Misplaced Pages

Talk:Ex-gay movement: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 00:32, 21 August 2015 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,294,450 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Ex-gay movement/Archive 6) (bot← Previous edit Latest revision as of 07:38, 26 November 2024 edit undoDarknessGoth777 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,979 editsNo edit summary 
(47 intermediate revisions by 21 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{copied
{{Copied multi|list=
|from1 = OneByOne
* {{Copied multi/Copied|from=OneByOne|from_oldid=573311943|to=Ex-gay movement|to_diff=573324254|to_oldid=569004657|afd=OneByOne}}
|from_oldid1 = 573311943
|to1 = Ex-gay movement
|to_diff1 = 573324254
|to_oldid1 = 569004657
|afd1 = OneByOne
}} }}


Line 12: Line 17:
|archive = Talk:Ex-gay movement/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Ex-gay movement/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=2 |units=months }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject LGBT studies | class=B |importance= }} {{WikiProject LGBT studies }}
{{WikiProject Sexuality|class=B|importance=mid}} {{WikiProject Sexology and sexuality|importance=mid}}
{{WP Discrimination}}
{{WikiProject Christianity|class=B|catholicism=yes|catholicism-importance=Low|latter-day-saint-movement=yes|latter-day-saint-movement-importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=low|catholicism=yes|catholicism-importance=Low|latter-day-saint-movement=yes|latter-day-saint-movement-importance=low}}
}} }}
{{findsourcesnotice|ex-gay}}


== OneByOne == == Recent addition ==


Darwin Naz recently made a large to the article. I accept that the addition was made in good faith and indeed much of it looks helpful. Unfortunately, the addition was in some ways misleading. It also involves an improper synthesis of sources, as described at ]. The first part of the addition lists the main goals of the ex-gay movement, including "coordination with individuals and organizations, particularly opponents of gay and lesbian civil equality to influence public perception and public policy" among other things. It is cited to ''Ex-Gay Research'', a scholarly book edited by Jack Drescher and Kenneth Zucker. The second part states that "These goals rest in the claim that sexual orientation is a choice and that change for homosexuals is possible through therapy and prayer", and it is cited to an article in '']'', a non-scholarly popular magazine. The content cited to ''The Atlantic'' is misleading, since it is not in fact true that supporters of the ex-gay movement all view sexual orientation as a choice, and nor is it supported by the source provided. The material makes it look as though the popular ''Atlantic'' article discusses the goals of the ex-gay movement as described in the scholarly book ''Ex-Gay Research'' and shows that they "rest in the claim that sexual orientation is a choice", which is not the case. What the ''Atlantic'' article actually states about "choice" is that, "Ex-gay leaders traveled to churches and appeared on television news programs citing a litany of examples of happily married “former homosexuals” to demonstrate that sexual orientation is a choice and that change is possible." That statement does not support the claim that the goals of ex-gay movement as described in ''Ex-Gay Research'' "rest in the claim that sexual orientation is a choice and that change for homosexuals is possible through therapy and prayer". ] (]) 00:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
The merging-as-a-result-of-AfD has dumped a whole lot of detail about OneByOne into this article. That group does not seem to have been a significant player in the field, and does not merit this depth of coverage, under ]. Can we come to consensus that most of it can be stripped out? --] (]) 16:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
:I rather think so. The whole reason the group wasn't able to sustain an article was because they're completely non-notable; it's obvious that the weight given to their self-published claims is vastly undue. –] (] &sdot; ]) 17:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
:I merged any relevant information in, and I have no opinion as to how much or little is appropriate. My goal was solely to move the information per the AfD result. ] (]) 17:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
:I see no harm in including it in the "other ex-gay organizations", as Roscelese revised it, but the organization does not merit anything beyond that. ] &#124; ] &#124; ] 17:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I encourage those who are undeleting material to join in this discussion. Material introduced by merge does not automatically protect it form consensus editing, and currently there are more editors who have indicated that this material should be deleted than there were who !voted in the AfD for merging. --] (]) 22:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
:Having just reverted back to Roscelese's version, I would like to weigh in. The OneByOne article was deleted because it was not notable. ] it on to a different article does not change the fact that it is not notable. Giving a not notable organization three paragraphs while the notable organization that started the ex-gay movement gets only one paragraph is giving it ]. If we allow the three paragraphs to stand -- or even just give it a single paragraph all its own -- we open the doors for proponents of every other non-notable self-described ex-gay ministry to add their own paragraph. I believe that we should stay focused on the movement itself and not irrelevant components: let it be mentioned in the "other groups" paragraph, and leave it at that. If other such groups start clamoring for a mention, we can select only those that are notable enough to have Wiki articles and exclude OneByOne and other non-notable organizations from that paragraph. ] &#124; ] &#124; ] 23:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
::While ] is not a guideline for inclusion of material in an article, I think ] very much applies. Inclusion of extensive material about a group that shows no sign of having significant impact on the subject would seem at odds with that guideline. --] (]) 23:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
:::Notability doesn't limit content within articlees ''per se'', but the same guidelines that help us determine notability also help us determine due weight. –] (] &sdot; ]) 23:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
In addition to the claim of consensus even in the AfD being dubious, it was based on false information. An editor claimed that that article had spun out of this one. That article was started in March of 2007. For all of that month, this article . Before being switched to a redirect, this article . -] (]) 02:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
:1) If this was NOT one of the organizations spun out of this article in the past, I apologize for so mishcharacterizing it. Still, that does not override AfD consensus, as determined by an impartial administrator, which was to merge the content. If you want to argue that, you can talk to the closing admin or go to DRV. Likewise, characterizing the AfD outcome as deleting the content for lack of notability is an inaccurate characterization: the outcome was 'merge' not 'delete', and anything which has the de facto effect of deleting the to-be-merged material without an appropriate discussion is disruptive editing.
:2) The deletion is only one way to meet ], and of the possible ways, the most disruptive to our consensus process. The two alternatives would have been to a) add more sourced content about other Ex-gay movement organizations, or b) do an ''appropriate'' trim job, rather than a reduction from multiple paragraphs to one sentence. There's no hard and fast rule on that, but I'd say anything more than a 50% reduction would require a consensus discussion.
:3) The big deal here was Roscelese's misconduct in both voting to delete the material, and then deleting it himself in defiance of the AfD outcome, which I notified him about . I wouldn't normally feel compelled to bring this up, but that editor has chosen to both delete the warning from his talk page and participate in the discussion above without disclosing his misconduct. ] (]) 01:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
::The content was merged, and now it is subject to consensus editing just like any other content in the article. You appear to be the only editor who objects to trimming it. –] (] &sdot; ]) 01:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
:::Please retract your ]. At least one IP editor has disputed the trimming , and for you to insinuate that I am ] is entirely inappropriate. ] (]) 01:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
::::They can join the discussion like anyone else. I don't consider a drive-by edit while there's a discussion going on to be a participating editor. Calm down and stick to the subject. –] (] &sdot; ]) 01:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
{{outdent}}
Regardless of what happened in the AfD, we have to ask whether there is consensus among editors at this article to include that content. It doesn't appear that any such consensus exists (I agree with the other editors who have removed the material). NB Jclemens, Roscelese is a her, not a him. ] (]) 02:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
::Responding to Jclemens's numbered items:
::# ]. We are having a discussion here, and with four of the five participating editors in this discussion calling for removal of the material, it's pretty clear how this consensus is going.
::# ] in no way applies to this material, as that guideline is discussing inclusion of minority viewpoints. OneByOne is not a viewpoint, and the viewpoint that they espouse seems to be basically the one covered in the article.
::# Discussion of another user's handling of his talk page is not appropriate to this talk page. --] (]) 02:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
:::::It took Roscelese (split, not hung) all of 12 minutes to do her ''de facto'' deletion of the OneByOne material after Thargor merged it here, per AfD. Why waste everybody's time discussing it? Right, Roscelese? Just delete it if you don't like it. Sort of reminds me of her unilateral deletion of ] back on 23 July. Her behavior in both cases is misconduct of a high-handed sort. I am not Jclemens, and I agree with everything he has said here (he knows more about it than you do). --] (]) 05:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC) (Please feel free to call me Mr. IP—I'm hung, not split.)
::::::Oh, it's just my latest harasser again. That makes things so much more clear. Hi there! –] (] &sdot; ]) 05:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


== Potential addition to "People who no longer support the ex-gay movement" ==
{{od}}
As the closing admin, I was asked if I wanted to comment. There's nothing within the ] that says everything has to be kept. Moving it all over first and then agreeing the right amount for the receiving article seems the most sensible way to approach this.
Someone above commented that as part of the AfD there was comment that OneByOne had come out of this and should go back. Whether that was true or not was not relevant to my decision; there's no reason that a merge should only come from a split, so that is neither here nor there.
If you want my personal view, a quick line or mention, such as it it as the moment seems reasonable, but I'm not an expert on the subject, just a casual reader. ]] 12:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


] is perhaps one of the first psychologists who practiced conversion therapy, and disavowed it in the early 1970's. He was also the President of the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies in the 1970's. There isn't much on his wikipedia page regarding this, however this feautures a lot of quotes from an interview he did. I'm sure there is a better secondary source covering his shift elsewhere, in a book or a journal. At the time they didn't technically call it "ex-gay", but should he be included? He also later supported removing homosexuality from the DSM. --] (]) 10:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
== Added paragraph ==
== "Transformational ministry" listed at ] ==
]
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ]. The discussion will occur at ] until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] <sub> ]</sub> 23:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


== Milo Yiannapolos ==
Recently, a user added the following paragraph:


I think we should add Milo since he’s now ex gay ] (]) 12:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ex-gay_movement&diff=prev&oldid=608750153
:Merely identifying as "ex-gay" does not make one part of the movement; the people here encouraged folks to dehomosexualize themselves and/or offered training or counseling to do so. --] (]) 12:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)


== Ex-gays without conversion therapy ==
:''The '''ex-gay movement''' is dead. Every major national and international ex-gay ministry with 4 decades of experience has shut down or become gay-affirming. The claim that a person chooses his sexual orientation is disputed by science, medical associations and even the major ex-gay leaders in the final years of the ex-gay movement. "99.9%" of Christians seeking sexual orientation did not experience a change from homosexual to heterosexual" explained Alan Chambers, long-time president of the only worldwide ex-gay ministry, Exodus International, in January, 2012 at the Gay Christian Network conference (search "Exodus admits gays can't change). John Smid, long-time executive director of the original ex-gay ministry founded in 1973, Love in Action, confirmed this, stating on his blog, "I have never met a man who changed from homosexual to heterosexual." Both Chambers and Smid include themselves in this assessment though Chambers chose to stay wed to a woman while Smid has ended his marriage and moved in with a man. Love in Action and Exodus International no longer exist. Other ex-gay ministries have shut down since 2012, most notably Evergreen International, which was the largest and oldest Mormon-affiliated ex-gay ministry. Evergreen and Love in Action each gave their membership lists to new, small organizations hoping to restart the ex-gay ministries using the same claims and techniques that had been used in the past.''


{{ping|ServB1}} You have repeatedly tried to insert this text:
This was quickly reverted as unsourced. I'd like to know if there is any baby in this bathwater (if there is any information worth salvaging here.
:''There are also believers gathered in Christian organizations, such as ''Your Other Brothers'' or ''Voice of the Voiceless'', who claim they have not been attracted to homosexuality since their ], without having recourse to a ]. They insist on the importance of welcoming and loving homosexuals, but believe that sexuality should be reserved for heterosexual marriage.''
using and However, these sources do not actually support the statements that you make. The "Your Other Brothers" articles describe their writers not as being people who have not been attracted to homosexuality, but as "Christian men who experience same-sex attractions" -- no past tense there, nor any mention with regard to whether they've attempted conversion therapy. The Voiceless piece sites he president of the organization as claiming not to have undergone conversion therapy (as well as a couple other people who were not identified as members of the organization) but specifies that the organization has supported conversion therapy. It makes no statement about a stance regarding sex only being within marriage, nor on the importance of welcoming homosexuals. It makes no statement that the one identified member has not been attracted to homosexuality, much less that that is a defining aspect of the membership. There may be things to be said about these two groups, but not this text with these sources. As such, I am removing it (again). --] (]) 00:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
:{{ping|ServB1}} And now you've reworked it and gotten rid of the "Your Other Brothers" material and included "Freedom March", which is the name of both an organization and of events they help organize (but are not sole backers of.) However, the NBC article mentions only the event, not the organizing group, which should not be assumed to include the same people. Neither source discusses them having "new birth" or being "born again" (which is not neutral-point-of-view language anyway.) The new text continues the claim about conversion therapy, when we still only have one person claiming that from Voiceless and the March group claiming only that most of them have not been through such therapy, not that it's a defining characteristic. As such, I am removing it (again). I suggest you discuss what you want to insert and find consensus for it before retrying. --] (]) 03:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)


::Hello {{user|NatGertler}}. Thank you for the comments. This contribution aims to highlight the fact that ex-gay Christians have not had recourse to conversion therapy. The new version talks about two things:
Here are each of the assertions:
1 :
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/pulse-survivor-others-gather-celebrate-freedom-being-gay-n871651


{{cquote|Ruiz, who said he no longer identifies as gay and denied going to conversion therapy, promoted his decision to attend the event on Facebook. }}
* The '''ex-gay movement''' is dead.
* Every major national and international ex-gay ministry with 4 decades of experience has shut down or become gay-affirming.
* The claim that a person chooses his sexual orientation is disputed by science, medical associations and even the major ex-gay leaders in the final years of the ex-gay movement.
* "99.9%" of Christians seeking sexual orientation did not experience a change from homosexual to heterosexual" explained Alan Chambers, long-time president of the only worldwide ex-gay ministry, Exodus International, in January, 2012 at the Gay Christian Network conference (search "Exodus admits gays can't change).
* John Smid, long-time executive director of the original ex-gay ministry founded in 1973, Love in Action, confirmed this, stating on his blog, "I have never met a man who changed from homosexual to heterosexual."
* Both Chambers and Smid include themselves in this assessment though Chambers chose to stay wed to a woman while Smid has ended his marriage and moved in with a man.
* Love in Action and Exodus International no longer exist.
* Other ex-gay ministries have shut down since 2012, most notably Evergreen International, which was the largest and oldest Mormon-affiliated ex-gay ministry.
* Evergreen and Love in Action each gave their membership lists to new, small organizations hoping to restart the ex-gay ministries using the same claims and techniques that had been used in the past.


{{cquote|Daren Mehl, president of Voice of the Voiceless, said he did not seek conversion therapy in his personal journey from homosexuality to heterosexuality. He said the decision was “not forced but a choice.” }}
I would like to invite the editors to verify and source these assertions and add them to the article if appropriate. ] (]) 14:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


https://www.christianpost.com/news/ex-lgbt-men-women-to-share-stories-of-transformation-at-2nd-freedom-march-in-washington-dc.html
== Ex-ex-gay merge proposal. ==


{{cquote|The whole notion of "conversion therapy" is misleading, Byrd told CP, "because the majority of us has never experienced conversion therapy; our experiences were encounters with the Holy Spirit that changed our lives." }}
So It seems like there was support over there to merge. What does everyone here think?] (]) 07:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


2 :
:I think it is its own movement, certainly a person who has left that movement is not still part of the movement. Indeed these "ex-ex-gays" often speak out against the ex-gay movement. ] (]) 16:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/pulse-survivor-others-gather-celebrate-freedom-being-gay-n871651
::But that doesn't mean that it isn't most efficiently covered within this article, as a reaction to this movement. It doesn't exist separate from this, and neither article is long enough that it requires full article space to itself. --] (]) 17:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


{{cquote|“I don’t want to tell everyone it’s a ‘gay-to-straight’ thing because God is not calling me to that," Ruiz told NBC News. "I feel that I want to live in a life of purity. I feel that through loving Christ, he will walk me out of any situation. I love the LGBTQ community, I love my family. There’s no hate here, there’s love.” }}
== Scientific consensus on conversion therapy ==
] is a ] trying to insert into the body of the article. The direct citations within this section are
#
#
The subarticle tied to this part of the lede is ]


{{cquote|Fredi and Paul Cleveland, pastors of Koinonia Congregation in Washington, came to the event to support those who had left their gay and transgender identities behind and also to support the message of love. }}
Right now every citation supports that there is "A large body of research and global scientific consensus indicates that being gay, lesbian, or bisexual is compatible with normal mental health and social adjustment" rather than "there is an ongoing research effort that tries to show that being gay, lesbian, or bisexual is compatible..."


https://www.christianpost.com/news/ex-lgbt-men-women-to-share-stories-of-transformation-at-2nd-freedom-march-in-washington-dc.html
As per ] that we must accurately reflect the ], the proposed change introduces an ] when there isn't any doubt in the citations or scientific community. The idea that homosexuality is somehow not normal mental health has been a ] since the 1970's. I have therefore reverted the change.] (]) 15:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I have also removed the "citation needed" label that they added to the lede in accordance to ]. The section that ] is asking for citations accurately reflects well referenced claims within the body of the article so no additional citations in the lede are necessary according to wikipedia's lede policies.] (]) 18:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


{{cquote|Through the Freedom Marches, we want to spread messages of love and acceptance for people who have shed their LGBTQ identity and show others that we do exist. }}
:In reference to the requesting citation - yes, they are included later in the article, which is the wrong place for them. The first instance they are used, especially here where it is a bold claim, is where they should be cited. I'm not doubting the validity of the citation, only that by placing them later, it is making it appear as if the claim does not need cited, but it does.


{{cquote|"None of us were ever forced to change or put in a camp; it was a decision that we made to follow after Jesus and His love." }}
:In reference to the slight wording change - the original wording is ambiguous ("Because of this") because of what? Is it referencing the "scientific consensus", which there is not, and cannot be on such a topic where there is still hot debate on it's origins? Is it referencing the content of research that's been done? It's ambiguous. My wording was not changing the meaning, nor the strength of the research, and wasn't even debating the particular research, just taking away the ambiguousness, and giving it a more accurate, unbiased representation of the current state of affairs. The insistence that "scientific consensus" remain also gives it a biased tinge because of the dubious nature of the statement. Let the raw amount and content of the research speak for itself; no need for projection.
::Thanks for your help. --] (]) 14:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

:::The version you just added has two sentences:
:Also, please don't make up arguments ("The idea that homosexuality is somehow not normal mental health has been a fringe argument since the 1970's."). Considering the scientific issue itself is still unsettled, and hotly debated even among scientists, and to a greater extent the public at large, that statement has no place.] (]) 03:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
:::#Some people say they are no longer gay since they became Christians, without going to conversion therapy.

:::#They stress the importance of love for gay people, but believe they have the right to share their ex-gay stories.
::Sorry, but this is completely off-base. The fact that we're not yet entirely sure what causes homosexuality does not translate to any kind of medical or scientific uncertainty about whether or not it is harmful. –] (] &sdot; ]) 05:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
:::Number 2 can be batted away quickly. It lists no sources, the claim it makes is not made in either of the prior two sources, and it seems to be putting up a bit of a straw man, as if there is some strong force telling these Americans that they don't have the right to tell their stories.

:::Number 1 has a number of problems. The first source used, the NBC one, does not have people saying they are no longer gay, it says that they no longer ''identify as'' gay or that they left their ''gay identity'' behind. I may not identify myself as a chubby guy, but that doesn't mean I don't still have that spare tire 'round my waist. Also, none of them say that it was "since becoming Christians", so they may well have been Christians before that. The second source does not have the lack of conversion therapy in multiple people being said in the voice of the ''Christian Post'', our presumably reliable source. Rather, the Post is quoting a "ocalist and Freedom March worship leader", who would not qualify as a reliable source on these other people.
::please provide ] which show that "the scientific issue itself is still unsettled, and hotly debated even among scientists" to back up your claim, and please pay attention to what a reliable source is before you start posting articles that we simply cannot use. Right now the sources themselves state that there is a scientific consensus, the APA states that there is a scientific consensus, and that argument appears to be a ]. Take note of wikipedia's ] policy, even if you do find sources you will need to show that they are somehow equally represented in the scientific literature before we can give them equal time in the article. Cheers! ] (]) 15:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
::as for the citation in the beginning of the article, according to wikipedia's ] a citation in the lede is not needed provided that it is represented by cited sources in the body of the article.] (]) 15:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC) :::As it makes no accurately-sourced statements, I am removing the new version. Given the number of go-rounds on this, I again suggest that you propose an addition here on the Talk page and find consensus before adding it to the page. --] (]) 16:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
::::Hello {{user| NatGertler}}. Thank you for the comments. The word identification was added and their willingness to share a message of love for LGBTQ people (cited several times in both articles). Thanks for your help. --] (]) 17:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
:::as a side note, I didn't make up the argument that "the idea that homosexuality is somehow not normal mental health has been a fringe argument since the 1970's." The year was actually 1975, and it was the year that the APA actively sought to break the stigma on Homosexuality and classified it as normal mental health. . ] (]) 20:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
== "Kristin J. Tremba" listed at ] ==

]
== Mental health issue ==
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ] and has thus listed it ]. This discussion will occur at ] until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 13:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

An editor is repeatedly trying to insert regarding mental health and LGBT individuals which is unsourced, much less reaching our level for reliable sources on medical issues. Please do not reinsert without appropriate source... and even then, the material is of dubious relevancy to this article. -] (]) 18:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 07:38, 26 November 2024

Text and/or other creative content from this version of OneByOne was merged into Ex-gay movement with this edit after being nominated for deletion. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ex-gay movement article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 2 months 

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconLGBTQ+ studies
WikiProject iconThis article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
WikiProject iconSexology and sexuality Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconDiscrimination
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
???This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconChristianity: Catholicism / Latter Day Saints Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (assessed as Low-importance).

Recent addition

Darwin Naz recently made a large addition to the article. I accept that the addition was made in good faith and indeed much of it looks helpful. Unfortunately, the addition was in some ways misleading. It also involves an improper synthesis of sources, as described at WP:SYNTH. The first part of the addition lists the main goals of the ex-gay movement, including "coordination with individuals and organizations, particularly opponents of gay and lesbian civil equality to influence public perception and public policy" among other things. It is cited to Ex-Gay Research, a scholarly book edited by Jack Drescher and Kenneth Zucker. The second part states that "These goals rest in the claim that sexual orientation is a choice and that change for homosexuals is possible through therapy and prayer", and it is cited to an article in The Atlantic, a non-scholarly popular magazine. The content cited to The Atlantic is misleading, since it is not in fact true that supporters of the ex-gay movement all view sexual orientation as a choice, and nor is it supported by the source provided. The material makes it look as though the popular Atlantic article discusses the goals of the ex-gay movement as described in the scholarly book Ex-Gay Research and shows that they "rest in the claim that sexual orientation is a choice", which is not the case. What the Atlantic article actually states about "choice" is that, "Ex-gay leaders traveled to churches and appeared on television news programs citing a litany of examples of happily married “former homosexuals” to demonstrate that sexual orientation is a choice and that change is possible." That statement does not support the claim that the goals of ex-gay movement as described in Ex-Gay Research "rest in the claim that sexual orientation is a choice and that change for homosexuals is possible through therapy and prayer". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Potential addition to "People who no longer support the ex-gay movement"

Gerald Davison is perhaps one of the first psychologists who practiced conversion therapy, and disavowed it in the early 1970's. He was also the President of the Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies in the 1970's. There isn't much on his wikipedia page regarding this, however this article here on USC's student blog feautures a lot of quotes from an interview he did. I'm sure there is a better secondary source covering his shift elsewhere, in a book or a journal. At the time they didn't technically call it "ex-gay", but should he be included? He also later supported removing homosexuality from the DSM. --Sxologist (talk) 10:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

"Transformational ministry" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Transformational ministry. The discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 27#Transformational ministry until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Bacon 23:20, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Milo Yiannapolos

I think we should add Milo since he’s now ex gay Nlivataye (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Merely identifying as "ex-gay" does not make one part of the movement; the people here encouraged folks to dehomosexualize themselves and/or offered training or counseling to do so. --Nat Gertler (talk) 12:54, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Ex-gays without conversion therapy

@ServB1: You have repeatedly tried to insert this text:

There are also believers gathered in Christian organizations, such as Your Other Brothers or Voice of the Voiceless, who claim they have not been attracted to homosexuality since their new birth, without having recourse to a conversion therapy. They insist on the importance of welcoming and loving homosexuals, but believe that sexuality should be reserved for heterosexual marriage.

using this NBC source for "Voice of the Voiceless" claims and this Christian Post source on "Your Other Brothers". However, these sources do not actually support the statements that you make. The "Your Other Brothers" articles describe their writers not as being people who have not been attracted to homosexuality, but as "Christian men who experience same-sex attractions" -- no past tense there, nor any mention with regard to whether they've attempted conversion therapy. The Voiceless piece sites he president of the organization as claiming not to have undergone conversion therapy (as well as a couple other people who were not identified as members of the organization) but specifies that the organization has supported conversion therapy. It makes no statement about a stance regarding sex only being within marriage, nor on the importance of welcoming homosexuals. It makes no statement that the one identified member has not been attracted to homosexuality, much less that that is a defining aspect of the membership. There may be things to be said about these two groups, but not this text with these sources. As such, I am removing it (again). --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@ServB1: And now you've reworked it and gotten rid of the "Your Other Brothers" material and included "Freedom March", which is the name of both an organization and of events they help organize (but are not sole backers of.) However, the NBC article mentions only the event, not the organizing group, which should not be assumed to include the same people. Neither source discusses them having "new birth" or being "born again" (which is not neutral-point-of-view language anyway.) The new text continues the claim about conversion therapy, when we still only have one person claiming that from Voiceless and the March group claiming only that most of them have not been through such therapy, not that it's a defining characteristic. As such, I am removing it (again). I suggest you discuss what you want to insert and find consensus for it before retrying. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello NatGertler (talk · contribs). Thank you for the comments. This contribution aims to highlight the fact that ex-gay Christians have not had recourse to conversion therapy. The new version talks about two things:

1 : https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/pulse-survivor-others-gather-celebrate-freedom-being-gay-n871651


“ Ruiz, who said he no longer identifies as gay and denied going to conversion therapy, promoted his decision to attend the event on Facebook. ”


“ Daren Mehl, president of Voice of the Voiceless, said he did not seek conversion therapy in his personal journey from homosexuality to heterosexuality. He said the decision was “not forced but a choice.” ”

https://www.christianpost.com/news/ex-lgbt-men-women-to-share-stories-of-transformation-at-2nd-freedom-march-in-washington-dc.html


“ The whole notion of "conversion therapy" is misleading, Byrd told CP, "because the majority of us has never experienced conversion therapy; our experiences were encounters with the Holy Spirit that changed our lives." ”

2 : https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/pulse-survivor-others-gather-celebrate-freedom-being-gay-n871651


“ “I don’t want to tell everyone it’s a ‘gay-to-straight’ thing because God is not calling me to that," Ruiz told NBC News. "I feel that I want to live in a life of purity. I feel that through loving Christ, he will walk me out of any situation. I love the LGBTQ community, I love my family. There’s no hate here, there’s love.” ”


“ Fredi and Paul Cleveland, pastors of Koinonia Congregation in Washington, came to the event to support those who had left their gay and transgender identities behind and also to support the message of love. ”

https://www.christianpost.com/news/ex-lgbt-men-women-to-share-stories-of-transformation-at-2nd-freedom-march-in-washington-dc.html


“ Through the Freedom Marches, we want to spread messages of love and acceptance for people who have shed their LGBTQ identity and show others that we do exist. ”


“ None of us were ever forced to change or put in a camp; it was a decision that we made to follow after Jesus and His love. ”
Thanks for your help. --ServB1 (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
The version you just added has two sentences:
  1. Some people say they are no longer gay since they became Christians, without going to conversion therapy.
  2. They stress the importance of love for gay people, but believe they have the right to share their ex-gay stories.
Number 2 can be batted away quickly. It lists no sources, the claim it makes is not made in either of the prior two sources, and it seems to be putting up a bit of a straw man, as if there is some strong force telling these Americans that they don't have the right to tell their stories.
Number 1 has a number of problems. The first source used, the NBC one, does not have people saying they are no longer gay, it says that they no longer identify as gay or that they left their gay identity behind. I may not identify myself as a chubby guy, but that doesn't mean I don't still have that spare tire 'round my waist. Also, none of them say that it was "since becoming Christians", so they may well have been Christians before that. The second source does not have the lack of conversion therapy in multiple people being said in the voice of the Christian Post, our presumably reliable source. Rather, the Post is quoting a "ocalist and Freedom March worship leader", who would not qualify as a reliable source on these other people.
As it makes no accurately-sourced statements, I am removing the new version. Given the number of go-rounds on this, I again suggest that you propose an addition here on the Talk page and find consensus before adding it to the page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello NatGertler (talk · contribs). Thank you for the comments. The word identification was added and their willingness to share a message of love for LGBTQ people (cited several times in both articles). Thanks for your help. --ServB1 (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

"Kristin J. Tremba" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Kristin J. Tremba and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 31#Kristin J. Tremba until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Unbh (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Categories: