This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

LGBTQ+ studies This redirect is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. 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 Sexology and sexuality This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. 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 Alternative views This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Psychology This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology

Rm Signapore. Controversy about a grant to an ex-gay group is not debate about SOCE. Put it in Ex-gay --Dr.enh (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy centered on the way SOCE should be viewed by the government. I will do more research on it later, but we can remove it for now until I better explain the connection between SOCE and the controversy. I'm busy answering other questions right now. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rm DC. Court order about civil rights is not debate about SOCE. Put it in an article related to non-discrimination in Washington, D.C.--Dr.enh (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The court case centered on equal access to public platform to promote SOCE. Again, we can take it out until I have time to do more research and make that connection clear. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lede contains the statement "The World Health Organization allows SOCE as a treatment for ego-dystonic sexual orientation." What does this even mean? First of all, WHO has no authority to "allow" or "disallow" specific treatments. Secondly, the treatments listed for ego-dystonic sexual orientation in the second source (the first says nothing of treatments) does not include SOCE. Gabbe (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe allow isn't the right word. The WHO publishes the ICD, which lists possible disorders for which a psychiatrist can treat a patient. The ICD states that a client who is unhappy with his sexual orientation "may seek treatment in order to change it." [1] The second source confirms that SOCE is used to treat ego-dystonic sexual orientation under the ICD classification. You say it doesn't talk about treatments. Under the section Ego-dystonic sexual orientation there is a subsection called Treatments. This discusses the available treatments. (Page 135) [2] It lists two main treatments (1) A change in sexual orientation and (2) Removal of stress. It then discusses treatment for those referred by others, saying THAT was what was debatable, not those who seek SOCE. It then lists several different techniques for changing sexual orientation, namely psycholanalytic psychotherapy, behavior therapy, supportive psychotherapy, and androgen therapy. Note that the purpose of this book is not to discuss the values of the different methods being used, but simply to list the treatments that are currently being offered under the WHO classification. I have reworded it so that it is more clear. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was removed again without discussion. Since no one has any more arguments, I will put it back in the lead. Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason why you believe this relatively obscure text (Amazon rank of over 5 million) speaks for the WHO? Because I can't find any link to the WHO there. - Nat Gertler (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which method used to treat people with a certain affliction is something that arguably falls under the purview of WP:MEDRS. We shouldn't be saying (or implying) "A is a method used to treat B" unless the vast majority of those practising evidence-based medicine considers "A" to be a valid treatment for "B". For an extreme example, we can't let the lead of an article say "Having sex with a virgin girl is a method used to treat HIV", even though many people in fact do this. What's necessary for including a statement about a medical treatment is for that statement to be held to be true by the majority of physicians. The quoted book does not support that. We could reword it with attribution to say "Supporters of SOCE consider it to be a method to treat egodystonic sexual behaviour" or similar. Gabbe (talk) 09:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with using Amazon is that it has an audience primarily in the US, which doesn't follow the WHO. The book is a medical text book and is a reliable source to tell what is being done. All it does is report. It doesn't advocate anything. The point is that in countries that use the WHO, a patient can go receive treatment to change their sexual orientation under the diagnosis of ego-dystonic sexual orientation. Do you have a problem with the reliability of the book? Jaypee Brothers seems to publish lots of medical books on a variety of subjects. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JJ, you missed the point. The point is: The quoted book does not support that the majority of physicians agree that SOCE is a medical treatment. --Dr.enh (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And again, what the heck does this book have to do with the WHO? This book is not written by the WHO, not endorsed by the WHO. It does use some IDC reference, but also uses some DSM. As for its reliability, I am quite dubious; it is poorly worded and edited. Coming from a publisher that puts out a lot of books does not make a book reliable; otherwise, PublishAmerica would be an amazing font of knowledge. But even if we were to accept its claim that SOCE is sometimes used, that does not speak to the frequency of use, nor the recommendability of use, nor the weight it should be given. - Nat Gertler (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joshuajohanson: You say that "in countries that use the WHO, a patient can go receive treatment to change their sexual orientation under the diagnosis of ego-dystonic sexual orientation". Do you have a source for that? The book is not very clear on the subject. For example, it doesn't say anything about where SOCE is available. Are you saying that from the source you've inferred that SOCE is an accepted treatment outside the US?

Regarding the book's reliability itself, just because something is a textbook doesn't mean that it's reliable. For example, Of Pandas and People is written with the intention of it being used as a high-school textbook in biology. Nevertheless, mainstream biologists reject most of its claims, and Pandas exhibits a fringe view. How do we know that the Ahuja book reflects the mainstream view of SOCE? For instance, if the book had been issued by Cambridge University Press, or if it were widely used in colleges and universities around the world, then we could reasonably assume that it would be a reliable source. Gabbe (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The book discusses possible treatments for ego-dystonic sexual orientation. It lists SOCE as a possible treatment. The DSM does not include ego-dystonic sexual orientation, so what is said about treatments for ego-dystonic sexual orientation does not apply. If you have reservations about Jaypee brothers, feel free to bring that up. From what I can tell, it is a reliable source. It doesn't seem to conflict with any other listing I have seen for treatments from ego-dystonic sexual orientation. I have seen organizations reject the classification of ego-dystonic sexual orientation and all associated treatments, but SOCE has always been associated with ego-dystonic sexual orientation. The desire to seek SOCE is part of the diagnosis. Unless there is some reason to question Jaypee brothers, or some contradictory reliable information, I don't see why the source cannot be used. Joshuajohanson (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So your argument is basically that a position statement by the APA does not represent the mainstream view of psychiatrists, but this textbook published by Jaypee does? My problem with Jaypee is that (per WP:REDFLAG), it is not "high-quality source". Gabbe (talk) 07:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The APA does not represent the position of people who treat ego-dystonic sexual orientation because they do not treat ego-dystonic sexual orientation. WHO includes the classifications, the APA does not. That is one of the ways that they differ. [3] There is a huge debate in this issue, and you can't represent one side. The APA disagrees with the WHO, so no, you can't just show the APA view, because that wouldn't accurately reflect WHO. Can you find any other method of treating ego-dystonic sexual orientation? SOCE seems to be the only method, which is one of the reasons the APA rejects the diagnosis of ego-dystonic sexual orientation. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If SOCE is the only method to treat egodystonic sexual orientation, is the Ahuja source (whose reliability you assert) wrong when it describes two other methods under the subcategory "For Seeking Removal of Distress Only"? - Nat Gertler (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the ICD contains "ego-dystonic sexual orientation" does not mean that mainstream psychologists consider SOCE to be a valid treatment for it. By your argument, Joshua, you could say that the APA doesn't represent the position of people who practice past life regression (PLR) either, because the APA does not practice PLR. Just as with SOCE, the APA considers PLR to be a fringe practice, one has not been proven to work, and consequently urges its members not to perform it. Nevertheless there are lots of people who believe in PLR, and claim that the APA is biased (just as with SOCE). Indeed there are countries where the practice of PLR might be more prevalent than in others, and no doubt could we find some relatively obscure textbook claiming that PLR is a valid treatment for various ailments. But this does not change the fact that mainstream psychologists consider PLR (as well as SOCE) to be fringe. WP:NPOV does not say we should give equal validity to all views (see WP:GEVAL), but present the majority opinion of experts first and foremost, and avoid letting other views be given undue weight. Gabbe (talk) 10:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like PLR, the APA doesn't use the diagnosis of ego-dystonic sexual orientation(ESO), but the WHO does. The WHO is hardly some fringe group. The question is how do you treat ego-dystonic sexual orientation(ESO). The WHO seems very clear that those who are unhappy with their sexual orientation "may seek treatment in order to cure it". India uses this diagnosis to perform SOCE.[4] However, people argued that the WHO doesn't proscribe treatments, just disorders. So I look in text books that go through the WHO classification of diseases to find out what treatments are used. Everyone that I found says that SOCE is a treatment for ESO. This is the only one that has a link to it. See if you can find ONE source that does not list SOCE as a treatment for ESO. The APA is against SOCE, which is part of the reason they are against ego-dystonic sexual orientation. This is one of the areas were the APA and the WHO differs. But Wikipedia should present both sides. The WHO is important enough to be mentioned in the lead. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the WHO does not endorse or in anywhere I've seen even discuss SOCE, it's hard to see how they belong in the lede on an SOCE article. It's wrong to say that presenting the APA must present the WHO, as the WHO is not on any side. For an article on egodystonic sexual orientation, yes, the WHO diagnosis should be mentioned prominently. This is not that article. - Nat Gertler (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. WHO gives a list of classifications for diseases, one of which is ESO. SOCE is a treatment for ESO. The APA rejects ESO and SOCE. The fact that SOCE is used as a treatment for ESO should be prominent. India uses it. China uses it. Right there that is about a third of the world's population. The first A in APA is for American, whereas the W in WHO stands for world. This article must represent the world's point of view. WHO gives a classification of ESO, for which SOCE is a treatment for. Try to find one source that disagrees with that statement. ESO is only important in this article because SOCE is a treatment for it. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you're misinterpreting the "may seek treatment in order to cure it" bit. You're assuming that the word "may" is used in the sense "is permitted to", as in the WHO permits people to seek treatment in order to cure it. The ICD lists different diagnoses, not treatments. As such, the word "may" is used to indicate possibility or probability, that is "a person seaking treatment to cure their sexuality could be suffering from ESO". The ICD says that seeking treatment is a symptom, it doesn't imply that it's the solution.

Now, the Population Council source you've brought up could be used to support the statement "conversion as a form of therapy for homosexuality is used by many practitioners in India", or a similarly worded variant of it. I see no reliability issues with using that source to say that SOCE is prevalent in India.

You also say that every textbook using the ICD classification that you could find "says that SOCE is a treatment for ESO". Which ones? So far, I've only seen you name the Ahuja one, which (as has been mentioned above) I find problematic. Could you specify which other textbooks you've looked at?

Also remember that the onus is on you to show that your statements are well supported by reliable sources. Specifically, you have yet to show reliable sources that support the assertion that the WHO considers SOCE to be an effective treatment for ESO. Gabbe (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gabbe is right. If this is practiced in China and India, and that is reliably sourced, then that's what we should include. Trying to paint it as something backed by the WHO, as if the whole world gets the treatment because the WHO categorizes the illness, would be misleading. The WHO likely categorizes various cancers as well, and we can point to a range of bizarre "treatments" that people undergo for that, but it would be a mistake to then associate the WHO with those treatments. - Nat Gertler (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So if we said something like "WHO defines ego-dystonic sexual orientation in the ICD. Patients can receive SOCE as a treatment for ESO in places such as India, China, Korea ..." Would that be acceptable? That doesn't sound like WHO is endorsing the treatment, but does say that these countries use the WHO definition in administering SOCE, assuming I find reliable sources. I want to make sure this format is correct before I spend time looking for therapies in each individual country. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as always, that is entirely dependent on what sources you find. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (WP:V). If you can find "reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented" (WP:NOR) then I certainly won't disagree with you. As long as this article makes "appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant," and doesn't "reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view." (WP:DUE) Gabbe (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also still unsure why the WHO is being mentioned in the lede; it looks like it's being used to justify the SOCE treatment as though it were okayed by WHO, when the WHO statement actually says nothing about SOCE. If it were to say that "SOCE is practiced in India, China, Korea, Wherever as a treatment for ego-dystonic sexual orientation, a controversial diagnosis of stress caused by one's sexual orientation.", then I would feel more comfortable with that in the lede. The body of the article would be more the place for discussing who does and doesn't support ESO diagnosis (to some limited extent; obviously, there's a full article on it for depth.) And as with any case where someone asks me if something would be "correct" or "acceptable" or whatever, I must note that I can only speak for myself; my view on something does not mean that the metric gajillion other Wikipedia editors will agree. - Nat Gertler (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we've drifted from the original question. The WHO does not "allow" ... it "recommends". Only those countries or doctors who choose to, are bound by it. We must remember that - despite the fond wishes of many - the UN is not a world government (not yet!), and its agencies do not make international law.

So it's better to say something like "The ICD suggests/recommends treatment A for condition X." We can also point out any dissenting views, such as the American Psychological Assocation, which tells its members not to use such a treatment.

The point is not to declare certain treatments OKAY or BAD, and is not to say that patients or clients CAN or CANNOT obtain a type of desired therapy. Rather, in accordance with NPOV policy, it is to describe the viewpoints of organizations (or other advocates) who declare their support or opposition for something. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opponents of SOCE say that SOCE shouldn't be allowed because there is no proof whether or not it is effective, and has a potential for harm. Supporters of SOCE say that people should be able to have the freedom to make their own choices over sexuality. They say that everyone should have equal access to public forums and access to accurate information. It has been argued that the position of SOCE advocates and all evidence and examples is "off-topic" and should not be included in this article. I personally think an article about SOCE should have the position of SOCE advocates. It makes sense to me. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Opponents of SOCE (that is, mainstream psychiatrists, psychologists and psychotherapists) say that there's no reason to believe it works. Classifying SOCE as quackery when there's no proof that it is effective is not the same as disallowing SOCE. Saying that opponents of SOCE don't believe that "everyone [...] should have access to accurate information" is outright dishonest.

In my opinion, the position of SOCE advocates certainly has a place in this article, as long as we can find a reliable source describing their opinion in a neutral fashion. And if we don't go against WP:GEVAL and others. However, using singular examples to imply a conclusion not attributed to a reliable source goes against WP:SYNTH. That is, if you can't find a reliable source saying there's a conflict between freedom of speech and the mainstream view on SOCE (for example), it is not OK quote a handful of purported examples to steer the reader towards that conclusion. Gabbe (talk) 23:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't put mainstream medical organizations in the category of opponents to SOCE. The WHO says that those who are unhappy with their sexual orientation may seek treatment to change, and many medical organizations that adhere to the ICD instead of the DSM practice SOCE. Americans organizations oppose some forms of SOCE, such as those who present homosexuality as a mental disorder. They have not made comments on other forms, such as "God delivered me from homosexuality" which has nothing to do with psychology. In fact, they said some forms of SOCE help alleviate minority stress. Another thing, just because supporters of SOCE want everyone to have access to accurate information doesn't mean the opponents don't want everyone to have access to accurate information. The basis of all your arguments is that SOCE is some sort of fringe therapy or something. I see no evidence of that. Both points of view should be presented. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This statement by the APA is unambigous about what they think about SOCE. The APA represents the mainstream view of psychologists. The view that "SOCE works" departs significantly from this mainstream view, therefore it is a fringe view. See WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE. Gabbe (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WHO says that people may seek to change their orientation; I do not see anywhere where it says that an appropriate treatment is to help them do so. The ID-10 is a list of diagnoses, not treatments. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been argued that the position of SOCE advocates and all evidence and examples is "off-topic" and should not be included in this article. --Joshuajohanson Factually inaccuarate. It has been argued that protests against McClurkin because of his anti-gay statements, grants to ex-gay organizations, and court orders about civil rights are off-topic. --Dr.enh (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the source used for the India claim technically qualifies for RS, in that it's a working paper, basicaly a work-in-progress aiming to become something that would be a reliable source. I'd be a bit more concerned if we were using it for claims of results rather than as a survey of what is attempted. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC) Oh, and let me add that this source should not be used to support the whole WHO/ego-dystonic thing, as it makes clear that in India, CT is generally used as a streatment for homosexuality itself ("despite the fact that international psychiatric circles no longer consider homosexuality as a mental illness or an abnormality, almost half of the health care providers we interviewed in Mumbai and Pune often treat it as a deviation or mental health problem that should be changed to a heterosexual orientation.") - Nat Gertler (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to find this quote: "Despite no modern mental health organizations finding any empirical or scientific basis to regard homosexuality as a disorder or abnormality, and all instead viewing it as a normal preference within the population that should be fostered within those who have it," and was taken aback by the breadth of the claims.

I looked at the reference, which pointed to an amicus curae filed by the APA. Clearly an amicus curae does not itself constitute the position of every modern mental health organization so I skimmed through the source itself. I didn't find anything supporting the claim that "no mental health organizations...". Can someone help me find the actual source for this statement? Same with the second claim that "all instead view it as...".

I'm thinking the article would be more accurate if it said "some" or "many". BabyJonas (talk) 08:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of any major mental health organizations that regard homosexuality as a disorder or abnormality? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What we know or don't know is irrelevant. Per WP:WEASEL the sentence should be attributed to APA. Not "All" nor "many" nor "some." – Lionel ^(talk) 10:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't, ArtifexMayhem. BabyJonas (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]