Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Michael Glass (talk | contribs) at 13:14, 26 September 2003 (Ex-gay in the light of the homosexual-heterosexual continuum). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Regardless of how I feel about the ex-gay movement, this article is not really NPOV in my opinion. It has a remarkable similarity to this article (and other pages from the site), written by a major critic of the anti-gay movement:

• http://www.anythingbutstraight.com/learn/scandals.html

It appears that the article is largely from the same source material. However, maybe it's not possible to write neutrally about this topic. Could someone more familiar with the movement can take a stab at cleaning this up? I really don't know enough about it to make more than cursory changes to address the most blatant issues. This is my way of saying I really don't want to get sucked into this. Daniel Quinlan 02:12, Aug 11, 2003 (UTC)

Besen was my main source for this article, but I tried to confirm all the incidents he described from other sources and as far as I can tell, the chronology as presented here is not really disputed. What is probably missing are examples of "ex-gays" who have remained in the movement -- right now the article focuses on groups and indivduals who failed. Given that some of the founders of the ex-gay movement were among these failures, however, no amount of internal cases will mitigate the embarrassment which resulted. I mean, two co-founders leaving the group and holding a "commitment ceremony" -- how much more blatant can it get?—Eloquence 21:50, Aug 11, 2003 (UTC)

The article is basically written in the same style as Besen who is very critical of the ex-gay movement and a former spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign (a gay lobbying group). Do we write our capitalism article using Karl Marx as the source too or perhaps a socialism article based on writings on Rush Limbaugh? I don't want to get fixated on the source of the article, but it really should be fixed or rewritten. The article is factual as best I can tell, but it is neutral and objective? It would be much better if somewhat less agendaized sources were used such as newspapers:

• http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001275118_gayevangelical28m.html
• http://www.orlandoweekly.com/news/story.asp?ID=4033

I got those articles by doing this search on Google news (28 results, only those 2 were not opinion pieces or located on religious/gay news sites, there are probably better sources elsewhere, but they may be hard to find). Daniel Quinlan 01:29, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)

Please back up your claim that this article is "basically written in the same style as Besen". The remaining paragraph of your comment makes no sense without evidence for this claim. You make vague assertions that the article is not neutral or "broken" (hence needs to be fixed) without backing up these assertions. I get the impression that you are trying to push your own personal agenda, whatever it is, into the article. Please do not confuse newspaper and magazine articles, which have to tell an interesting story, with encyclopedia articles, which have to provide the most pertinent facts on an issue in compressed form.

The fact that the so-called ex-gay movement has had several spectacular failures in the three decades of its existence is among the most pertinent facts about said movement. Anecdotal evidence beyond this fact is of relatively little interest, statistical analysis would, of course, be useful, but because it would be useful, you can be sure that the ex-gay groups will never disclose any hard data about their "success". What this article could need is a list of prominent ex-gays of the movement who have not yet experienced their "moral fall". But damn, that list is going to be hard to keep up to date.—Eloquence 01:51, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)

Converting to heterosexuality

The ex-gay movement no longer emphasizes conversion to heterosexuality, according to this article:

Perhaps as a result of the defections, the strategy of Exodus and other groups appears to have changed dramatically. Rather than emphasize heterosexuality as a goal, most ex-gay ministries now simply push a cessation of homosexual activity and, where possible, desire.

“The opposite of homosexuality is not heterosexuality; it's holiness,” said Lance Hastings, an ex-gay Assemblies of God missionary in Key West, Fla. “It's to be set apart by God so you become a man or woman of God.”

(...)

Wilkins estimates that about 40 percent of those who seek to change their sexual orientation are successful enough to have heterosexual relationships. The others, he said, are celibate.

—Eloquence 03:34, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)

Probably worth adding, but please be clear to mention who Wilkins is if you quote him. The quote by Wilkins is a bit more clear, perhaps. Daniel Quinlan 03:45, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)

Regarding "same style as Besen". Most of the article goes like this: group, founding, failure; group, founding, failure, etc. Same one-dimensional style as this page: http://www.anythingbutstraight.com/learn/scandals.html

In terms of the POV of the article. Generally, it's the negative tone, selectivity, blending of science with advocacy, focus on failures, negative examples, criticism, condemnations, etc. Some more specific issues I can easily point out:

• "God and friends" is sarcastic (sounds like South Park's "Jesus and friends"), most reparative therapy seems to rely on counselling although there are some questionable methods such as "male bonding" and fasting too. Anyway, I rephrased it to be neutral.
• "Many scientists". I think it would be better to separate political groups' views from medical groups' views as is done in reparative therapy. I'm believe most scientists look at immutability and so forth more objectively, focusing on the lack of studies, the lack of visible benefit, that contemporary psychiatry and psychology do not characterize homosexuality as a mental illness (although it seems to be an issue of sin for Christians who support the ex-gay movement). I made a few changes in this area and I think the result is better.
• Article failed to mention that Besen is gay rights activist. Also fixed.
• I would also hesitate to call the American Psychological Association a "scientific" opinion.

I think the article still needs a bit of work to address the lack of currently ex-gay examples, but it would be annoying to have to change the article every few years if the ex-gay leaders keep becoming ex-ex-gay. Maybe there's some way to present a more NPOV of the organizations just the same. It could perhaps also use a bit of merging with reparative therapy.

Finally, I could really do without the accusations. Daniel Quinlan 03:40, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)

Well, it's not my fault or Besen's that these groups are failures, I would think. Blame them for destroying lives and making people unhappy. "Negative tone" - example? "Selectivity" - the organizations described are among the largest and most prominent ex-gay organizations. "Blending of science with advocacy" - as long as we don't have a good science section here, we might as well have them under a common header. But I agree that a better section on scientific opinion would make sense. Besen has some good quotes that can be copied and used. "Focus on failures, negative examples" - uh, you are repeating yourself. "Criticism" - well, it is a neutral article, it should present criticisms. "Condemnations" - where? The only condemning quote is from an ex-member, which makes it highly relevant.

Selectively picking spectacular failures, criticism, etc. Surely there are people who think they're better now as ex-gay (although it's hard to not wonder if that's really true, but that's just my opinion) or could manage to say something positive. I think you get my point. Daniel Quinlan 04:18, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)

"God and friends" is sarcastic - not intended this way. I am not familiar with South Park.

Scientific opinion - we must not forget that many scientists explicitly have stated that they consider this movement to be potentially very harmful to people who become frustrated and internalize their own hate when they see that their conversion does not work. A program not working is one thing -- a program being harmful is another.

True enough. Daniel Quinlan 04:18, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)

I would also hesitate to call the American Psychological Association a "scientific" opinion. That seems to be an extremist point of view. Psychology is generally recognized as a science, not pseudoscience, and the APA is a credible representative body. Don't get me wrong -- I think the APA is in part responsible for the satanic ritual abuse hysteria of the 1980s and 1990s, and I do consider much of psychology pseudoscientific. But this is not the mainstream POV.

I am not claiming that the American Psychological Association is pseudoscientific (psychology does use the scientific method, after all), but they do have a stronger history of advocacy and treading into politics when compared against the American Psychiatric Association. Daniel Quinlan 04:18, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)

Finally, I could really do without the accusations. Then don't make false statements about the nature of this article. It was never written in a tone equivalent to the one by Besen, e.g. "The early Exodus meetings almost disintegrated the group because participants kept sleeping with each other". As I have stated, I have made a reasonable effort to verify Besen's claims and tried to bring them into an NPOV format. We can argue about specifics, but the claim that "the article is basically written in the same style as Besen" is simply not true.—Eloquence 03:57, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)

I think you did a good job cleaning up the source material, but I think the source material is still somewhat evident (less evident now than the original article due to group editing). I believe it's much better to use sources that are more neutral or a mix of adversarial sources than it is to create an article requiring continual make small revisions before it can reach a POV article (which are often contentious). Daniel Quinlan 04:18, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)

In my opinion, we should draw from all sources -- the polemic ones, the advocacy sites, the narrative ones, the so-called objective ones etc. These all have their strengths and their weaknesses. I did cite from an ex-gay website, from the WSJ, from a psychological group etc. Using only neutral writing is problematic, as important emphasis is sometimes lost, or certain facts are not disclosed for reasons of political correctness. I do have respect for Besen, he seems to be a professional muckraker, and his style seems to be appropriate for the subject matter -- not for an encyclopedia, though.

Generally speaking, we must be careful not to confuse neutrality with unnecessary vagueness. If the facts on a matter are clear, we have no obligation to obfuscate them. I also think making minor improvements to an article to reach a mutually acceptable version is inevitable. It's not always fun, but the result is usually satisfying.—Eloquence 04:44, Aug 12, 2003 (UTC)

I want to register my agreement with all of Eloquence's recent analysis, in general, and his points about the APA in particular. While on many subjects the APA is a credible scientific body, it also lapses into advocacy drive conclusions, and it sadly utterly failed society vis-a-vis the satanic ritual abuse hysteria of the 1980s and 1990s. RK 04:32, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, Robert -- this is a bit off-topic here, though. The article about the APA could definitely use some NPOV polishing ..—Eloquence

Ex-gay in the light of the homosexual-heterosexual continuum

I have a problem with this article that has nothing to do with it being anti-gay or anti-change, but its apparent assumptions about human sexuality. it seems to be written with the unspoken assumption that human sexuality comes in two basic kinds, gay and straight.

I would suggest that the evidence suggests that people are on a continuum. According to Kinsey,

1. 50 per cent of his male sample denied any homosexual feelings,
2. 13 per cent said that they had felt homosexual feelings since adolescence, but had never acted on them.
3. 13 per cent said that they had felt homosexual feelings since adolescence, but had rarely acted on them.
4. 24 per cent said that they had more than incidental homosexual experience since adolescence.
5. 4 per cent said that they were totally homosexual all their lives.

The significance of these figures is not so much in the total number who did or did not have homosexual feelings or a history of homosexuality, but that the vast majority of those with homosexual feelings were also heterosexually active to a greater or lesser extent.

The significance of this when considering the ex-gay movement is that many men are in a position where they could try to live a heterosexual life and turn their backs on their homoseual feelings, if only for a time. We should remember that some of the most famous homosexuals were also married and had children. Oscar Wilde is a prime example. He was married, with two children. MG