merge with reparative therapy and urge that the original article be restored. The primary reason why I believe this is that one need not have had any involvement in reparative therapy in order to be considered "ex-gay." One of the most important thing to consider with ex-gay groups is the usage of terminology. The definition of an ex-gay, as the ex-gay groups understand it, is "a person who once identified as gay and engaged in homosexual behavior, but now no longer identifies as gay and refrains from (or seeks to refrain from) homosexual behavior." One need not have even attempted reparative therapy in order to adopt an "ex-gay identity." The distinction between sexual attractions on one hand and sexual behavior on the other is regarded as paramount, and change in the latter is usually considered "change" even if the former is unaltered. Although the "ultimate goal" of ex-gay groups is to change people to a completely heterosexual orientation with no experience of homosexual attractions, ex-gays are sometimes remarkably frank about the infrequency with which that goal is attained. By merging the article with reparative therapy, all of the vitally important information about those distinctions and definitions--without which one really cannot understand ex-gay groups--has been lost. Reparative therapy is frequently employed by ex-gay groups, but fundamentally it is not integral to the concept. The original article should be restored. Person 1485 05:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The distinction between RT-based ex-gays and non-RT-based ex-gays may exist in the theories of some RT-advocates, but in practice I'm not aware of any significant ex-gay groups that aren't grounded in the reparative therapy movement. Perhaps your point should be made more clearly in the rt article under the doctrine section. Fireplace 09:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is more structural than that. I think it is inaccurate to say that there is any kind of a "reparative therapy movement." Reparative therapy is just a collection of (mostly secular) theories and techniques that purport to result in changing a person's sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. One can talk about reparative therapy using the same lexicon as regular people use, speaking of sexual orientation and change in sexual orientation. The ex-gay phenomenon, however, is not just about changing people's sexual orientation, it is an entirely different way of thinking about and responding to homosexuality. Conceptually, reparative therapy is a "tool" of ex-gay groups--among other tools, such as prayer, bible-reading, etc. My point is not that there is a hypothetical difference between RT-based ex-gays and non-RT-based ex-gays, but rather the "ex-gay" concept itself really has very little to do with reparative therapy. That is, even a person who has just begun reparative therapy is still defined as "ex-gay," regardless of the status of of the success of his reparative therapy. Even if a person has been in reparative therapy for years and freely admits that he has experienced no change, he can still classify himself as "ex-gay" without any difficulty or contradiction (as the term is defined by ex-gay groups). By subordinating "ex-gay" to "reparative therapy" we have fundamentally confused these definitions and concepts, such that I doubt it would be possible to adequately clarify the situation within the reparative therapy article itself. We have also lost all of the brief descriptions of ex-gay groups that led to further articles. I think the ex-gay article should be restored, with "reparative therapy" acting as as a subsection of the old second section that leads to a detailed description of reparative therapy itself. Person 1485 00:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I've done a fair bit of research on this topic (for what that's worth), and as far as I can tell the view you put forward doesn't reflect reparative therapist or ex-gay views (both of which are extensively cited in reparative therapy). It is certainly false that there is no RT movement; bible-reading and prayer are often put under the RT heading; RT is not "mostly secular"; and the definition of "ex-gay" you attribute to reparative therapist and ex-gay groups is unfamiliar to me. Finally, all the ex-gay groups' articles are still around, most of them are linked to on the RT site (and the major ones, such as NARTH and Exodus, are described in the article) and there is a category devoted to ex-gay organizations. Fireplace 01:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Another point is that "reparative therapy" and its article seem to be largely based in secular thought. The ex-gay movement seems to be largely (but not entirely) religious in motivation and philosophy. eaolson 01:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

RT is mostly a religiously based phenomenon (see Exodus, Love in Action, Refuge, etc.). As far as I know, NARTH is the only major group that tries to keep it purely secular and doesn't involve bible-reading, etc. So, any secular leaning in the RT article is a failing of the article, and more religious information should be added. (This is difficult, because most online literature doesn't go into more detail than listing "group prayer" or somesuch).

Note that NARTH people also use the "ex-gay" language, so again it's not clear that there's any disconnect between the religiosity of RT and ex-gays. Fireplace 01:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say they're distinct. Reparative therapy isn't necessarily religiously-based. For example, what was done to Alan Turing. It seems that, historically, RT was largely medical and psychological in origin. Nowadays, however, most of the ex-gay organizations are religious in nature. eaolson 03:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There are religious ex-gays and RTs (Exodus, Love in Action, Refuge) and secular ex-gays and RTs (NARTH people). RT may (or may not) have historically been secular, but historically the phrase "ex-gay" wasn't even used. You're right that most ex-gay organizations are religious today, but so are the RTs. Fireplace 04:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

People Can Change, PFOX, IHF, German Institute for Youth and Society and PATH aren't religious. Jonah isn't Christian.Joshuajohanson 22:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Fireplace, I have also studied this in great depth. Your central error is, I think, in categorization. I think that Exodus, Love in Action, Refuge, etc. are properly considered "ex-gays organizations that make use of reparative therapy." Although the ultimate goal is to change people's sexual orientations and they often use reparative therapy in seeking to advance that goal, the adoption of an "ex-gay identity"--regardless of any change in sexual orientation--is regarded as sufficient and as a "success." From a reparative therapy viewpoint, however, that outcome would be seen as a failure.

I have never seen the phrases "reparative therapy organizations" or "the reparative therapy movement" anywhere before you employed them in this discussion thread. Looking at the google search results for "reparative therapy groups" versus "ex-gay groups," "reparative therapy movement" versus "ex-gay movement," and "reparative therapy ministries" versus "ex-gay ministries" confirms that observation. The only organization that I would possibly classify as a "reparative therapy organization" is NARTH, and even that usage feels strange. I would probably prefer to say that the organization is "a dissident pyschological organization that studies and advocates reparative therapy for homosexuals."

I think the widespread understanding is that "ex-gay groups" and "ex-gay ministries" refer to the religious organizations under discussion, while "reparative therapy" refers to a set of secular/"scientific" techniques and theories that ex-gay groups frequently employ. That is, reparative therapy is something that someone does with a therapist, not the broad religious/political movement. The formulation that most people would agree with would be that "ex-gay groups promote the use of reparative therapy" and I think the structure of the articles should reflect that. Person 1485 00:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

A really good piece of evidence on the usage of "reparative therapy": http://www.exodus.to/content/view/426/37/ Person 1485 00:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless I have further objection sometime soon, I plan to go ahead and reverse the merge with reparative therapy shortly. Person 1485 21:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've already lodged my objections. See, e.g., the recent NY Times article ("Mental health experts say there is no proof that sexual reorientation therapy, as it is often called, works.... Nevertheless, these efforts, commonly called the “ex-gay” movement, have become increasingly visible..."; "...the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, a prominent secular organization in the ex-gay movement."). Furthermore, to the extent that some people try to draw a conceptual distinction between the two, it strikes me as better handled as a subsection in the RT article, to avoid what would otherwise be largely duplicative articles. Fireplace 22:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

If you insist on having the two articles as one, I think it would make far more sense for RT to exist as a subsection of the ex-gay article. I do think, however, that it would make more sense for them to be separate. The ex-gay phenomenon is a complicated one that few people truly understand. That a New York Times reporter would conflate the two ideas as one doesn't really surprise me. But you never really responded to the points I made. I don't think the evidence could be any clearer than the link I gave: that a former homosexual condemns reparative therapy as an unbiblical approach makes absolutely no sense without the conceptual distinction I've outlined. See also this post by Warren Throckmorton, a conservative but scientific voice on ex-gay issues: "Montel had confused Exodus as a ministry with a reparative therapy organization." Or this quote of Elaine Berk: "FYI, Exodus doesn’t do reparative therapy." This distinction is often muddled, but it is one that is frequently used and understood--and it is, fundamentally, a distinction that is useful. Reparative therapy focuses on changing sexual orientation. The recent changes that you have made to that article reinforce that emphasis--an emphasis that I think is appropriate. But as Dr. Throckmorton--and so many others--have noted "many evangelicals do not see terms such as 'liberation' or 'freedom' from homosexual attraction as meaning that those attractions are gone." The ex-gay phenomenon is fundamentally about sexual identity, not sexual orientation. People call themselves "ex-gays" all of the time despite the fact that, from a reparative therapy standpoint, their efforts at sexual re-orientation have failed. Former homosexual Randy Thomas describes receiving the "gift of celibacy." Former homosexual Mike Ensley speaks of 30 percent of Exodus' clients living "a successful life of heterosexuality or celibacy" and advises people to "quit letting your temptations dictate your identity."

Trying to explain this in the reparative therapy article does not make sense. Saying that reparative therapy is about changing people's orientations from homosexual to heterosexual but then backing up and saying that some religious ex-gay organizations say that changing identity is more important would be confusing. There needs to be a place where the extremely confusing ex-gay approach to homosexuality--not just the attempts at sexual reorientation--can be explained. That place should be the ex-gay article.Person 1485 19:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

All mainstream medical and mental health associations that have taken a position on the topic, including the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Counseling Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Association of School Administrators, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Education Association have made the following distinction: "While "reparative therapy" relies on secular approaches, "transformational ministry" takes the approach that "freedom from homosexuality is possible through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.". See Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation & Youth: A Primer for Principals, Educators and School Personnel. I think we should go with the major organizations on this one. A lot of the reparative therapy article is muddled with transformational ministries. I think that is one reason why the articles are largely duplicative. I would suggest creating a separate article on transformational ministries. A separate article for the ex-gay movement would then be needed to explain the relationship between the ex-gay movement and each of the seperate approaches.Joshuajohanson 19:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a very accurate observation. However, I think it might be more appropriate to either (1) have the article that you propose on "tranformational ministries" actually be the "ex-gay" article (as it essentially was before), with a section within the article to explain the relationship with reparative therapy, or (2) essentially do number one but instead create a new article called "ex-gay ministries" to which "ex-gay" would redirect. Although I do think that two articles are necessary, I don't think the relationship is sufficiently complicated to warrant three. One can simply explain the relationship within the two articles--something like, "Reparative therapy is sometimes employed by ex-gay ministries (see Ex-gay Ministries)." and "Ex-gay ministries sometimes employ secular psychological techniques that are called 'reparative therapy' (see Reparative Therapy)." Person 1485 23:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

See also NARTH article ("people who modify orientation through counseling are known as "ex-gays.") An underlying problem is that reparative therapists and ex-gay organizations operate largely independently from one another and outside the domain of the scientific and medical communities, and as such the meanings of terms used by these people and the theories they have are often not precisely defined and are often inconsistent with what other reparative therapists might say. The issue of whether "ex-gay" is a "sexual identity" (whatever that means -- good luck finding any ex-gay scholarly discussion of sexual identity comparable to what queer theory people have done) or merely a term describing people who say they used to be gay but are now straight (see NARTH, supra) is a good example.

The redundancy problem of having two articles is a real one. Just looking at the current reparative therapy article, most of the history section would appear in both, much of the scientific information too, and much of the controversies as well.

An alternative would be to rename the current article "Reparative therapy and ex-gays" (or "Ex-gays and reparative therapy"). This would eliminate the redundancy problem while not making assumptions one way or the other about conceptual distinctions between the two. Fireplace 00:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

First, the problem with the NARTH citation is that it gives an inclusive, not an exclusive, definition for ex-gays. All people who modify orientation through counseling are ex-gays, but not all ex-gays are people who have modified their organization through counseling. By "sexual identity," I meant simply that--what a person calls him or herself. Today, we typically understand the terms "gay" and "homosexual" to be terms of description, not identification. One can say "oh, he's gay, he just hasn't admitted to himself yet," and everyone understands what is meant. For ex-gay groups, however, you're only "gay" if you take on a gay identity--that is, if you call yourself "gay" and thus become "gay identified." To become "ex-gay," all you have to do is renounce a gay identity take on ex-gay identity--something that requires nothing more than that you publicly identify yourself as "ex-gay." See for example: here. I don't know why you're so dismissive of this idea, given that it isn't that complicated and is at the core of these ex-gay groups. Granted, on a personal level, I think that looking at sexual orientation in this manner is pretty stupid, but this idea is key to understanding ex-gay ministries.

I really think that you're over-concerned about duplication. First, I really don't think the duplication between the two articles is as serious as you suggest. Before the two articles were merged, there really wasn't that much, and I think that the duplication problems that there are now have arisen largely as a result of your recent changes to the reparative therapy article. For history, RT would focus on NARTH and the changes in techniques, while the ex-gay ministries article would focus on the emergence of Exodus and similar such groups. Only the old "dissenting views" section in the ex-gay article was largely duplicative, and its contents should probably be reduced significantly in favor of a link to the reparative therapy article. Whatever minimal levels of duplication might be necessary (and I think it's far, far less than you imagine) are outweighed by the benefits of having two separate articles. When you have an Exodus spokesperson saying that Exodus "does not do reparative therapy" and then you lump Exodus in a reparative therapy article, that is inherently problematic. The pyschological community makes a distinction between "transformational ministries" and "reparative therapy," and we should too. Person 1485 14:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Just as you're concerned about wikipedia failing to draw a conceptual distinction where some RT or ex-gay groups do, I'm concerned about wikipedia drawing such a distinction where RT and the ex-gay movement are so closely intertwined and where most of these terms do not admit of broad, consistent usage. I'm very open to the idea of a single article ("Reparative therapy and ex-gay groups" or "Sexual reorientation" or something) that lays out all the issues. Fireplace 15:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Much of the argument Fireplace and I are having in the reparative therapy section is applying critism of reparative therapy to transformational ministries. I think splitting the two would solve a lot of those issues. The distinct is clear in mainstream medical organizations (of which NARTH does not belong, as has been made clear). Exodus' website says it "does not conduct clinical treatment of any kind", only saying repartive therapy can be a beneficial tool. [1] Reparative therapy operates under the viewpoint that homosexuality is a mental disorder and complete sexual reorienation is possible. That is "the most important fact" medical organizations have against reparative therapy. Though they have been vocal about it in the past, many transformational ministries now do not see homosexuality as a mental disorder, but a spiritual struggle. In a joint coalition of major transformational ministries, they have said "We have no desire to try to convince people who are happy living a gay life that they should be dissatisfied." With regards to a complete 180 degree shift, the same coalition said "So, unlike those who argue that nothing less than a 180 degree turn "counts" as change, the men and women who actually seek change are often quite content with a much subtler shift. To be free from the constant pull of homosexual desires, to have a happy marriage, to have children, and to live a life they believe to be in line with God's will for them -- many ask for nothing more." [2] Medical organizations don't disagree with that. Many people are just trying to live in accordance with their beleifs and do not make a claim that orientation can be changed, just lived with [3]. There are arguments within the transformational ministry as to whether or not this is nature or nurture, whether it is 100% curable, whether it is necessary, and whether or not it is a disorder. In a separate article, these can all be discussed. This can't happen in a reparative therapy article, since it is defined to be one that operates from the belief it is a mental disorder. Now I am sure you can find lots of quotes aligning these ministries with reparative therapy and the claims that homosexuality is a mental disorder and 100% change from homosexuality to heterosexuality is possible. That is because the most extreme viewpoints are the ones being vocal about it.

In regards to the religious nature of reparative therapy, both the American Psychological Association and the American Counseling Association have published guidelines for approved treatments to alter one's orientation. Those organizations are completely secular and mainstream. Reparative therapy and religion aren't married.Joshuajohanson 21:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If you're referring to the work of Throckmorton and Yarhouse that was published, that's a very inaccurate reading of their scholarhip. No such "guidelines for approved treatments" exist. They wrote about the importance of patient autonomy, such that if a patient makes an informed decision to pursue reparative therapy, he or she should not be precluded from doing so. There are no "approved treatments" with respect to reparative therapy, and it is a fringe phenomenon. That said, the observation that "reparative therapy and religion aren't married" is one I believe to be accurate. Person 1485 05:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to the APA's Resolution on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation.Joshuajohanson 21:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay. But just for clarity's sake, those are guidelines for how to deal with people who want to change their orientation. There aren't any actual approved treatments or techniques for how to do it. Person 1485 20:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand that there is a (frequently extremely close) relationship between reparative therapy and the ex-gay movement. The reason why two articles is best is fundamentally due to the radical differences in the underlying philosophy. Reparative therapy has a very specific conceptual underpinning. Homosexuality is a mental disorder, a "reparative drive" to make up for developmental abnormalities. One then engages in reparative therapy with a "trained" therapist, employing a series of secular "scientific" techniques. To "change" means to change sexual orientation.

Ex-gay ministries, on the other hand, are explicitly religious and place their emphasis on sexual behavior and identity. To "change" usually means to stop having sex with people of the same gender (with fewer numbers claiming more than that).

Look, I abhor reparative therapy because I think it is unscientific, unproven, and potentially dangerous. I also abhor ex-gay ministries because I find their use of terminology to be so misleading and poorly explained that it becomes dishonest. Encountering ex-gay speak is like disappearing into a parallel universe where the precise meaning of words is almost impossible for regular people to make sense of without a great deal of familiarity beforehand. (I'd note that one of your primary arguments for the merge was that "even though more people have heard the term 'ex-gay,' ex-gays are a byproduct of reparative therapy," but that's just not true if you really understand ex-gay speak.) The fundamental purpose of these articles needs to be more than just helping people understand that they're fringe phenomena. It's need to be to help people figure out exactly what the hell it actually means when a person says that he "has found freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ." Or what the hell a person is really talking about when he starts referring to "reparative drives" and other mostly-discredited features of Freudian pyschology that characterize reparative therapy.

The reparative therapy article really isn't in that great of shape in just explaining reparative therapy. It's current treatment of ex-gay ministries doesn't explain them at all. But the first and third sections of the old ex-gay article explained the basic underlying ideas and terminology of ex-gay groups in extremely clear, neutral terms such that no one had any objections to them. It explained the concept of "change" as ex-gay groups actually understand it. If you want to add those sections to the reparative therapy article, I would probably stop bothering you. But I just don't think that they fit there. Trying to explain the two different underlying philosophies in the same article would be confusing. Telling people that change for reparative therapy means one thing, and change for ex-gay ministries means a different thing within the same article cannot not be confusing. I think you need two different articles to really explain it, and that the drawbacks of having two are far exceeded by the benefits. Person 1485 05:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

So what is the next step? It has been awhile since there has been any discussion. Should we take a vote on it?Joshuajohanson 21:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. There has been no response to my last postings. If there aren't any further objections, the merge should be reversed.Person 1485 20:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I've been away/busy. Your arguments are pretty persuasive. I'm still unsure whether an objective/"view from nowhere" look at these movements (verses the inconsistent and agenda-motivated discussion within the movements) would draw a conceptual distinction here, but so long as the two articles are heavily interrelated, I'm fine with a split for now.

(Note that changes are not made by vote.) Fireplace 22:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree they should be heavy interrelated.Joshuajohanson 17:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Having lived with this article for a few days now, I'm again skeptical about its separate status. Besides the fact that the article is an unsourced/inconsistent/uninformative mess, redundancy problems are popping up. For example, I was going to add a paragraph about ex-gay/RT advertising practices and media responses to them (to broadcast or not to broadcast), but it's not clear which article this should go into. I'm back to leaning towards a heirarchical structure with a central article ("Reparative therapy and the ex-gay movement" or "Therapeutic and religious attempts to change sexual orientation" or whatever) and if/when the article gets too long restructure it with article spinoffs ("Reparative therapy and the ex-gay movement in the media", or whatever). Fireplace 19:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

See Reparative_therapy#Distinguishing_between_the_reparative_therapy_and_ex-gay_movements, which hopefully makes some inroads toward this goal. Fireplace 23:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Another update: I'm pretty sure all the sourced content from this article is in reparative therapy, along with a lot more ex-gay info not found here. And, I'm continuing to add ex-gay stuff over there regularly. I'm verging on officially proposing a re-merge, along with moving Reparative therapy to Reparative therapy and the ex-gay movement. Fireplace 00:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs a lot of work, but we just need to spend the time to clean it up. This article also needs to talk about the different ex-gay organizations. I think once everything is cleaned up and the gaps filled in, the difference between RT and ex-gay organizations will make sense. The RT article is already too long, and a lot of stuff in there is probably better suited to be over here anyhow. In my understanding, the reparative therapy article should focus on the theoretical background of reparative therapy, and the ex-gay article should spend more time on how ex-gays incorporate reparative therapy with other techniques (such as religion). Following that logic, advertisements would go under ex-gays, not reparative therapy.Joshuajohanson 01:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

To avoid redundancy (case in point), see here. Fireplace 02:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Transformational Ministries

I would still like an article on transformational ministries. These ministries are for a variety of people who want to diminish homosexual attractions and/or behavior. They include people who are married and have never been sexual with their own gender, people who are bisexual, people who have never identified themselves as gay, and people who were openly gay. From my experience (no I don't have any evidence) most people in these transformational ministries (including myself) would not fall in the category of ex-gay. PATH, a coalition of various transformational ministries is directed towards those with same-gender attractions, which would include "closeted" gays as well as bisexuals, which ex-gay doesn't cover. Maybe ex-gay should be a subsection under transformational ministries.Joshuajohanson 21:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Most people understand what is meant by "ex-gay ministries," and would use that name to describe PATH and similar such groups. "Transformational ministries" is less clear. The only difference between the classes of people you speak of and "ex-gays" is that the ones you're talking about never "identified as gay." Less than consistently, some people who never became "gay identified" nevertheless identify as "ex-gay." Given that the concepts, wording, terminology, etc. are exactly the same, I think it would be more appropriate simply to note in an ex-gay ministries article that some persons with homosexual orientations in these groups do not consider themselves "ex-gay" because they never "identified as gay" to begin with. (Note that trying to explain this in the context of a reparative therapy article would be almost nonsensical.)Person 1485 05:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

article title

It seems like it should be "Ex-gay movement". "Ex-gay" is just a label. Fireplace 00:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Fireplace. The article is talking about ex-gays, ex-gay organizations and many other aspects of the ex-gay movement. A name change would better reflect what is in the actual article.Joshuajohanson 01:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see a few sources about the so-called movement before anyone changes the title, if it's possible. Too many citation tags. I can see several individuals (ex-gays) and specific orgs claim change is possible, but I don't see proof of an organised big-scale movement just by reading the article. Raystorm 12:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Raystorm. There needs to be more evidence of some kind of organized movement for the article to be changed. For instance, one wouldn't change the AA article to anything like "The Sobriety Movement" or "The Ex-Alcoholic Movement" The analogy being only apt in that the respective organizations effort to treat a perceived problem. Only, the ex-gay groups seem to be places to hook up! lol. --David Shankbone 13:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Raystorm/DavidShankBone. (lol @ "Sobriety Movement") :P Mentality 16:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

hehe - and we all know how well The Sobriety Movement worked. PS- I wasn't advocating Ex-Gay groups as the best place to go to meet guys, though wounded, struggling butchies hold a special place in my heart. --David Shankbone 17:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

It is probable that many people would not recognize that someone is an "ex-gay" the way we would refer to someone as "ex-congressman" or "ex-lover", because many people do not feel that someone becomes not gay. They believe someone is either gay or not, just not practising. In that respect, perhaps the term should be in quotation marks wherever it appears.

PS even alcoholics don't consider themselves "ex-alcoholics", they just stop drinking.

69.181.188.254 04:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

This article was recently tagged as NPOV. Before I can start addressing the issues, I would like to know the reasons behind the tag, though I do have some guesses why it was marked as such. As to the definition of ex-gay, I changed it from the original definition because it was about the movement, not about ex-gays themselves. I tried to stay away from any reference to whether any real change has occurred at all, since that is up to debate. I will try to make that clearer, but would like to hear why the definition is dubious. As I mentioned above, I am not opposed to renaming the article to Ex-gay Movement or Ex-gay Organizations, but right now the article is Ex-gay.Joshuajohanson 20:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

POV tag was up for over a month. Removed in the absence of discussion. Joie de Vivre 17:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

List

The article now has a list of prominent ex-gays. Per the List guideline, what's the criteria for inclusion on the list? The list text also needs to be a bit de-POVd. eaolson 13:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say it should be self-identification as being ex-gay, plus notability by Wikipedia guidelines. Joie de Vivre 14:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the non-notable ex-gay people. There are plenty of people in Category:Ex-gay people to include here if someone wants to. Joie de Vivre 16:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Included all people from that category, with references. Joie de Vivre 19:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that the people who were removed are indeed notable within the ex-gay community. You study a book by Joe Dallas, you watch a tape with Mike Haley, and then you go to a conference with Sy Rogers. You really don't hear much about people like Kirk Talley. Also I noticed that the list is very American centric, where Sy Rogers and Frank Worthen have made more of an impact in other parts of the world.Joshuajohanson 05:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was more appropriate to include people that are notable by WP standards, which is backed by this guideline:

Notability (people) - Lists of people:

Several articles contain lists of people - for instance, an article on a college usually includes a list of alumni. Such lists are never intended to contain everyone (e.g. not all people who ever graduated from the school). Instead, the list should be limited to notable people: those that already have a Wikipedia article or could plausibly have one, per this guideline.

-- Joie de Vivre 05:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that these people could have a Wikipedia article, which would still count under this guideline. It just isn't on the top of my list of things to do, but I would eventually like to get around to it. However, both Colin Cook and Michael Bussee are mentioned in the relapsed section as well as Duff Wright and Zachary Stark in the Scandals involving minors section. I think to be NPOV we should either include everyone who is significant whether their page has been created in Wikipedia yet or not, or only include those who have a page created already.Joshuajohanson 18:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing "Courage International"?

A persuasive argument has been made at Talk:Courage International#Category: Ex-gay organizations? that Courage International does not qualify as an "ex-gay" group. If this is correct, then Courage International should be removed from the "Ex-gay organizations" category, and the references to it on the Ex-gay page should be removed or modified as appropriate.

Any objections? — Lawrence King ^(talk) 01:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Ex-gay

I think we need to have a discussion about what it means to be ex-gay. It is used in lots of different contexts throughout Wikipedia. I find it interesting that while it leads to heated debates on other places, we haven't talked about it here. I think before these other debates can continue, we need to iron out the definition of ex-gay here. Right now it is defined as "people who experienced sexual attraction to members of the same sex, who then worked to change their sexual orientation to heterosexual." Under that definition, I think most of the people in the ex-gay people category and the groups in the ex-gay organizations groups would disqualify. Any suggestions? Joshuajohanson 08:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Going by "ex" anythings I would think it would logically mean someone who was gay and now isn't. I'm not arguing whether that's possible, I'm just saying that would seem to be the logical meaning of the word. I think this would include someone who claims to have become heterosexual, but could also cover claims that they became asexual or possibly even "bisexual who avoids homosexual actions." This is just going by what the term would logically say to me. Personally I don't think it'd include someone who states they are still homosexually attracted, even exclusively so, but that they have decided to be chaste for religious or other reasons. I'm uncertain if it would count someone who states that they have "same-sex attractions", but that they no longer wish to be called "gay" or any other term relating to their sexual orientation. Such a person would be "a former member of the gay community", but whether that makes them ex-gay or not I don't know.--T. Anthony 09:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You make some valid points, but it seems that you start with the axiom that "gay" is a well-defined and well-understood term meaning "being of homosexual orientation". If that were never disputed, then "ex-gay" would logically mean "previously gay, but now not gay". However, the problem is that not everyone accepts the term to have that meaning.

For example, I know of some people who use the term "homosexual" to refer to those with homosexual orientation (even if that fact is unknown to themselves), and "gay" to refer to someone who is homosexual, aware of that fact, and sees this fact as a significant part of their self-identity. This isn't totally illogical. For example, with the rise of multi-racial identity, there are some who believe that one's race is partially determined by the race that one identifies with. (Thus, there might be two different Americans with 1/16 African ancestry, one of whom is "black" and the other of whom is "white.")

And still other people argue that there is no such thing as "orientation", in the sense that each human has some sexual orientation which they might not even be aware of.

I'm not arguing that either of these views is correct -- I'm just pointing out that defining "ex-gay" requires that we first define "gay"! — Lawrence King ^(talk) 09:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I think there are things where the definition is debatable, but you can still say whether someone says they are or aren't in/of it. Like being a Christian or dwarf. There are several denominations that state they are Christian, but others dispute that. Although the Little People of America have a definition for dwarfism in some respects it's arbitrary/fungible, they concede some dwarfs do not quite fit it, and it would count several people without any medical or genetic condition. (I relate to dwarfs more than the disabled, I'm 3 foot 6, but I don't know if I'd self-identity as a dwarf) However we do have List of former Christians and make mention of people like Adam Rainer who's status as a dwarf changed in early adulthood. By that I'd guess it'd mean someone who said they were gay, but now rejects that. That I guess would include the "I'm exclusively Same-Sex attracted, but I don't call myself gay anymore" people. (Which I guess would mean Courage International does fit as they discourage having a "gay identity")--T. Anthony 10:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. I think the important thing is that if a group is called "ex-gay", then it should fulfill the definition of "ex-gay" that appears at the top of the Ex-gay page. I don't really care whether that is accomplished by changing the definition or by recategorizing CI. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 20:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are the ways some prominent ex-gay organizations define their position:

Exodus International is "promoting the message of Freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ."[4]
Evergreen International "helps people who want to diminish same-sex attractions and overcome homosexual behavior."[5]
NARTH is "helping clients bring their desires and behaviors into harmony with their values"
Courage International has the goal to help members "live chaste lives in accordance with the Roman Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality."
PATH (a coalition of several ex-gay organizations) "help[s] people with unwanted same-sex attractions (SSA) realize their personal goals for change -- whether by developing their innate heterosexual potential or by embracing a lifestyle as a single, non-sexually active man or woman."[6]
JONAH focuses on “prevention, intervention, and healing of the underlying issues causing same-sex attractions”. [7]
PeopleCanChange offers "men who seek similar transformation a pathway of healing, by providing information, training, coaching and support." [8]

I don't think it is clear that any of them promote a change in sexual orientation. Anyway, these are ex-gay organizations, not ex-gays. Ex-gays are people. Do ex-gay organizations have ex-gays in them, since I guess they wouldn't be going to the group if they weren't gay anymore. Or are they only people who have "graduated"? What do the ex-gays say? Did any of them even go to ex-gay organizations? It seemed a lot of them started ex-gay organzanitions. How many of them claim to be ex-gay, or they mostly labeled as ex-gay? Do any of them claim to not have any homosexual attractions? Joshuajohanson 03:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You say these are "prominent ex-gay organizations". Do all of them refer to themselves by that term? If not, then perhaps we need to change the Ex-gay page to state that "The term 'ex-gay' is a term that some people use to describe certain groups and people, although not all of these people use these terms."

Or, worse, is "ex-gay" a label that these groups usually reject? Then we are on very sensitive ground. Wikipedia does not, for example, have a page listing "fundamentalist denominations" or "bigoted people" or "unpleasant music", so maybe there shouldn't be a list of "ex-gay organizations". Rather, there should be a list of "organizations that have been called 'ex-gay' by supporters and/or critics," and this page would need to cite sources proving that these groups have been labelled this way by their supporters and/or critics.

If "ex-gay" is often used as a pejorative label, used to describe groups that the speaker dislikes, then we really have to rewrite this page along the lines of pages like New antisemitism: the intro sentence should not say "Ex-gay is a sexual identity" but instead should use words such as "alleged", or "this is a label that some people use and others reject as meaningless", or something like that. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 06:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this conversation is somewhat misplaced. Earlier versions of the page lead with a discussion of the ex-gay movement, not a definition of what it means to be ex-gay. That method made more sense: there is no consistent definition of what it means to be ex-gay, but it is much easier to offer a broad characterization of the goals and values of the ex-gay movement. Fireplace 17:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Should we rename the page to Ex-gay movement? I have no problems either way, but right now this page is called ex-gay, so unless the page gets renamed, I think it is perfectly reasonable to discuss the definition of ex-gay. Even if it gets renamed, we still need to discuss what it means to either be ex-gay or to identify oneself as ex-gay. I have put up my understanding of what it means on this page, but it was marked as dubious and then taken down with no explanation. I am not saying I am right, I just want to hear why I am wrong. I don't think the current definition incorporates all of the different views taken by ex-gays (or people who self-identify or are identified as ex-gays).Joshuajohanson 18:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have put up my understanding of what it means on this page, but it was marked as dubious and then taken down with no explanation. Huh? You were the one who marked it as dubious, and each subsequent change was explained in the edit summaries. Fireplace 18:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well most often the ex-gays who do speak out describe themselves as "struggling" or in some other vague way. Consider recent "former homosexual" Charlene E. Cothran. She was interviewed on claycane.blogspot.com:

So, what about you now really makes you heterosexual?

Charlene: Nothing… My prayer was not fix me, repair me and make me straight—that was not my prayer. My prayer was God make me whole in every sense of the word….

Are you saying that you are not heterosexual?

Charlene: I am saying that I am celibate right now. I'm not saying there won't ever be a man in my life. You're asking me about where I am and that's all I can speak to. Today I am celibate… But… there is one thing I can say and one thing I will go on record and say—I will never be entangled with the bondage of lesbianism again…

Are you physically attracted to men?

Charlene: [Pauses.] I am physically attracted to the spirit of Christ right now…

Are you still attracted to women, or is that attraction completely gone?

Charlene: I would say after 29 years of walking in the sin of lesbianism that if the devil were going to try and tempt me that he's probably not going to send a football player, if you will, because that didn't do it for me. You follow me?

Yeah I follow you. You're still a big ol' lesbian.

Sorry that's just my commentary. But seriously, I've read quite a few of these testimonials. That's pretty much how they all sound. You'll be hard pressed to find one that will actually say "I was attracted to the same sex, but now I've changed and I'm attracted to the opposite sex".Rglong 06:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ex-gay identity

I really don't see any mentioning of encouraging people to adopt an ex-gay identity. The source cited as reference doesn't even contain the word ex-gay at all.Joshuajohanson 18:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What language in the article are you referring to? Fireplace 18:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

some ex-gay organizations focus on using religion to adopt an "ex-gay identity"Joshuajohanson 18:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the Peebles article would be a better ref there. Conceptualizing "ex-gay" as being a sexual identity is standard ex-gay speak though. Fireplace 18:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue really comes down to where is one's reference point concerning their identity and existence. And this would include one's sexuality as well. Is it ultimately imminent, as in one's thoughts, affections and behaviors; or is it transcendent, as in what one's God would define about oneself? I believe that this is why one, who says that a transcendent view would be absolutely unthinkable for any rational person to espouse, would say that ex-gays have a tendency to be dishonest, or at least really not at all ex-gay, as in the aforewritten case here. Ironically, we in mental health have learned that it is the transcendent view (the AA spiritual recovery program), not in the conventionally imminent view (such as in cognitive-behavioral therapy) that is the most successful approach and philosophy in giving the alcoholic hope and success of recovery over their addiction (i.e., in their use of the term "recovering" alcoholic, despite not thinking, feeling, or even having seen any self-comportment yet to the contrary). It is those who maintain this transcendent philosophy of the self-identity in their spiritual program that are much more likely to not only find sobriety, but even a significantly and positive altered state in their cognitions and affections regarding their past propensities, obsessions and compulsions towards alcohol. Why would this be any different for those who experience unwanted same sex attractions, especially given that scientific research (Bailey and Pillard, 2 monozygote studies from the 90's) reveal that same sex attractions are predominantly, if not exclusively, more environmental concerning their influential factors over alcoholism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrink0505 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Will oneself

I don't see any evidence that ex-gay groups encourage people to will oneself into being straight. For example, People Can Change has said "We certainly never consciously chose to be sexually attracted to men. Neither could we simple choose to change and be attracted to women instead. At best, willpower could only help us resist the urge to indulge whatever sexual desire we felt in the moment. It could not bring long-term healing."[9]Joshuajohanson 18:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What language in the article are you referring to? Fireplace 18:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"some ex-gay organizations focus on using religion to adopt an "ex-gay identity" to either eliminate same-sex desires or to will oneself not to act on them"

Willpower is listed by ex-gay groups specifically under things that do not work. "Neither could we simple choose to change." Also see the book by Dean Byrd (from NARTH) "Willpower is not enough"[10] What evidence is there that ex-gays are taught to will themselves into heterosexuality?Joshuajohanson 18:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. I've no objections to changing that word, so long as the broader point that choosing to abstain from gay sex for "ex-gay"-type reasons can itself count as making someone 'ex-gay'. Fireplace 18:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Lede and Overview sections

These are duplicative, certainly, and may be contradictory (I didn't check.) They should be compared and put into agreement. Joie de Vivre 03:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no need for two introductions. Fireplace 04:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Lede POV

Lede should indicate clearly something about the criticisms of or controversies about ex-gay motivations, tactics, genesis or ? As far as I've ever heard they are highly criticized and seem to organize to discredit pro-gay efforts. Not sure what of all that id resourced but the lede should at least hint that the entire movement is highly controversial and/or contentious. Benjiboi 16:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Rethinking ex-gay usage

While I agree with the title and the worthiness of this article, it may be improper to use "ex-gay" to describe many people who resist the word. PFOX seems to be the only notable encourager of the word. Would "former homosexual" be a reasonable alternative? --Ephilei 04:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that seems a lot more formal and suits an encylopedia better, especially as 'gay' has fallen out of style as a way to refer to someone who is homosexual. 144.96.18.206 09:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"'gay' has fallen out of style as a way to refer to someone who is homosexual." That's false.

Regarding the original suggestion, "ex-gay" remains the standard word choice, as far as I can tell, in news sources and academic publications. Fireplace 12:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, yeah, I actually know far more gays who would rather be called "gay" than the much more clinical-sounding "homosexual" (including myself). But either way, ex-gay is still used in the media all the time, and just make sure "former homosexual" redirects to this page.Rglong 06:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Norma McCorvey

Does Norma McCorvey identify as "ex-gay"? I know that the Roman Catholic Church officially says that homosexual acts are disordered, but not necessarily the orientation. Does the famous people section require people to self-identify as "ex-gay"? Leon 06:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

We really don't even have a definition for what ex-gay means. I know some people in the famous people section don't self-identify as ex-gay either. Of all the ex-gay organizations, only PFOX self-identifies as ex-gay. There isn't enough in the article to really tell if she is ex-gay. I think maybe she could be put in the ex-gay category, but I wouldn't talk about her in the article because it doesn't seem she has made a significant contribution to the ex-gay movement.Joshuajohanson 07:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Labeling

(moved from top of this page since it doesn't belong there) AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC) I formerly lived as a homosexual and would identify with "ex-gay" as it is the best known label. Why doesn't this article identify the term "ex-gay" as being used first and foremost by individuals such as myself in rightful self-description? To not do so and instead credit the term primarily to reparative therapy makes the choice not to live as a homosexual seem to be one imposed on the people who made it, and that is adopting a viewpoint - the gay viewpoint - on what "ex-gay" means. - Erika —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.24.146.86 (talk) 05:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Amoklauf in December 2007

On 12. December 2007 shooted Matthew Murray in New Life Church of Ted Haggard. He killed five people, bevor he died. ^[1] Einer Rundfunkanstalt zufolge war er bei einer Ex-Gay-Einrichtung in Therapie ^[2] Was Murray gay and a victim of an ex-gay group ? 212.95.99.96 (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I've heard rumors about this too but haven't followed up. If there are reliable sources linking him to ex-gay methods, it's appropriate to include. Fireplace (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Controversy Section

The controversy section mentions things that are not controversial at all, like Christopher Austin's case. That guy committed a crime, and sounds like an idiot, but is this something that is controversial? Inclusion of this among other "controversies" make this article appear to the reader as a propaganda piece against the so-called ex-gay movement. Furthermore the mentionings in the opposition segments of the article are in fuller detail with minor facts, seemingly written by people who don't believe in the ex-gay movement. I don't think I do either, but the POV of the article is obviously affected by the voice of the article. 75.217.60.119 (talk) 08:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Why Is Ted Haggard Mentioned Here??

I see Ted Haggard listed in the section entitled "Ex-Gay People." There is no citation, however, to suggest that Mr. Haggard has ever referred to himself as an ex-gay individual, or has publicly identified himself in any way with the community of people who assert that we have experienced freedom from homosexuality. Therefore, I would propose that he be removed from this section. Any thoughts from others?

SCBC (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It has been removed and added several times. I think it should be removed.Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a continuing edit-war. Do we have any source that says that Haggard is an example of an ex-gay? He certainly doesn't claim to have been once gay and then recovered. We appear to be doing original research here. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Haggard does fit the profile of typical "ex-gays": He admits to having struggled with same-sex attraction for years and his spokespeople say it is now behind him, due to religious counseling and/or pseudo-therapy. I'm not impressed that his spokespeople claim he was never gay to begin with. That isn't unusual in the "ex-gay" movement, the basic message of the "ex-gay" groups is that heterosexuality is "natural" and "normal" and homosexuality is a deviation that is caused by something like psychological trauma or bad parenting. Generally the idea is that nobody was ever gay, only sick, confused, tormented by the devil, etc. The rhetoric surrounding Haggard's magical "transformation" is indeed consistent with the broader "ex-gay" ideology.

Plus it was such a high profile case, to not mention him here would be ridiculous. I think it goes without saying the news surrounding him was popularly regarded as having to do with the "ex-gay" movement and politics. You can bet every blog watching the "ex-gay" agenda from either side of it reported on it and considered it big news.

And as you can see in the article, at least one prominent leader in the "ex-gay" movement doesn't like the word "ex-gay". But we still acknowledge that he's part of the larger movement.VatoFirme (talk) 16:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible source

Here is a link to a news-related story that some might find helpful with this article. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 06:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It's mostly about People Can Change. As the article states, many other ex-gay organizations, such as Exodus International, disagree with People Can Change, so I think the article would be better placed there. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a source for the article. If someone knows where to put it, then feel free. If no one has inserted it by tomorrow, I'll try to find a place. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an important point, and I think deserves its own section. It is already covered in depth on the conversion therapy page. However, when you insert it, I would appreciate it if you mostly took from the actual pamphlet, found here. I think the Washington Blade is a biased source because it is a gay magazine. I think most of what they said is right, but there are a few facts that aren't exactly right. It especially mixes up reparative therapy with ex-gay ministries by calling them ex-gay therapy. The Just the Facts pamphlet makes a distinction between the two, which is important to me. I think it is always better to have a first-hand source rather than a second hand source, and I will question anything written from the Washington Blade which contradicts what is in the APA pamphlet. I will also question anything that is about conversion therapy and not about ex-gays.Joshuajohanson (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggested split for people section (June 2008)

Tagged section with split proposal. This page needs alot of work, but a big step in the right direction might be splitting the people section into its own page (and also including non-gay/exgay people like Nicolosi who have played a notable part in the movement), maybe something like List of people involved in the ex-gay movement? There is so much content on this article that the references section has over 100 items (and properly cited, it would have much more)....... any thoughts? -- caveman80^{(my 2 cents)} 10:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, but there are several questions that should be answered before that officially happens. One problem that I see is that the word "involved" is too general. What does it mean to be involved? Joseph Nicolosi is definitely involved, but what about Robert Perloff who just gave a couple speeches at NARTH? Is Anne Heche involved because her mother talks about her at Love Won Out conferences? What about other people like David Benkof, Kirk Talley, and Ted Haggard who were never involved in the ex-gay movement, but their denunciation of a lifestyle of pursuing gay relationships despite same-sex attractions is similar to those involved in the ex-gay movement? What about people like Joseph Fielding Smith (presiding patriarch) who lived long before the ex-gay movement? Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to suggestions of a better word, but I think it fits the scope of the article best. In the examples you cited (and agreed, this article does have issues about some of the stuff included...)

Perloff: not familiar with him, but if he gave speeches at NARTH that would make him relevent at least as a brief mention maybe?
Anne Heche: Anne Heche is not involved in the movement so would not be relevent (unless she had made public statements to that effect). If her mother is speaking on her behalf at ex-gay movement events however, she (Heche's mother) might be relevent imho (if it meets notability criteria).
Benkof, Talley, Haggard: If they never were involved in the "ex-gay" movement they are not relevent to the article. (or at least belong in their own see also type section at the end of the article?? i dunno) This article is about the 1990s-to-present ex-gay movement, not every homosexual since the dawn of man that had a come to jesus moment and rediscovered boobies. Gay is a modern term and identity, so a person from before there was a "gay" identity couldn't be ex- "gay" identity since there wasn't a gay identity to begin with.

This article is about a specific movement & the people involved, not about all ex homosexuals throughout human history. my 2 cents. -- caveman80(my 2 cents) 23:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well what about Alan Chambers, who is definitely involved in the ex-gay movement, being the president of Exodus, but has denounced the usage of the term ex-gay? It seems as the definition of gay is changing, so is the definition of ex-gay. As noted in the article, PFOX is the only ex-gay organization that currently describes itself as ex-gay. How involved in the ex-gay movement do you have to be? Michael Glatze hasn't described himself as ex-gay, but his story appears on the NARTH web site. Is he "ex-gay"? What about someone involved in Courage? Is that ex-gay enough? BTW, ex-gay includes women, so isn't just homosexuals that "rediscovered boobies". Also, lots of ex-gays are celibate. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, Joshua... maybe something like List of people that no longer identify as gay or lesbian would be a solution, but then that leaves the question of where to put the ex-ex-gay names. The article length could benefit from splitting off this section, but "how" to split it off is a big question i guess. -- (edit) caveman80(my 2 cents) 00:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

problems with the article

The openning paragraph indicates that the is an obscure term "ex-gay" and not used by other than a handful of organizations. Then there is extensive info all about it, which suggests that the term is not obscure. So is it obscure and the article then should be shortened vigourously to show that, or is it a common idea and the article's openning parapgraph should be changed to reflect that. This is just from a reader of the article. --Fremte (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hostility towards Ex-Gays section

An anonymous editor added a section recently. It has an external link to NARTH's website regarding a billboard but not a third-party source.

The "Bart Allen" section links to an article from World Net Daily- http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=65112 - but in looking further it seems that the article does not agree with other sources on the case - http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/041005/dic_18439424.shtml gives the killer's name as "John Blain Williams", and other searches on this name give the victim's name as "Robert Allen Jr." http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/112502/met_077-3052.000.shtml rather than Bart Allen, but then the original article gives the father's name as Joe Allen. The other articles don't give details relating it to Allen Jr. being an ex-gay, but make it sound more like a domestic violence incident.--Larrybob (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

On further examination, there is also a sentence with an unsupported statement about the APA censoring ex-gay information. The paragraph about the billboard is a direct copy of the information from NARTH's webpage.--Larrybob (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Changes in view

I recalled this article discussing a variety of things some time ago, and having returned to view it, I find the near lack of some of the more disturbing mentions, such as suicide of minors, incredibly bias.

In fact, I have come to discover through browsing the other associated articles which include Conversion therapy and the various Ex-Gay organizations, that the only one which makes any mention of suicide, and in no specific fashion, is the aforementioned Conversion therapy.

I suspect a bias party has removed and shaped the article to present a far less traumatic view of the movement, and this is unacceptable given the information at the time was sourced and highly relevant to the article in regard to it's affect on those admitted. Revrant (talk) 07:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

not just a change from homosexual --> heterosexual.

I have expanded the lead paragraph a bit. Being an "ex-gay" doesn't just mean you have gone from gay --> straight, you can go from gay -->bi, gay --> no longer identifying with a sexual orientation.... etc. --cooljuno411 04:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that it's a good idea to change the definition of "ex-gay" without a proper source. Doing so may reflect original research. The article needs a definition of ex-gay that appears in a reliable source. Actually, the original definition of ex-gay seems to contradict your change ('When the term "ex-gay" was introduced to professional literature in 1980, Dr. E. Mansell Pattison defined it as someone who had "experienced a basic change in sexual orientation from exclusive homosexuality to exclusive heterosexuality"'), so I think there's a good case for changing the article back, unless there is evidence that current use of the term reflects the way you have defined it. Born Gay (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The definition of ex-gay in the lead paragraph seems a little strange to me, dealing as it does with identity notions. For example, there are people who are in same-sex relationships who might be superficially identified as gay or homosexual by other people but who do not identify as such themselves. For instance, Gore Vidal once identified as "gay" but now prefers to embrace polysexuality and reject all labels... according to the lead paragraph he would be considered "ex-gay"... clearly absurd. Technically speaking, the definition would also include all others who once self-identified as gay but modified their chosen identity to an alternative label despite the fact of continuing to live in or embrace the idea of same-sex relationships and/or desire. In my opinion, the definition should be more phenomenological if it is to accurately reflect the meaning it invokes in peoples' minds. For example, we could say that "ex-gay" involves the modification of the self-conception of an individual's sexuality such that they no longer conceive of themselves as engaging in same-sex sexual relationships or desires, either actively in the present or potentially (i.e. insofar as their attitude toward such desires would be favorable). That's rather abstract, but I'm sure someone could formulate something in a more user-friendly way. The current definition is just too ambiguous on account of the ambiguity of identity labels. Jonalexdeval (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether it's strange or whether it's not, it looks like original research to me, and probably needs changing back to what it was before. I asked Cooljuno411, the editor who added the current definition, to justify his edit some time ago, but he just ignored me. Born Gay (talk) 04:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Highly misleading information

I removed this highly misleading info [11]. The first two links are not a study which challenged anything but rather a book (i.e. non peer reviewed) published by a Christian publisher and a link to a NARTH 'conference'. The second two links are to a legitimate study published in by the APA but the claim is highly misleading. The views expressed are the views of the lead author which are mentioned in a APA press release and other places but clearly linked to the author and not the APA. The APA doesn't appear to have revised their statement. Whether the study has changed the view of the APA is unclear, probably not since the study is more about fluidity of the sexual identity of some females rather then the changing the a clearly established sexual identity. Nil Einne (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

User:Teledildonix314 recently added a statement that clinical psychologists regard conversion therapy as a pseudoscience to this article. While I strongly agree that conversion therapy is a pseudoscience, the addition isn't fully backed up by the source. Haldeman's article doesn't state that all, or even most, clinical psychologists believe that conversion therapy is a pseudoscience - it shows only that conversion therapy is a pseudoscience in his view. Unfortunately, it is likely that at least some clinical psychologists disagree with him. So while I appreciate the good intentions behind this edit, I am not sure that it was a helpful addition. Also, I would regard the whole issue of conversion therapy being pseudoscientific as perhaps off the point for this article. Born Gay (talk) 05:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The definition of pseudoscience = "a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status." From the reference Page 3, Column 2: "More comprehensive examination of conversion therapy studies have been published elsewhere. Those reviews show that no study claiming success for conversion therapy meets the research standards that would support such a claim." Hence, the name of the document, written by a clinical psychologist, is "The Pseudo-science of Sexual Orientation Conversion Therapy". I don't think it's off the point, i think it is THE point, and then the rest of the article is merely a lot of details and elaborations about who, where, why, when, and how much (damage) results from the attempts to apply a pseudoscience to real life. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 05:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, i think the only clinical psychologists who might disagree with Haldeman (the clinical psychologist who was author of that reference) would be those psychologists who work for an organization such as NARTH. I've done some searching online-- which i know is not a substitute for extensive research in libraries but at least it's a start-- and i can't find any psychologists who say anything disagreeing with Haldeman about the pseudoscience, except, as i said, those who are working for NARTH. I'm not arguing with you that none exist at all, but i think i will doubt their existence until i find proof. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 05:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid your reply doesn't really address my point. Haldeman's article just doesn't say that all, even most, clinical psychologists regard conversion therapy as pseudo-science. Also, please be aware that not all ex-gay groups try to change gay people through psychotherapy. They use a variety of methods (prayer, men's retreats, abstinence, and what have you) that are not recognised as therapy techniques or conducted by people with proper training in therapy. Born Gay (talk) 05:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm in general agreement. If there's an RS that calls it pseudoscience, cite that source and attribute that verbiage properly. Calling it an overall pseudoscience requires much better sourcing--and even then, it's more NPOV to note that the majority call it pseudoscience, and a vocal minority disagrees. Jclemens (talk) 06:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, i edited the sentence to attribute directly to Haldeman. I'm sorry to seem dense, i'm sure you're just trying to make this the best possible article, but i don't understand what is incorrect, inaccurate, or non-neutral about the sentence i added, with citation. Could i ask please if you might be able to write a new and better sentence instead of mine? ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 06:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this will help at all, but i arrived at my statement after reading these sorts of things: APA Resolution, text of APA resolution, Textbook of Homosexuality and Mental Health, April 2008 newsletter from AGLP, CSIP extract from Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy. These tell me that the pseudoscience of conversion therapy is viewed by the mainstream mental healthcare community as harmful, and they all point out that reparative therapy is based on cultural heteronormative conformity rather than any true scientific basis. So perhaps we could construct a sentence which summarizes all of this, and, as you said, indicates the viewpoints in terms of "reputable majority versus fringe minority" in order to be accurate and neutral. I didn't mean to cause a disturbance or create a mess, i thought i was doing the right thing by choosing the most concise wording possible. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 07:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The wording is better now, but this doesn't change the fact that it's not helpful or appropriate to comment on the question of conversion therapy being a pseudo-science in this article, since it isn't an article about conversion therapy. See Talk Archive 3, where the difference between the ex-gay movement and conversion therapy was discussed ad nauseam. If you think there are good grounds for labelling conversion therapy a pseudo-science, then the first thing you should have done was to add the pseudo-science category to the conversion therapy article (it has been added and removed many, many times, by the way, so I wouldn't recommend doing it, but that would still have been the appropriate course if you're sure that the consensus among the scientific community is that conversion therapy is a pseudo-science). Born Gay (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, now that you have changed the wording of this article, it would be appropriate to do that for the NARTH article as well. Born Gay (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Done, as you've suggested, thanks. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 05:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

My good grounds for mentioning Conversion Therapy is a Pseudoscience are based on the reference from Haldeman and The Policy Journal of the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies which is in accord with the APA as well as the other major American mental healthcare agencies. The only agencies which try to deny Reparative Therapy is a pseudoscience are those with a religious motivation (such as Donald Wildmon's organizations) or NARTH.

I include this mention, because i felt it would help readers to better understand: who are Ex-gays? what are Ex-gay organizations doing? what do healthcare experts say about Ex-gays in our Reliable Sources?

If you would like me to remove the sentence, i will be glad to comply, assuming the general consensus here indicates that the sentence does not achieve the goal of helping our readers to better understand questions on this topic, such as How do Ex-gay organizations operate tactically? do ex-gay organizations have scientific support, or are they merely discrimination dressed up as charlatanism? Haldeman answers this, by referring to the body of literature from the APA and similar experts during the past two decades. I want this article about Ex-gay topics to be informative, but i don't know what is the consensus for including the subtopic of Reparative Therapy being identified as a harmful pseudoscience, as meaningless and meanspirited and nonsensical as Medieval attempts to stigmatize all Left-Handed people as sinister and gauche. Perhaps more sources would help? Or perhaps i should just remove the sentence if most editors do not think it improves the Ex-gay article? I defer to the judgment of experts, as i am only a layperson. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 05:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

My view of this issue is that there should be proof that mainstream mental health organizations specifically state that conversion therapy is a pseudo-science before it is labelled as such. These organisations definitely are very critical of conversion therapy, in many ways, but as far as I know it isn't true that there is general agreement that it should be called a pseudo-science. Use your own judgment in deciding whether to keep the sentence or not - I don't pretend to be an expert. My own view is that it's off topic for an article that isn't primarily about conversion therapy (it really doesn't say anything about 'How do Ex-gay organizations operate tactically? do ex-gay organizations have scientific support, or are they merely discrimination dressed up as charlatanism?', etc). Born Gay (talk) 01:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

the See Also section - possible addition?

American Family Association v. City and County of San Francisco seems directly applicable, but i don't know how to include it in a sentence which gives it due weight, so i wondered whether it would be more appropriate as merely a "See Also" mentioned at the bottom of the article? Is that an inclusion which helps the readers to understand the topic of Ex-gays from a standpoint of established legal precedents in America's most populous state? Are there other similar situations in courts and legislatures during recent years, and how would i find out how they compare to the legal precedents in other countries where Ex-gays are a topic of discussion? I'm not very familiar with the inclusion criteria for "See Also" sections, maybe some experienced editors can guide us? ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 16:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It should be fine as a See Other. Born Gay (talk) 01:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for validating. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 05:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Original Research/POV problems

In the section on the ex-gay movement and conversion therapy, there is this: 'Despite a popular perception that the established medical and scientific consensus is that conversion therapy is potentially harmful, the American Psychiatric Association stated in 2000 that "there are no scientifically rigorous outcome studies to determine either the actual efficacy or harm of reparative treatments."' Everything before the comma in that sentence looks like original research, and it should be removed (it is highly POV also). I'd like to say also that most of the criticism of conversion therapy here is off-topic; this isn't the right article for it. Obviously it's right and good to have criticism of conversion therapy on Wikipedia, but it should go in the right article. Born Gay (talk) 01:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It's been my perception as well that any Wikipedia article dealing with such topics tends to attract a variety of generally uncoordinated and low quality coatracks about APA positions on homosexuality. I'd be highly in favor of centralizing such into a single, well-sourced, YESPOV article, and referencing that article from the variety of such articles that touch tangentially on such topics. Jclemens (talk) 02:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK is a policy more generally applicable to WP:BLP, but i see your basic point about possible WP:UNDUE. However, i do not see the above sentence ("everything before the comma": 'Despite a popular perception that the established...') as being Original Research. That's because it is clearly described by Haldeman [12] with the same characterizations and same kind of summary. Also, since Reparative Therapy is a fringe position held by religious people despite the scientific consensus against it, we should give it due weight as a fringe position, and give much more serious weight to the non-fringe position, which is the position most concisely described by the APA in accord with other healthcare agencies (pediatricians, social workers, family counsellors, policy makers, educators, et al). Thus we present our readers with the Ex-gay topic as it should be described according to our most Reliable sources: a fringe fantasist anti-humanist effort to insist upon discrimination and scapegoating despite all scientific consensus telling us it is harmful and telling us reputable doctors and scientists advocate proceeding contrary to the wishes of the Ex-gay movement's advocates. We achieve neutrality by wording our description of the Ex-gay topic such that science and evidence-based Verifiable info from Reliable Sources is prominent, while fantasy-based superstition and supernaturalism are properly portrayed as fringe nonsense (albeit popular nonsense among religious homophobic communities).

At the moment, this Ex-gay article focusses mostly on listing Who is involved, but does not offer our readers much information about Why it's a harmful crackpot pseudoscience. At the moment, this article does not offer much to entice our readers to learn more about How does the Ex-gay movement operate, What are the aims of the Ex-gay fringe, Where and When does religiosity become identified as the foundation for the existence of an Ex-gay movement, and How does an Ex-gay movement harm the wellbeing of gay communities and gay individuals and families with gay members. There is a great focus on churches' and NARTH's fantasy-based homophobia, but very little Due Weight being given to the reality-based observations of reputable doctors, psychiatrists, sex counsellors, and so forth. I was hoping we could improve the situation by simply naming the basic elements which lead our readers to more information; i.e., pseudoscience, religiosity, heteronormative conformity, thoughtless adherence to tradition at the expense of human dignity, and all the other things we find in our Sources. Perhaps an expert could phrase these ideas better than i have, i am only a layman, i am only a homosexual, i do not have scholarly expertise on the Ex-gay topic. If anybody has some textbooks or other core curricula materials from (higher education?) classes about Queer studies, political science, sociology of religious conformity, and other relevant areas, it would be great to add some more reputable references to this article. Then instead of my speculations, perhaps a wealth of useful information could be given to our readers. Thank you for thinking about these topics, i appreciate working on educational projects with such well-spoken editors such as all of you. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 05:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I have read Haldeman's article again, and I'm just not sure which part of it backs up the statement that appears in the article. I'm not saying it isn't there - I might have missed something - but where specifically does he say this? I looked at the American Psychiatric Association's position statement, and as far as I can see it doesn't say anything about what the popular perception is. So this still looks like original research to me - one of several examples of it in this article. As for the ex-gay movement being pseudo-science, as you suggest, I don't see how this is true. It would be true if the ex-gay movement presented itself as being a science, but it doesn't - it's a religious movement. The concept of pseudo-science doesn't seem applicable to me.Born Gay (talk) 01:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

inexperienced editor seeking help with redundant cite in the footnotes

In the article i have used the same ref twice [13] but i am sorry to say i have not mastered the wiki-markup for pointing multiple footnotes to the same item. I've been reading the examples of how to template with ref_A ref_B ref_C etc, but each time i try to mimic the ref examples, i fail with horrible ugly red ERROR messages in the text. Very sorry to ask such a newbie question, but is there a simple way to fix this? If somebody shows me how to do it here, i will remember, and promise not to ask again. Thank you for any help. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 05:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

text<ref name=foo>citation details go here</ref> more text more text more text for second cite...<ref name=foo /> Note the slightly different syntax the second time around. Jclemens (talk) 05:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and don't apologize for asking questions on how to do things better. We all started somewhere! Jclemens (talk) 05:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. I'm embarassed to now say that i tried imitating your example text<ref name=foo>citation details go here</ref> more text more text more text for second cite...<ref name=foo /> but i'm still getting an ugly error. I think my eyeballs and braincells are too messed up right now, i will read the template helppages again and try to come back to fix it. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 05:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Odds are there's some part of a citation template you're not using right, or you've forgotten a critical character--the closing > }} or a | are the most likely culprits. Jclemens (talk) 05:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggested Changes

The first sentence of the article reads, 'Ex-gay is a term and concept mainly used in the United States of America to describe persons who once identified as gay or lesbian (or any orientation other than heterosexual), but have since chosen to identify as heterosexual, or some other sexual orientation.' The 'some other sexual orientation' part should be removed as original research, unless a source can be found that defines ex-gay that way.

The sentence, 'Other than Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays, organizations that practice ex-gay initiatives do not label themselves as such, but rather label themselves as restorative psychology groups' should be removed, since it is unsourced, and also possibly original research.

The sentence, 'Despite a popular perception within the established medical and scientific consensus that conversion therapy is potentially harmful, the American Psychiatric Association stated in 2000 that "there are no scientifically rigorous outcome studies to determine either the actual efficacy or harm of reparative treatments"', is very strangely worded, and despite Teledildonix314's comments, I still think that it is partly original research. Everything from 'despite' to 'harmful' should be removed. The next sentence, 'The APA issued a statement stating "some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person’s lifetime"' should also go, since it has no direct connection with this article's subject, and in my view the fact it mentions is being effectively misrepresented here. If you look at the source from the APA, it's clear that it's saying that people become aware at different times in their lives of what their sexual orientation is - not that change occurs in their underlying sexual orientation.

The sentence after that, 'In the United States, the American Psychiatric Association issued a statement in 2006, backed by numerous other mainstream medical organizations, which stated: "There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed', isn't a problem in itself, but it should also be removed or have citiation needed place after it, since it is sourced to a dead link.

The sentence, 'Proponents of conversion therapy argue that it is possible for a person's sexual orientation to be changed,[11] and cite research in support of that contention.[12][13][14]' is seriously problematic, and seems to be another case of a statement based on a misrepresented source, in this case a New York Times article. Actually, the article says that some proponents of conversion therapy, not all of them as the article seems to imply, think that sexual orientation can be completely changed. It does not identify which groups or individuals these are, and it's an unhelpful and vague source. This sentence needs to be written, but I'm not sure how exactly it should be changed. Born Gay (talk) 04:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ex-gay book

i think someone should put something up here bout the new book that out recently on this topic. I think its a research into exodus participants or something like that. its called ex-gay? then somehting . Eleutherius (talk) 22:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe the book you are referring to is Ex-Gays?, by Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse. It would be a good addition here. The content I suggest you add is this:

Focus on the Family, which advocates conversion therapy, points to Ex-Gays? A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation, a book published by researchers Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse.^[3] The American Psychological Association has refused to comment on the study.^[4] Born Gay (talk) 03:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Done with minor additions. Good stuff Born Gay. Is there a reason why you didnt put it up yourself?Eleutherius (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I am more interested in working on other articles, especially the conversion therapy article. Editing that article is a very complicated, difficult, and not altogether pleasant task. I'm in the process of considering what changes need to be made there, and that limits both my ability and my willingess to work on other things. Born Gay (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Ex-pedophiles

It appears that many programs and policies of the ex-gay movement are based on similar work done by psychiatrists that have been trying to re-orientate convicted pedophiles from the deviant sexual behavior. It would be interesting if relevant information on this could be added in the article. ADM (talk) 12:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen any suggestion of this before. If this is correct, it should be added, but it needs a source. Born Gay (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Definition of ex-gay

As a result of recent edits by User: Joshuajohanson, the article now states that, "Ex-gay is a term and concept used to describe persons who once identified as gay or lesbian (or any identity other than heterosexual), but have since chosen to drop the gay identity." That definition makes no sense whatsoever, and appears to be self-contradictory. If some of the persons who are now ex-gay once identified as having some "identity other than heterosexual" that was not gay, then they never had a gay identity, which means that one cannot say that they dropped the gay identity. I'm not sure what should replace that muddled definition of ex-gay, but it does need to be changed, because it's really total nonsense. Born Gay (talk) 04:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it something that is hard to define. Do you like the new definition better? It was better than the old one that was so vague that it could include someone going from bisexual to homosexual. Joshuajohanson (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It is better to have a definition that is not self-contradictory and incoherent, yes. It would be best of all to use a definition from a reliable source. Born Gay (talk) 04:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Definition of Change

is just a collection of bible quotes rather than an encyclopedia-worthy definition... Greldon (talk) 12:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

There's not a single Bible quote there. If you'd like to write a better definition, feel free to do so using reliable sources. I've reverted the POV tag--if you readd, please give an actionable explanation of what is actually wrong and how it can be fixed. If there's just one section at issue, please use {{POV-section}}. Jclemens (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a movement

This is not a movement. It's a group of a few thousand psychopaths who hate themselves. Just because they are choosing to be miserable for the rest of their lives doesn't make them "ex-gay". I have a problem with the first paragraph that says it's a "movement". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amn12 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Cannot "reduce" sexual orientation

In the intro paragraph, it states that certain organizations "support people in reducing their ego-dystonic sexual orientation..." You cannot reduce sexual orientation. If someone is experiencing ego-dystonia over their sexual orientation, you can either help them accept their orientation and thereby reduce the distress they experience over it, or you can attempt to change their orientation so that they no longer experience distress. To describe it this way would be similar to saying you were trying to "reduce" left-handedness or skin color. Viciouslies (talk) 05:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Kinsey portrayed sexual orientation as a spectrum. Moving to one end of the spectrum or the other would be "reducing" one's orientation towards the other end of the spectrum. I'm afraid you've made a POV edit and one that runs afoul of WP:AVOID. Jclemens (talk) 06:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

What you're suggesting is not what's written. If I'm understanding you, what you're suggesting is that people attempt to reduce their homosexual attraction. What's written is "reducing their ego-dystonic sexual orientation" which is incorrect and non-sensical. You cannot "reduce" sexual orientation. Since you do not appear to like my version, I'll give you a day to change it to something you prefer which also makes sense. Otherwise, I'm re-instating that edit.

Secondly, "ex-gay" is widely accepted as a controversial term, so labeling it as such doesn't run afoul of WP:AVOID. I will find citations supporting this before re-inserting, and am also open to alternate constructions or otherwise indicating that the term is contentious and highly objectionable to many. Viciouslies (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not particularly fond of that wording either. "Reduce same-sex attraction" would seem to be a much similar way of putting it, in my mind. As far as controvery, I'd favor actually describing the controversy (e.g., "the concept is challenged by groups Z, Y, and X...") to simply calling it controversial--merely adding the word doesn't add much. Jclemens (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I see why this could be a problem but changed "reduced" anyway. In the very same paragraph it gives the APA statement about it not being possible to change sexual orientation through therapy since sexual orientation in itself is not a disorder. The "change" here is about the patient's psychological issues, not his sexual issues. Furthermore "reducing" does not mean "eliminate" and whether the therapy works or not that IS the goal of it. Besides reduction is a type of change as a plain fact, regardless of the statement not being contra positive. 75.217.60.119 (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)