Talk:List of LGBTQ medical organizations/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sorry

Sorry about the serial edits; I only realized as I hit "save" each time that there was another inappropriate link. All 3 of the links I removed are NOT LGBT organizations, but ANTI-LGBT and proponents of conversion therapy. That's vandalism, IMO, for this page. We should keep an eye out so they don't sneak back in. --DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 21:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Who gets to decide who is "anti"-LGBT and who is pro-LGBT? The stated purpose of these organizations is to help LGBT people acheive their goals. Of the ones you deleted, only NARTH actually practices conversion therapy. The clients are all LGBT, so it qualifies as a LGBT medical organization. If they were anti-LGBT, as you claim, then they would loose their licenses to practice. But as it stands, these organizations all operate under APA medical licenses. I would hardly call them anti-gay. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

NARTH is obviously an anti-gay group, not a "LGBT medical organization"; there is no serious dispute about this. No reliable source says they are anything but anti-gay. I have removed the anti-gay groups from this list again, and clarified the purpose of the list, so that hopefully they will remain out. Born Gay (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

"Obviously" is not a good argument. The stated purpose is to help LGBT people. It certainly doesn't cater to straight people. All of its clients are LGBT. I don't think an anti-gay psychological group can continue practicing medicine. Please provide some evidence besides "obviously". Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Multiple sources indicate that NARTH is anti-gay. It is preposterous to suggest otherwise - sort of like saying that Hitler wasn't really anti-semitic. Would you ask for sources for Hitler being an anti-semite? In any case, NARTH has never stated, so far as I am aware, that their purpose is to "help LGBT people." Born Gay (talk) 05:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

NARTH and other "ex-gay" organizations are certainly not affirming or supportive of LGBT people. In fact, they often work against their social and legal acceptance as LGBT individuals. It would be like listing Jews for Jesus as a Jewish-affirming organization; NARTH wouldn't be listed on any reliable list of LGBT-affirming medical organizations, or organizations generally. Someone should find at least one list from an outside source so this article can have some standards.

e: The title should be changed so there is no confusion. At first glance, I thought this was a list of medical organizations that were primarily made up of LGBT individuals. Ssahsahnatye (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the title should be changed, necessarily. The definition of LGBT medical organization might be made a little clearer, though. NARTH and groups like them would be out by any sensible definition. Born Gay (talk) 06:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

NARTH does not fit here because it is not dealing with LGBT health issues. It promotes reparative/conversion therapy to change/diminish sexual orientation. This uses psychological techniques, but as this is directed at changing something that is not a medical illness, it is not a health issue. Only organisations addressing legitimate health issues belong here. There is already plenty of coverage of NARTH and conversion/reparative therapy in the encyclopedia, and it would not be appropriate to give this more weight here. Mish (talk) 08:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Any attempt to convert people away from being LGBT cannot be considered to be serving the LGBT community, and treatments against the medical consensus that conversion therapy does not work and may be harmful are not in the interest of LGBT health. A see also to such ex-gay organisations might be useful to readers, but no moreYobMod 09:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC).

Yes, this is a valid point, organisations promoting fringe therapies that are considered harmful by all reputable bodies should not appear in an article on health. A link to Ex-gay and Conversion therapy under the see also section should suffice, and see also links to this article should be inserted on those articles as well . Mish (talk) 12:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, they do address legitimate health issues. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders has it listed under "sexual disorder not otherwise specified" which includes "persistent and marked distress about one’s sexual orientation." It is listed under by the WHO as ego-dystonic sexual orientation. It is a legitimate health issue. The criteria needs to be clear, and you need to show evidence that the organizations do not help LGBT clients resolve this health issue. You can't just remove all the organizations that you don't like. For example, the Institute for the Study of Sexual Identity uses Sexual Identity Therapy. This was even praised by the Advocate, yet you removed it by calling it anti-gay.[1] There needs to be a clear definition. You can't just remove organization because it is "obviously" anti-gay, when there is no record of anyone calling the organization anti-gay, and the Advocate talks about it. To me, it just seems like you are pushing your own point of view. I am disputing the exclusion of these organizations from this list. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

NARTH's addressing health issues, however one defines a health issue, does not make them an LGBT health or medical organization. An LGBT group is one that is made up of LGBT people or supports them as such - that's the purpose of the list. NARTH have never identified themselves as an "LGBT" group, and it's frankly ridiculous to call them one. I don't think they'd even want to be called that. Any attempt to get NARTH labelled an LGBT group is going to be a losing struggle. Born Gay (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

LGBT people don't suffer from ego-dystonic sexual orientation - that applies to people who have a sexual preference but wish it was different because they have other psychological and behavioural disorders, and want treatment to change it. No more to do with LGBT people than anything else in ICD-10 that LGBT people might suffer from. Mish (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I didn't say ALL LGBT suffer from ego-dystonic sexual orientation, however, NARTH specialized in helping LGBT who do. All of these organizations help LGBT people with health issues, but that doesn't mean the health issues of LGBT people is different than other people. NARTH is the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality. It specializes in the therapy of homosexuality, and distress about one's sexual orientation, be it homosexuality or heterosexuality is a legitimate health issue. According to the intro, the organization must promote LGBT health, and these organizations are solely focused on promoting the health of its LGBT clients. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

NARTH does not promote LGBT health. They promote stopping people who are LGBT from being LGBT. They are not an LGBT group. Born Gay (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The whole point of NARTH is to help people not be LGBT. So, it is not an LGBT organisation. The definition states that people's unwillingness to accept their sexual preferences is because of other psychological problems. NARTH does not deal with whatever causes this distress in order to alleviate it - it tries to change the orientation to relieve the distress - but the orientation is not what the cause of the distress is, it is the inability to deal with the orientation. All the major professional bodies say this is harmful - and even among those who experience this, and seek some form of change, only a small proportion achieve any change, and a few more manage to abstain. Professional bodies like the APA point to evidence that it is harmful to treat people this way, and that is because it addresses the orientation, not the cause. NARTH views the cause as whatever gave rise to the sexual orientation, but the diagnostic states that the cause is whatever other psychological problem makes people wish it were different - NARTH do not address that, because they are WP:FRINGE medicine, and by the APA standards are harming people. People who use medicine to harm people are not an LGBT medical organisation - people who work for LGBT health are. Mish (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Dr. MishMich for your diagnosis, but besides being original research from an unqualified wikipedia editor, your diagnosis is flawed. The condition "persistent and marked distress about one’s sexual orientation" means just that, distress, nothing more, nothing less. It does not give a cause for the distress. No psychologist should diagnosis the cause of the distress, much less a wikipedia editor, before meeting with the patient. A good psychologist would help the patient to follow their own goals of self-determination. This is what these organizations do. In NARTH's position statement it says "We believe that clients have the right to claim a gay identity, or to diminish their homosexuality and to develop their heterosexual potential." It isn't trying to force an identity on anyone, but allows LGBT people to chose their own therapy. You call these organization fringe organizations, but the difference between you and them is while you diagnose without credentials from your computer, these people are operating under APA licenses, publishing in APA, peer-reviewed journals, presenting at APA conferences. These are hardly fringe organizations.

A bit uncivil, but never mind - there is no qualification to be a Wikipedia editor. Perhaps you need to read the diagnostic:-

I didn't mean to say you were unqualified to be a Wikipedia editor. I meant to say that as wikipedia editors (myself included) we are unqualified to make a diagnosis. I truly am sorry it came across that I was saying you were unqualified to be a wiki editor. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• • • The gender identity or sexual preference (heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or prepubertal) is not in doubt, but the individual wishes it were different because of associated psychological and behavioural disorders, and may seek treatment in order to change it.

because signifies causation - what follows because is the causal factor of what precedes it. That is not WP:OR, it is called reading what the text says. Mish (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I still think it is a stretch to say it is the unwillingness that causes the disorder. That would conflict with the patient's right to self-determination. To me, the more natural reading is that the patient has disorders associated with (not caused by) their sexual orientation. A common cause of a disorder is a conflict of the patient's values and behaviors. A common case that would fit ego-dystonic sexual orientation is that the behaviors related to the patient's sexual orientation conflicts with the patients value system. This is only one case and you can't unilaterally assign a cause for everyone with this disorder. The doctor could help the patient readjust their value system, as in gay-affirmation therapy, reinterpret the relationship between their sexual orientation and their behavior, as in Sexual Identity Therapy, or change their sexual orientation, as in the most specific definition of conversion therapy.Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• NARTH does not describe itself as an LGBT organisation, if it did you would expect to see this on the home page, or in its self-description, instead it talks about 'unwanted homosexual attraction', and seems to support a critical stance in relation to LGBT groups. [2]

NARTH is the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality. Does it have to use the words LGBT? Homosexuality refers to LGBT people. LGB people are the only ones capable of having "unwanted homosexual attraction". If you want to exclude LGBT people who chose not to identify with the LGBT community, the title should be List of medical organizations the support a LGBT identity, but this isn't about sexual identity, this is about sexual orientation.

• Exodus International does not describe itself as an LGBT organisation either, only refers to 'LGBT' three times on the site, instead it is critical of LGBT, defines 'gay' or 'lesbian' as 'homosexual', and also refers to 'gay' as an ideology. [3]

I don't see a point talking about Exodus and Love Won Out. I think we both agree they aren't medical organizations.

• The others look much the same - they not only do not identify themselves as working for LGBT health, they go to some lengths to avoid association with LGBT in the text. Love won out, for example - all its referals are to other ministries, one to an HIV group that is not LGBT related, one to NARTH, etc. One that does address LGBT health does so periphally - ISSI - but that is not appropriate because as its name suggests, it is not a health organisation, it is a research institute, which researches a range of issues connected with sexual identity, which while significant do not make it a medical organisation dealing with LGBT health.

All of these deal with LGBT health. Working with same-sex attraction exclusively deals with LGBT people. ISSI practices Sexual Identity Therapy, which helps people who are distressed with their sexual orientation (without giving a diagnosis a priori, as you seem to think they should).

• you might as well include [4] on the basis that some gay people use it and need help with it (but that does not make it an LGBT health issue per se) Mish (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Crystal meth is not specific to LGBT health issues. Unwanted homosexual attractions is specific to LGBT people - not that all LGBT people have this issue, but only LGBT people have it. Joshuajohanson (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Arguments like this are completely futile. Homosexuality does not refer to "LGBT people" (a term which is designed specifically to include more than only homosexuality), and NARTH's using the term "homosexuality" does not make them an LGBT group. Several editors have expressed their views on this issue, and the consensus is to not include NARTH and the other anti-gay groups on the list. User Joshuajohanson's position is not reasonable or well supported. His comments above are uncivil, and a borderline personal attack. I would suggest he just drop the matter and find something more worthwhile to do. Born Gay (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Theses groups aren't anti-gay. They support LGBT making their own life decisions. I again quote from NARTH: "We believe that clients have the right to claim a gay identity, or to diminish their homosexuality and to develop their heterosexual potential." I think it is organizations that try to force a certain identity onto LGBT people, who don't let them make their own life decisions that are anti-gay. These organizations are only trying to help LGBT people. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, read the text, and look at what is says: "We believe that clients have the right to claim a gay identity, or to diminish their homosexuality and to develop their heterosexual potential." The OR is a significant choice of operator, as it is disjunctive, not conjunctive - people can select either to be gay OR homosexual wishing to be heterosexual, not both. The do not say that "clients can be gay AND diminish their homosexuality". You quote simply reinforces what has been argued - that they are not identified as dealing with LGBT health issues. Mish (talk) 09:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Diminishing homosexuality doesn't mean eradicating homosexuality. There is a huge range between completely homosexual and completely heterosexual. No one, not even Nicolosi, believes a complete change from one end of the spectrum to the other is possible. A gay man diminishing his homosexuality could move from a 6 to 5 on the Kinsey scale, which would still make him gay, or even down to a 2, which would make him bisexual and hence still fall under the LGBT category. Down to a 0 or a 1 (heterosexual) is virtually impossible. Even without any change in sexual orientation, diminishing homosexuality could simply refer to diminishing homosexual behavior. Another point is their is a huge difference between claiming a gay sexual identity and having a homosexual orientation. A person can be gay, without claiming a gay identity. Having a gay identity is more closely associated with identifying with the gay community, which is not representative of all gays. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Disputed tags

I would like to ask user Joshuajohanson to remove the disputed tags from the head of the article. There is no point to adding tags like that unless there is some prospect of discussion resulting in a decision to add NARTH and other groups that try to turn gay people straight to this list - something that is extremely unlikely to happen. Also, I don't see why the explanation of the list's purpose needs a "citation needed tag." Born Gay (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The tag says there is a dispute. It remains until the dispute is resolved. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The dispute already has effectively been resolved. The anti-gay groups have been removed from the list, and you have not restored them. No one has said that those groups belong on the list except you. Therefore, the tag should be removed. No reason for it to be there simply because one editor disagrees with the consensus. Born Gay (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Born Gay here, there is no consensus for injecting conversion therapy POV groups as LGBT affirming medical organizations - that's patent nonsense and disrupting this article to make some WP:Point only supports that this is further WP:Soapboxing. -- Banjeboi 20:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

groups that are not LGBT medical organisations

The exact details of the APA's stance on conversion therapy are neither here nor there. The consensus is to keep NARTH off the list. Born Gay (talk) 06:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

They refer to themselves as organizations for people with unwanted homosexual attractions. What is the difference between LGB and people with homosexual attractions? Should we have one list for organizations that refer to themselves as lesbian and gay, another list for organizations that refer to themselves as queer, another list that talks about same-sex attraction, and another that talks about homosexuality? They are all the same thing. Should I create a separate list for Homosexual medical organizations that caters to people with homosexual attractions? There are several different names for the same thing, and wikipedia typically uses one term that incompasses several other terms. Whether they are for people with homosexual attractions or LGB people it is the same thing. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is determined through discussion, yes, but that does not mean endless back and forth arguing about the merits of a particular position. It means that different editors express their views, making it possible to see which position has majority support. User Joshuajohanson's view that the article should include groups like NARTH is clearly opposed by consensus here, and there also appears to be consensus for keeping the article disputed tag out as well. Born Gay (talk) 04:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you define "groups like NARTH"? I don't see your division between which medically licensed groups qualify and which medically licensed groups do not. Joshuajohanson (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The lede seems pretty clear to me - List of LGBT medical organizations, consisting of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) medical professionals, promoting LGBT health, or supportive and affirming of the LGBT community. NARTH is a conversion therapy advocacy organization that would seem to be counter to the health support and affirmation of LGBT communities. -- Banjeboi 19:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

response to Joshua further up. Somehere I guess he means groups that do not define themselves as LGBT in some way, but whose stated aims are connected with helping people avoid having to identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender and converting from being actively homosexual (or having homosexual attractions, etc.) to heterosexuality, asexuality or abstention. Re the description in your post - List of homosexual organisations is unwarranted and unnecessary (and there are no such medical organisations I am aware of) - there are already articles on the Ex-gay movement and Conversion therapy. You could arguably have an article called List of ex-gay medical organisations or List of conversion therapy medical organisations - depending on whether you wanted a religious focus or not. Whether there would be enough (religious ex-gay medical organisations or secular conversion therapy organisations) to warrant such a list is beyond the coped of this article's talk page - but I doubt it. Mish (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the title LGBT should include anyone with homosexual attractions. Just because they use the word "homosexual" instead of "LGB" does not exclude them from the list. These organizations advertise and offer medical service to people who are homosexual and therefore qualify as a homosexual medical organization. Ex-gay and conversion therapy doesn't work because most of these organizations are neither ex-gay nor conversion therapy, and none of them are religious. Besides, conversion therapy talks about a type of therapy, not a type of person. It would be like saying Gay and Lesbian Association of Doctors and Dentists shouldn't be on here because it belongs in a list of dental organizations. Those are two different things.Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

We know what your POV is. Dentists are medical professionals, because they are trained at medical schools and receive medical degrees. Suregeons and physicians are different, but they are both medical professionals. There is not one type of medical professional. Anesthetists are another. Mish (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

ISSI

Consensus is built through discussion. We are not done the discussion yet. Does this mean you are okay with including medical organizations that do not practice conversion therapy? Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I said that ISSI is fine - except that it is a research organisation that covers many issues, and is not an LGBT health organisation. Wikipedia

"How come Wikipedia can't support the same type of research that the APA supports and encourages." We are an encyclopedia, we are in the business of writing about research where it has taken place and is notable, we do 'support research' - and research does not belong in this article.

According to the ISSI "About Us" page, it says "We do this [understanding of sexual identity] through research, training, and clinical services/consultations."[5] As I tried to tell you with them practicing Sexual Identity Therapy, they do provide clinical services for the mental health of LGBT. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing I read suggests they are a medical organisation. They are a research and training institute that offers consultations intended to help people decide how best to deal with their issues about their sexual orientation. There don't appear to be any medical professionals involved. Looking at them more closely, it is not apparent that they are an LGBT organisation either. I'd need to refer this to an expert before I could say more, as I have to admit that this is a new one on me. Mish (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

They say they offer clinical services. Clinical services are for medical purposes. They practice sexual identity therapy to treat people with unwanted homosexual attractions. They might not use the words LGBT, but I think saying homosexual is close enough. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

A hypnotherapist might offer therapy to stop smoking, but that does not make what they do medical. I don't know enough about this group, which appears primarily academic, and would need some form of expert input. As they cite no medical involvement, it is hard to see how they can be justified as being described as a medical organisation - they appear to give some form of therapy as part of a process geared to making decisions about what would be an appropriate medical referral. Clinical psychologists are not medical professionals, they are psychologists; they often work as part of a medical team, but also work in academia. In this context they seem to be part of an academic institute that offers therapy to lesbian and gay people as part of its research and training brief. That is not an LGBT medical organisation. Mish (talk) 08:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Psychologists deal with mental health, which is a health issue. They treat "persistent and marked distress about one’s sexual orientation" which is listed in the DSM-IV, or for a more international view ego-dystonic sexual orientation, which is listed as a disorder in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems. If we can't include psychologists, we shouldn't include Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists either. Clinical psychologists are medical professionals. They provide clinical services AND consultations, not just consultations.[6] A lot of medical institutions do research. Just because they also do medical research doesn't change the fact that they offer therapy. They aren't just giving referrals. They pioneered a new therapy that was presented at the APA conference. Since they are the only ones that offer this therapy, they aren't just giving referrals as you suggest. You are really grasping at straws. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Psychiatrists are medical professionals, pyschologists are not psychiatrists. For example, John Money was a notable psychologist, but if he needed to make medical interventions, he could only do via a medical professional. Medical professionals are bound by the Hippocratic Oath, psychologists are not, they are subject to the ethical principles of the psychological association they belong to - one of the key principles of the Oath is 'do no harm'. Medical institutions do do medical research, but that does not make research institutes medical organisations, that is faulty logic. ISSI do not claim to treat people in the way you suggest - perhaps you need to read what they say. This is all WP:OR. Mish (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. I guess I just didn't understand the difference. I looked up therapy and it says it treats health problems. Would you ISSI is a health organization, since it treats health problems, but not a medical organization? If we renamed the article to be List of LGBT medical and health organizations, would ISSI qualify? Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

harm

I agree, using an article on medical issues to try and insert links to groups that promote pseudo-treatments that are known to be harmful is inexcusable. This disruption should be raised at WP:ANI to get the editor blocked. Mish (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

They are not know to be harmful. I've only seen commentary on potential for harm, not "known to be harmful". All psychotherapy has the potential for harm. According to the APA the "anecdotal reports of "cures" are counterbalanced by anecdotal claims of psychological harm." The two claims balance each other out. The APA also said "APA encourages and supports research in the NIMH and the academic research community to further determine "reparative" therapy's risks versus its benefits."[7] They encourage and support this type of research. How come Wikipedia can't support the same type of research that the APA supports and encourages. The leaders of the ISSI presented the therapeutic framework they use at the APA conference in San Francisco in the section called "Sexual Identity Therapy to Address Religious and Spiritual Conflicts."[8] The APA isn't in the business of supporting pseudo-treatments that are known to be harmful and allowing them to give presentations at their conferences. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

regarding harm, the evidence for harm is explained here:

• "The second APA paper, presented by Dr. Ariel Shidlo and Dr. Michael Schroeder, reported findings from a study of 202 homosexuals who were recruited through the Internet and direct mailings to groups advocating conversion therapy. Most of the participants (178, or 88%) reported that efforts to change their sexual orientation had failed. Only 6 (3%) achieved what the researchers considered a heterosexual shift. Drs. Shidlo and Schroeder also reported that many respondents were harmed by the attempt to change." [9]

The same report also said that many who did not change sexual orientation said the therapy was helpful. The goal isn't to change sexual orientation, it is to deal with ego-dystonic homosexuality. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

While it is correct that the American Psychiatric Association says that the nature of evidence for harm parallels that of efficacy (i.e., both derive their evidence on self-reports obtained via qualitative research), they state:

• "Until there is such research available, APA recommends that ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals' sexual orientation, keeping in mind the medical dictum to First, do no harm."[10]

Yes they should refrain from it. That is a good recommendation. One of the dangers that the APA comments on is that a doctor might assume a patient wants to change sexual orientation. It is wise to exercise restraint in this. A good doctor should refrain from over-prescribing anything. Doctors should also refrain from doing unnecessary surgery. A recommendation to refrain from something doesn't mean there aren't cases were this type of therapy is useful.

Both APAs are clear on this, and so are other orgainsations, such as the AAP:

• "Several major professional organizations including the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers and the American Academy of Pediatrics have all made statements against reparative therapy because of concerns for the harm caused to patients."[11]

That is all I have time to waste disputing this here, as we have been through this kind of stuff in various places, and this is not a forum - this is not a place to include information about groups that promote practices that have damaged people, and this is not the place to quibble over whether harming people really harms or people or not. Mish (talk) 10:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

And they have made statements for reparative therapy, such as the defense of a patient's right to self-determination, making a task force to investigate these issues, encouraging research in the area, encouraging debate in the area, including publishing papers favorable to reparative therapy. There have been abuses in the area, and of course the medical organizations are going to attack those abuses. Guidelines have been established, and those that don't follow the guidelines, like Richard Cohen, have lost their licenses. But just because there have been abuses, doesn't mean that all organizations that practice conversion therapy contain abuses. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

There are people that have been damaged by surgery, but that doesn't mean any medical organization that practices surgery should be kept off the list. Any type of medical practice has potential for harm. I really don't think we as wikipedia editors are qualified to determine which LGBT medical organizations are "good" and which ones are "bad". If they really are that harmful, then their license to practice medicine would be revoked. This is not the place to put in our personal preference. Any medical organization that caters to LGBT people or deals exclusively with LGBT issues and has a license to practice medicine should be included on this list. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, surgery carries risks - but few are noted as being potentially harmful because of their nature. We are not discussing which organisations are good are bad, but which are LGBT organisations and which are not. If an organisation shuns the use of the term 'LGBT' (or lesbian, gay, etc. - preferring 'homosexual', for example), and seeks to avert people from identifying as LGBT, then it is ridiculous to say it is an LGBT organisation. It is simple as that. Where does NARTH, Exodus, and the others state they are LGBT organisations? They don't. Do not try to insert them using WP:OR that seeks to make out they are. End of discussion. Mish (talk) 01:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Most surgeries are known for being potentially harmful. The article on bed rest says that it is potentially harmful, but it is still listed as a medical treatment. Likewise Prostate cancer screening is identified as potentially harmful. Any drug that requires a prescription is potentially harmful, which is why it requires a doctor's approval. Even when I go rock climbing I have to sign a paper saying that I understand this activity is potentially harmful. With all of these potentially harmful activities, precautions have been put in place to make sure that they are being used correctly. For conversion therapy, medical organizations have given guidelines on how to treat it. If organizations do not follow the guidelines, their license should be removed. If you think that NARTH does not follow the guidelines set by the APA, I would suggest you contact the APA and let them know so that they can revoke the license from NARTH. But until that happens, we have to rely on what the APA guidelines and who they are willing to license as our basis as to what organizations effectively address medical issues. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

NARTH doesn't have a licence, it is an association. Mish (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine, by that logic they don't practice conversion therapy either and therefore offer no potential harm. They are an association headed by licensed medical professionals specializing in the LGBT-specific issue of "persistent and marked distress about one’s sexual orientation", and provide referrals to licensed medical professionals for the purpose of dealing with this LGBT-specific issue, some of whom practice another type of therapy besides conversion therapy and some who actually do practice the potentially harmful therapy of conversion therapy with the medical license they obtained because they follow the guidelines set forth by the APA in order to avoid any harm. What is the problem? Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

They do not identify as an LGBT health organisation. And you repeating this over and over doesn't make it so. This is all WP:OR on your part. Mish (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It is original research that homosexual people are LGBT? I don't understand your logic. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Drawing a line under the dispute

The consensus seems to be to keep this list as detailed in the title, and I for one find this discussion tedious now. This is not the place for proseytising and inserting promotional links to fringe groups not promoting LGBT health. It would be misleading to those coming here seeking information on LGBT medical organisations if we allowed such insertion. Please stop disrupting this page, then I can remove the dispute template, and you can get on with starting a new article rather than attempting to parasitise this one. Mish (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out what the area of dispute is. It seems to me an attempt to further marginalize people with same-sex attractions who don't live a life that you think LGBT people should live. That is what it seems to be to me, but I am trying to assume good faith. I think it would be very valuable for LGBT people with a ego-dystonic sexual orientation to be able to find organizations that focus on this aspect of LGBT health. I can start on another article, but I don't want to overlap with this one. Homosexual health organizations seems very similar to this one, but that would include ISSI and NARTH, since I guess they work with homosexual people and it would be OR to include homosexual people in the LGBT category. That is why I am trying to find exactly what the distinction between these organizations and the ones on this list, except one works with ego-syntonic LGBT people and the other works with ego-dystonic LGBT people. Maybe we should rename this to Ego-syntonic LGBT medical organizations. Joshuajohanson (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Disputed listings that have beem removed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

These are all proponaents of conversion therapy masked by various innocuous names all doing the same harm in the name of religious convictions that being gay or even having "same-sex attraction" is somehow sinful. Sorry - these groups are LGBT health organizations as much as the Ku Klux Klan is an African-American freedom organization or the Schutzstaffel was a Jewish advocacy group. -- Banjeboi 02:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality

This is the leading non-religious affiliated conversion therapy group trying to, in essence, turn gay and bisexual people away from being gay. To in anyway infer they are affirming the health of LGBT people is laughable at best.

• Institute for the Study of Sexual Identity (ISSI) -(website)

This seems like a self-promoting emerging group to advocate for Sexual Identity Therapy which itself is a branch of religiously influenced conversion therapy. Again to turn gay and bisexual people away from those sinful desires. Next!

• Center for Gender Wholeness - (website)

A religious-based "group" devoted to helping those poor gay and bisexual people "Overcome unwanted same-sex attraction", how affirming. the bio page is enlightening.

• ABEO — (website)

A new-age-y masked version of the above groups helping gay and bisexual people change (from being gay and bisexual at least) - no word if they help strait people become gay. From their website - "ABEO also provides training to those professionals working in the area of unwanted same-sex attraction. Through links with NARTH, JONAH, the International Healing Foundation and a number of international experts we are seeking to spread evidence based skills that will help professionals working in this area."'

None of these belong here, start a list of conversion therapy advocacy organizations instead. -- Banjeboi 02:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Benjiboi. For user:Joshuajohanson to continue the dispute even though consensus has been established here is beginning to become disruptive. Born Gay (talk) 05:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The problem is that these are groups that treat something that is not a medical condition using therapeutic techniques associated with psychiatry, on the basis that people cannot deal with being a certain way because they have a conflict between being the way they are an religious views of sin in certain communities. Essentially, mostly religious-motivated therapies aim at using therapeutic tools to cure sin - this is not medical, as medical people use therapeutic tools for health purposes, not moral purposes. Ego-dystonic homosexuality is a red-herring, because the problem is identified not as the orientation, but the other factors which make it hard for the person to deal with their sexuality. A therapeutic aproach that misuses therapy to cure sin as if it is a health issue is not a medical approach, and because this seeks to avert people from being LGBT people, such groups cannot be described as LGBT medical organisations. They are not concerned with the health issues that are important to LGBT people themselves, who do not care about conversion therapy. Groups concerned with LGBT health concerns tend to focus on health matters that are ignored within mainstream health care, or are not addressed in a way that necessarily benefits the LGBT community itself (as was the case with HIV initially). Groups that promote approaches that are not seen as beneficial to the LGBT community by the LGBT community have no place here. How often and in how many ways do we have to explain this? Mish (talk) 09:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you have against us? You obviously don't like these organizations, and that is fine, but please leave us alone. We chose to go to these organizations because they help us with our medical condition. The reason why we chose to go these organizations is none of your concerns. Wikipedia is supposed to be objective. I don't care if you personally think ego-dystonic homosexuality (or persistent distress about sexual orientation in the US) is a red herring or not. Our job as wikipedians is to present the facts. That is the medical diagnosis here in the US. Sin is your own OR. These organizations are medical organizations, headed by people with medical licenses, that address LGBT issues, and who self-identify as an organization that helps people with homosexual attractions. What do you have against us? Can't you leave us alone? We aren't hurting you. Why must you stop at nothing to attack us? You don't like these organizations, then don't go to them, but obviously some of us LGBT people do like them, so let us go to them. Joshuajohanson (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Benjiboi. The article is a "List of LGBT medical organizations, consisting of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) medical professionals, promoting LGBT health, or supportive and affirming of the LGBT community." NARTH, etc., would be more appropriate in an article about "reparative therapy" and the like. As far as I can see, there is no true dispute here; the tag should be removed. GeneralBelly (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Since user:Joshuajohanson has denied that consensus has been established here, I would ask him to review WP:CONSENSUS: "In determining consensus, consider the strength and quality of the arguments, including the evolution of final positions, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace if available." So the fact that someone may disagree does not mean that consensus has not been established, as he seems to be arguing. His other comments are off-topic and only support the accusation that he is using Wikipedia as a forum or soapbox. Mish suggested above that Joshuajohanson should be blocked. I am not sure that that is justified yet, but it does become a possibility if this pattern of disruptive editing continues. Born Gay (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"What do you have against us? ... please leave us alone." You have it the wrong way around - please leave us alone. You have been encouraged to create an article for what you require (List of homosexual aversion organisations, or whatever), but this is not for that. I have no problem with you going to these organisations for help to avert you from homosexuality. I do have a problem with using any article relating to LGBT health to promote ideologically motivated programs that encourage therapies aimed as aversion. WP:STICK Mish (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Leave you alone? When have I attacked you? The only reason that I have got so far of why to exclude these organizations is that they help people with unwanted homosexual attractions. "A religious-based group devoted to helping those poor gay and bisexual people "Overcome unwanted same-sex attraction", how affirming." What is wrong with helping us? What is wrong with affirming us with who we want to be? Are we some kind of pariah that simply trying to help us is enough to get an organizations labeled as anti-gay? The mere mention of unwanted homosexual attractions is enough for sudden accusations of "You're trying to be straight!" to start flying. No, we are not trying to be straight. Whether either of us want to be in the loving LGBT family, we are stuck in this together, and it really would be nice if you stopped trying to treat us as the dog of the family. Even Jospeh Nicolosi states that even after going to these organizations, a gay man "will still be attracted to men, but that sexual desire is greatly diminished."[12] His views are considered extreme even within this movement, but even he makes no claims to try to "convert" anyone into being straight. We admit to having homosexual attractions. We admit we will probably always have homosexual attractions. We make no claims to be straight. We just want to try to deal with these attractions according to our value systems. Distress comes from a conflict of values and behaviors. The source of these values are none of your concern. Distress is real and is a medical condition. You say that we are homosexual "aversion", but for many it simply comes to trying to be faithful to a wife in a mixed-orientation marriage. Why is it that a gay or bisexual guy trying to be faithful to his wife make him anti-gay? That doesn't make sense. Instead of trying to affirm us in our goals, you attack saying that we aren't really trying to be faithful to our wife, but it is just our "unwillingness to accept their sexual preferences." Please. Just because we are LGBT doesn't force us to do what the greater LGBT community wants us to do. If you really are not trying to attack us, can you please provide some reason to exclude these organizations from this list, other than they are trying to help people that the LGBT community is trying to shun? To me, this "consensus" is nothing more than the majority of the LGBT community trying to marginalize a minority LGBT group whose very existence is "not seen as beneficial to the LGBT community by the LGBT community". Guess what? There are MANY people in the LGBT community who has NO PROBLEM with people in the LGBT community living their own lives the way they want to without the permission of the greater LGBT community. Camille Paglia is one that comes to mind. I don't care if the greater LGBT community sees my personal goals as beneficial to them or not.

Fortunately, Wikipedia is not based on who should be treated as pariahs and who should not. It is based on facts, and the fact of the matter is that these are organizations of people with medical licenses who self-identity as organizations who help people with homosexual attractions with a medical condition recognized by the medical commuity. The clients are all voluntary and all LGBT. These medical organizations help this segment of the LGBT population with their medical issues, despite a disapproval of the greater LGBT community. Wikipedia is not the place to oppress minorities, regardless of what the majority may think. I think mediation would help. I think someone not so bent on ostracizing us would give a more objective response. If you truly believe you are not attacking us, you shouldn't have any reason to object. Mediation requires consensus from the members. Would you be willing to go to mediation?Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This is all rather red-herring-ish. No one is disputing you have a genuine interest in these various subjects or if they do it frankly doesn't matter. The implied proposal that we in some way expand the scope of this list to include medical/health organizations that seem to center on a model that LGBT people are inherently diseased and need to be fixed has been roundly rejected. I think you'll find the history of conversion therapy in the United States is intertwined with the gay and lesbian - and by extension - bisexual and transgender people being seen as sinful by organized religion and that was institutionalized like many pogroms on the state and federal level. Over the past decades research has born out and ergo the institutionalization rolled back from those positions to where the disease model is held nearly exclusively by religious groups and the political right-wing in concert with those same groups. If you follow the money for these groups it speaks quite clearly what the agenda is.
LGBT is simply a variation and not something to be feared or fixed. From Kinsey's research most people are bisexual with as many gay and strait people on either end of the spectrum. Similar is intersex babies born with ambiguous genitalia; as we gather more data and anecdotal evidence it is astoundingly apparent that leaving the child as is to grown in a healthy environment that simply nurtures them as a human is the best answer, no need to pick a gender which often causes permanent damage. In many spiritual and religious traditions this is translated as simply love; not love the sinner hate the sin, but unconditional love. That some churches have persisted in demonizing LGBT people is tragic but it apparently is good for business. Guess what? If not for them there would be no gay pride parades and festivals, queer folks would simply be like everyone else except in the bedroom. Whatever is going on that someone feels this controversial "therapy" is for them is their business. All major medical organizations have increasingly distanced themselves from all forms of conversion therapies. So no, if you must have these groups listed somewhere do so on the conversion therapy article but our policies on NPOV don't require us to avoid using common sense. Those are hardly LGBT groups and they are widely seen as causing harm in this century to LGBT people in the name of their various religions. -- Banjeboi 16:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I know that we have been mistreated by religious groups. I'm in that group too. I have also been demonized by religious people. I think it is wrong. But I don't think you can extend that to ALL religious groups. It seems that the mere affiliation with a religious group is enough for you to start throwing around the accusation of anti-gay. I don't think we are "inherently diseased and need to be fixed." Neither do these groups. One of NARTH's position statements is "We believe that clients have the right to claim a gay identity." [13] I support that position statement. There have been groups and there are still groups that try to force gay people to undergo unwanted therapy. Those are the groups that think gays are inherently diseased, not these groups. Be careful of guilt by association. You state "queer folks would simply be like everyone else except in the bedroom". If a straight guy wanted to "deny his heterosexuality" and become a monk, no one would try to stop him or accuse him of being "anti-straight", even if it were religious motivated. If a gay guy wanted to likewise be celibate, you accuse him of being "anti-gay". If you truly want queer people to be just like everyone else, I would suggest you start by getting out of the queer bedroom and allow us to do WHATEVER we want in the bedroom, even if it is abstention or fidelity to our wife. No one cares what a straight person does in the bedroom. Why do you care so much what gay people do in the bedroom? Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Joshua, I did not attack you, I did not ask you to leave alone, you asked to be left alone, but at the same time want to insert organisations that are antithetical to people being LGBT into an article about organisations for LGBT health issues. We have all gone to some lengths to explain why these organisations have no place here. Why you or anybody might be interested in these organisations is not my business, and nobody has questioned that - although I have expressed my own concerns about people using psychotherapeutic techniques to treat moral issues, and treating symptoms rather than what gives rise to those symptoms. Now you say "A religious-based group devoted to helping those poor gay and bisexual people "Overcome unwanted same-sex attraction", how affirming." What is wrong with helping us? What is wrong with affirming us with who we want to be? Are we some kind of pariah that simply trying to help us is enough to get an organizations labeled as anti-gay? The mere mention of unwanted homosexual attractions is enough for sudden accusations of "You're trying to be straight!" I don't know where this comes from - I have searched through the discussion, and the items you have quoted do not exist. Nobody has said this here. So, why bring this up? It is a straw man. I respect your (or whoever's) right to seek whatever assistance you need to feel comfortable in your own body. What I do not agree with is the insertion of groups into this list that are antithetical to the existence of LGBT people as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people - for promotional/proselytising purposes. That is not what the encyclopedia is for. I have made it clear that if you wanted to create an information list about such organisations, I would support a link to that page here - but not on this page. The reason for this is that the techniques offered are ineffective in most cases, and in less than a thrid of cases of people who are motivated to change, and that the engagement in such therapies is known to be harmful for those for whom it is ineffective (i.e., potentially 2/3 of those motivated to change). I cannot support the inclusion of groups or organisations that are potentially harmful for the majority of people who would find such a page useful - in an article that is about LGBT medical organisations catering to the LGBT community. Your being so keen to insert these despite the consensus being against this worries me. There is no need for mediation, as that is necessary when two editors cannot agree - this is a different situation, where one editor will not accept the consensus on this. That would call for a different procedure, specifically a complaint against that individual with a request to have them blocked from the article. Mish (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inappropriate discussion

Discussion here seems to be devolving into a debate about whether the gay editors who edit here are happy about being gay or not and whether or not they or other gay people should be able to try to change their sexual orientation or not. This discussion is entirely off-topic and inappropriate, so I have archived the thread in which it was occuring. I would like to ask all concerned to please stop this line of discussion, as it is not productive. Wikipedia is not the place for this. Born Gay (talk) 23:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

My apologies to other editors for allowing myself to get sucked into an off-topic discussion - although I have persistently tried to bring it back to the key points. I fully support this move to close the discussion. Mish (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

My bad as well, I see JJ as sincere in their interests but I shouldn't have veered off as well. Likely some of the other threads should also be archived as another thread on this has already been started. -- Banjeboi 03:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)