DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

    "Gender exploratory therapy (GET) is a form of conversion therapy" is NPOV?

    [edit]

    This question has been raised multiple times on this talk page (see UKCP statement, Cass Review, and Metanoia coverage). It is not clear to me whether the sentence, in wikivoice, Gender exploratory therapy (GET) is a form of conversion therapy, is supported by the preponderance of reliable sources and NPOV-compliant. The sentence also appears (with variations) in Therapy First, Trump administration HHS gender dysphoria report, Transgender health care misinformation, Gender-critical feminism and possibly elsewhere.

    At first sight, the claim qualifies as a biomedical statement subject to WP:MEDRS, but it also has strong sociopolitical implications and may therefore fall into a grey area between WP:MEDRS and general WP:RS. MEDRS criteria can help identify the most authoritative sources, while other RS may still be useful for balance.

    Based on the analysis below (see collapse box), I believe that:

    • The five references currently cited in "Conversion therapy" include only two that clearly support the claim, and neither is MEDRS-level.
    • The WPATH joint statement (2022) is the strongest cited source, but it says only that GET can function as conversion therapy (CT) when used to deny care, not that GET is inherently CT.
    • Albeit controversial, the Cass Review (2024) and the HHS report (2025) are high-level MEDRS sources that explicitly caution against conflating GET/psychotherapy with CT.
    • Other sources are narrative reviews, commentaries or primary studies, so they don’t meet MEDRS. Still, they are published by reputable academics and experts. They represent both sides of the debate and, if I'm not mistaken, most of them deny that GET is a form of CT (see quotes in the collapse box).

    IMHO, it follows that the wikivoice claim that GET is conversion therapy is not supported by MEDRS-level evidence or by the balance of reliable sources. I suggest rewriting the section on GET to ensure it complies with NPOV. Instead of wikivoice, we should present the different viewpoints with clear attribution.

    Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:28, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Given their obvious biases, the notion that we should treat the Cass Review and Trump report as our highest-quality medical sources or representative of scientific consensus on this topic seems highly questionable.–RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 17:11, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging editors who joined previous discussions: @Sweet6970, Void if removed, Hist9600, Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist, Licks-rocks, Snokalok, Zenomonoz, NatGertler, LokiTheLiar, Colin, Anywikiuser, LunaHasArrived, VintageVernacular, Raladic, and DanielRigal: Apologies if I miss someone. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This gets relitigated at least once a month. The Cass Review is not a reliable source for anything but what The Cass Review says, and the HHS report doesn't even belong in the same sentence with the words "high-level MEDRS". GET is conversion therapy, this is long settled as npov. Snokalok (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This gets relitigated at least once a month.
    "Consensus can change" but for petes sake, can there be some canned subpage here that addresses repeated stuff with an easy copy/paste?
    There is no rule that says an article or talk page can't have library-type content. Put it at like Talk:Conversion_therapy/Cass Review analysis, group/consensus build it so it's not so much iron-clad as atomically-clad and secure, and then just deploy as needed.
    Like with science, if one (1) person then actually managest to compellingly undo it, then it is undone. Like the old Albert Einstein meme image that it doesn't matter if 1,000,000 say he's wrong--it only takes one person who is right to prove he's wrong. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:43, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    can there be some canned subpage here that addresses repeated stuff with an easy copy/paste?
    We can add a WP:FAQ page here, you can check out Talk:SEGM or Talk:LGBTQ people for samples.
    Also, we have this essay here - WP:NQP that does actually list many manifestations that we see on various pages of the topic area, including GET/conversion therapy. Raladic (talk) 06:12, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    After this debacle, the AI generation used in their "MAHA report", juxtaposed with the censorship of scientific research (including termination of research simply for involving this topic area). I think we can say something exceptional is going on at the HHS and it's not particularly subtle. At the same time they hire the the Geiers, they treat the AAP as some kind of group of hacks. VintageVernacular (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if we did accept the Cass final report as the highest-quality MEDRS, it does not comment directly on GET being conversion therapy (or not). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Cass Review/HHS are simply not MEDRS. Not because of bias, though that's an issue. They're just not MEDRS, they're just pdfs produced with no peer review. Government reports aren't present in the MEDRS pyramid at all. Frankly, the fact that the Trump administration endorsed GET in a document panned by every medical organization in the country is extra evidence it is in fact conversion therapy.
    • Most sources arguing it's not conversion therapy are members of SEGM, which the community has consistently found to be pushers of FRINGE nonsense.[1] SEGM was the group that popularized GET in the first place so there's that too.
    • Re but it says only that GET can function as conversion therapy (CT) when used to deny care, not that GET is inherently CT. - it says it's used to cover for conversion therapy. It doesn't say "but there's non conversion therapy GET too"
    • Bharat et al say conversion therapy is sometimes called GET, ie all GET is CT but not all CT is GET
    • Here's another MEDRS review of conversion therapy research noting it's a new name for CT.[2]
    WP:PARITY also applies here. If we have a bunch of RS and some MEDRS saying "this is bullshit", and no MEDRS or RS saying "it isn't bullshit", then we go with "this is bullshit".
    TLDR the wikivoice claim that GET is conversion therapy is not supported by MEDRS-level evidence or by the balance of reliable sources This is only true if you
    • 1) count as MEDRS things which very much aren't MEDRS that real MEDRS/MEDORGS have critiqued to death
    • 2) count a bunch of commentaries and etc from SEGM members.
    Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Roxy here, especially regarding the HHS report, which is obviously a politically motivated government report and not at all a MEDRS source.
    The Cass report was based on MEDRS sources for some parts... but not that one. Also it's not even clear Cass is talking about GET there at all. One expert opinion that is only ambiguously even about the topic of this article cannot override a high quality MEDRS source like an official statement from the major international MEDORG in the topic area. Loki (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not clear to me whether the sentence, in wikivoice, [quote trimmed for brevity], is supported by the preponderance of reliable sources and NPOV-compliant. It is a factual statement that has yet to be refuted by any reliable sources. It is inherently neutral.
    At first sight, the claim qualifies as a biomedical statement subject to WP:MEDRS, but it also has strong sociopolitical implications and may therefore fall into a grey area between WP:MEDRS and general WP:RS. No. Watering down the standards for medical information because a bunch of politicians found some pearls to clutch over the issue is a clear violation of multiple policies.
    MEDRS criteria can help identify the most authoritative sources, while other RS may still be useful for balance. We have a page about this. WP:FALSEBALANCE.
    Based on the analysis below (see collapse box), I believe that: Ignoring the myriad and numerous problems with your analysis, the fact remains that we have already extensively reviewed the sources used in this article and come to a consensus. Your unwillingness to accept said consensus does not change the consensus, nor the reasoning by which it was arrived at. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:31, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's quite frustrating to see this fringe argument reopened and with the same fringe sources being used to prop up its legitimacy. The Cass Report is fringe. This should be a long-settled matter by now and it's bordering on tendentious to reopen this topic yet again. Simonm223 (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Summary GENSEX ban for next person who does it again. Dronebogus (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd support that Snokalok (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Support. I'd even go so far as to create a list of tendentious arguments like this (Perennial arguments that are unfailingly shot down by the community). Then I'd make a big, bright red, possibly flashing template that shows which such argument applies to any given article and add that template to every relevant talk page.

      WOE BE UPON YE WHO FAILS TO HEED THIS WARNING!!!

      Speak ye these words and find thyself forever banned from this project!

      Argument 13: Gender exploratory therapy is not Conversion therapy.

      (possibly without the pseudo-middle English phrasing.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I believe the pseudo-middle English phrasing is apt given that - when having the same conversation over and over again - frustration with the repetition gives way to absurd humour very easily.
      I support the general idea of collating all of the RFC/FTN/RSNs in the topic area into a readily accessible list for reference. For as many people as the idea of such a list of 'precedent' would terrify from editing, it would help many more brave enough to try. Relm (talk) 06:46, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Somewhere on this site is a list of perennial proposals... So there's a precedent for such a thing already. Thinking seriously about this for a moment, I do believe that it might have to be done on an article-by-article basis, and would very likely require some significant discussion before implementing on each article.
      But I am perfectly willing to make a template that could be used. And while I wholeheartedly concur with your opinion of my stylistic grammatical choice for that pseudo-template, I will make sure it is neutral (read: bland) enough to be used across a wide swath of articles. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:59, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      For as many people as the idea of such a list of 'precedent' would terrify from editing
      Why? I know the notion is allergic to some editors (irrationally) but some things really are set. That's how life works; this site is still bound by basic logic. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 20:02, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      A surprisingly large number of editors here seem to hold to the view that all opinions are equally valid, and of them, a distressingly large subset are willing to accept claims of fact or provable/disprovable logical statements as 'opinions'.
      Those editors would no doubt immediately go out and buy a string of pearls in response to this suggestion, should they not already own any to clutch.
      They would characterize proponents as 'thought police', accuse us of attempting to force them to walk a doctrinal line, and utterly fail to acknowledge or reflect upon the fact that these arguments are entirely worthless and unarguably disruptive. Because in the real world, not all beliefs are equally valid. Or valid at all. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:18, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • very WP:TEND editing. We really don't need to relitigate this everytime. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks all. I knew this topic was contentious, but I wasn't aware of WP:ARBTRANS - my bad. All the more reason to keep this to sources, policy and wording, and to avoid unnecessary allegations of tendentious editing. Could we please? Thanks.

    • Re It's quite frustrating to see this fringe argument reopened and with the same fringe sources: given how contested and fast-moving the literature on health care for minors with gender dysphoria is, I don't see a settled boundary between fringe and mainstream scientific views in high-quality secondary sources. According to the sources I shared, if a child claims to suffer from gender dysphoria, before rushing to gender affirmative treatment it may be reasonable to understand what's happening in their life. Are we sure this is WP:FRINGE? And we haven't had an RfC establishing wikivoice on this point - if there is one, please link it. Otherwise, let's stick to WP:NPOV and use attributed wording. Or let's open an RfC. Absent a closed RfC, I don't agree that editors have already extensively reviewed the sources used in this article and come to a consensus.
    • Firefangledfeathers, actually, the Cass Review does address the "GET = CT" issue. See §11.5–11.6 (p. 148): Terms such as ‘affirmative’ and ‘exploratory’ approaches have been weaponised ... The Review ... believes that no LGBTQ+ group should be subjected to conversion practice. It also maintains the position that ... Exploration of these issues is essential ... The intent of psychological intervention is not to change the person’s perception of who they are ... It is harmful to equate this approach to conversion therapy.
    • Re YFNS's They're just not MEDRS, they're just pdfs produced with no peer review: WP:MEDRS prioritises high-quality secondary sources - systematic reviews, guidelines, position statements, HTAs especially. An evidence review or guideline from a government health body can be used under MEDRS with appropriate attribution and due weight; peer-review in a journal is not a prerequisite. Besides, whatever one thinks of Cass's conclusions, many of its underpinning systematic reviews were published in Archives of Disease in Childhood and registered in PROSPERO: those are secondary, peer-reviewed MEDRS-level sources. The final report is not a journal article, but it summarises those systematic reviews. As to the HHS 2025, it is controversial, no doubt, and has drawn significant criticism from medical orgs, which affects due weight, not whether a government evidence review can be cited at all under MEDRS.
    • Please, mind what the strongest "GET = CT" sources actually claim: the 2022 WPATH statement says the denial of gender-affirming treatment under the guise of exploratory therapy is tantamount to conversion therapy. That is conditional language, not a blanket statement that all GET is CT. We should not overstate it in wikivoice. And Bharat et al. describe CT as "sometimes" euphemistically called gender exploratory therapy. "Sometimes" ≠ "always". Again, that supports careful, attributed phrasing rather than an unqualified claim in wikivoice.
    • I'm not proposing to Watering down the standards for medical information. On the contrary. WP:PARITY doesn't override MEDRS for biomedical classification. We have MEDRS sources on both sides of the argument. Plus, we have other non-MEDRS sources to establish due weight: again, on both sides of the argument. The article should reflect this, rather rather than editors' beliefs and commitments. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:31, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To your first point, yes. That has been discussed at length, and was especially litigated at FTN, granted it was primarily meatpuppets who forwarded it there. [3] (aspects of what you bring up were also discussed in the Pathology FTN discussion which takes up all of Archive 106). To address your point directly and to summarize what was shown in the WPATH, SEGM and other GET = Conversion Therapy discussions, there is a clear consensus that what WPATH and the SOC refer to when they argue for exploratory therapy and what SEGM and Fringe figures such as Kenneth Zucker argue for when they mean exploratory therapy are two very different things. The reasoning for this was pretty well outlined by YFNS in my view. [4]
    To your second and fourth points, it was also discussed above.
    To your third, I generally try to steer away from matters of MEDRS reliability as often I feel unqualified to comment on the nuances when it would be a significant task to read into. As such I will not comment on the systematic reviews other than to note they have been discussed prior - but were held separate from the Cass Review in terms of quality and citeability to my memory. I encourage you to look through RSN for those discussions. As for the HHS report, I believe it is almost to the point of a non starter given that when the report has been brought up for being cited it is usually snow'd against its use due to the lack of authorial attribution, usage of AI, clear animus/ideological motivation driving the conclusion from its commencement, and of the authors known to have worked on it - none have anything to do with medical care. Likewise it frequently cites sources for its assertions which have been discussed at length and determined to be fringe.
    I hope that this post is helpful. Relm (talk) 07:09, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I knew this topic was contentious.
    It's really not for people who follow actual science, logic and objective reality. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:44, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For the Cass Review and the HHS report to be Secondary Sources on GET they would actually have to be analysing evidence on GET (not Psychotherapy used in Gender Dysphoria treatment but specifically GET). Can you show me the relevant parts of each document where they do an evidence review on GET, because so far the parts you've quoted from each document aren't doing any kind of review of evidence, they are just stating their opinion. I should also note that there is a common strawman the Gender Affirming Care advocates equate all Psychotherapy with Conversion therapy, this is flatly false and any source making this kind of claim is pushing misinformation. To see why it is false, see that WPATH's SOC recommends therapy. LunaHasArrived (talk) 11:33, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually adding onto this, you call both the final report of the Cass Review and the HHS report Systematic reviews, can you show where either of these documents performed their systematic reviews on GET. LunaHasArrived (talk) 11:58, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree that "editors have already extensively reviewed the sources used in this article and come to a consensus." And flat earthers don't agree that the planet is an oblate spheroid. Neither their, nor your, beliefs change the facts.
    actually, the Cass Review does address the "GET = CT" issue. See §11.5–11.6 (p. 148) That passage literally wouldn't exist if some subset of CT weren't calling itself GET.
    WP:MEDRS prioritises high-quality secondary sources - systematic reviews, guidelines, position statements, HTAs especially. Emphasis added.
    I'm not proposing to "Watering down the standards for medical information." Grammatical failings aside, that is literally what you proposed. Backtracking now (or rather, claiming to be backtracking while not actually doing so in any meaningful way) doesn't change that.
    On the contrary. WP:PARITY doesn't override MEDRS for biomedical classification. This is barely coherent in context, but it's good to see you acknowledge this.
    We have MEDRS sources on both sides of the argument. False. At best, we have MEDRS sources referring to therapeutic methods involving the exploration of gender (perhaps even using the non-proper term 'gender exploration therapy') as non-CT methods. And those sources are, of course, correct. An earnest exploration of one's gender is, indeed, a proper therapeutic approach and an important part of the gender-affirming model of care. But this article subsection is about the subset of conversion therapy known as 'Gender exploration therapy'. Which is, both by definition and according to all reliable sources which discuss it, a form of CT.
    Plus, we have other non-MEDRS sources to establish due weight: again, on both sides of the argument. The article should reflect this, rather rather than editors' beliefs and commitments. The article as it stands reflects the expert consensus on the matter, not the editor's beliefs, as can be seen by reviewing the sources without going out of one's way to downplay those which disagree with you and over-emphasize (or even flatly make up false claims about) those which do. I chose not to comment on the quality of your 'review' of the sources, but as was strongly implied by the context in which I mentioned it, I find your analysis entirely worthless, soured by the flavors of motivated reasoning. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:56, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the follow-ups. A few focused points:
    • I apologise for mentioning the 2025 HHS report. I now understand from sources and editors' comments that it has serious flaws and is likely to muddy the waters of this discussion. Point taken. Let's set it aside and move on.
    • If I'm not mistaken, no one has yet addressed the main issue I raised, which is that the sentence Gender exploratory therapy (GET) is a form of conversion therapy... is not an accurate summary of the only MEDRS-level source cited - the 2022 WPATH statement. WPATH uses conditional language: denying gender-affirming care under the guise of "exploratory therapy" is tantamount to conversion therapy. It does not say "all GET is CT". Using it to support an unqualified wikivoice claim misrepresents the source. Our wording should mirror that conditionality.
    • Relm and MjolnirPants say that the label "GET" is used in two different ways: the WPATH/SOC sense (neutral, patient-centred exploratory psychotherapy) and the a SEGM/Zucker sense (criticised as conversion-like). This distinction is precisely why the wikivoice claim "GET is CT" risks equivocation. Let's define the term according to the sources and use attributed wording instead. MjolnirPants also acknowledges that we have MEDRS sources referring to therapeutic methods involving the exploration of gender ... as non-CT methods. To me, this implies that the statement "GET is a form of CT" is too broad. We should say "certain forms of GET are CT" and specify which ones (per WPATH: when used to deny gender-affirming care). Similarly, in Substance abuse we do not write "opioid therapy is substance abuse"; rather, we note that opioids are often associated with substance abuse, which leaves room for medically indicated opioid therapy not to be considered "substance abuse".
    • LunaHasArrived: Fair point, the Cass final is not a PRISMA-style systematic review on "GET". However, it is a high-level source drawing on MEDRS-level evidence that discusses conflation and terminology. It notes that the labels "exploratory" and "affirmative" can be weaponised, and also offers the clear recommendation that it is harmful to equate this approach to conversion therapy. Without sources of equal standing to underpin it, the current article does precisely that, in wikivoice.
    • Therefore, I suggest replacing the current text with the following:

      Gender exploratory therapy (GET) is a psychotherapeutic approach that focuses on exploring a person's gender-related distress and wider psychosocial factors, often before or alongside decisions about gender-affirming care. Some medical professional organisations and experts argue that when used to deny or delay indicated care, GET can be tantamount to conversion therapy. Other experts, including the Cass review, caution against equating GET with conversion therapy, and emphasise that exploration should be neutral, non-directive, and patient-centred.

    • One final request: let's keep this discussion focused on sources, policy and wording, and avoid making remarks about the competence or motives of editors (e.g., "[you don't follow] actual science, logic and objective reality, [you're like] flat earthers, [your analysis is] worthless ... motivated reasoning). That's not helpful, it derails the discussion and invites WP:AE.
    Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:09, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    From the article - the gender-affirming model of care already promotes gender identity exploration without favoring any particular identity, and individualized care. GET proponents deny this.. We already differentiate between "exploration" and "gender exploratory therapy". "Gender exploratory therapy" is a form of conversion therapy. MEDRS that support exploration say "exploration", not "gender exploratory therapy".
    However, it is a high-level source drawing on MEDRS-level evidence that discusses conflation and terminology. - the non peer reviewed final report says that. None of the underlying MEDRS agree. The Cass Review was heavily criticized for saying a bunch of nonsense that was in no way supported by any MEDRS, let alone the commissioned MEDRS. Cass's opinion is just that, the opinion of one person. In highschool I cited MEDRS for some papers, that didn't make my essays magically MEDRS by association.
    We are not going to present a FALSEBALANCE between one person's opinion and the actual consensus of the field. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:31, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Echoing YFNS above but making the point super clear. The final report of the Cass review is a very large document which at various points probably counts as a primary, secondary or tertiary source. Therefore we need to be careful when using it to make sure we are using it for secondary review style content. In my mind the above use is Primary as no sources are being cited. It's also notable that the Cass report uses a very broad definition ofExploratory approach and this definitely does not mention the kind of stonewalling approach that defines GET. LunaHasArrived (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Gitz, especially on the point that stating "GET is a form of CT" in WikiVoice is wrong. Anywikiuser (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I second YFNS's concern over WP:FALSEBALANCE.
    Just so we're clear, here are the sources we currently have for that statement:
    • WPATH: WPATH, ASIAPATH, EPATH, PATHA, and USPATH call attention to the fact that this “psychotherapeutic” approach, which was used for decades before being superseded by evidence-based gender-affirming care, has not been shown to be effective (AUSPATH, 2021; Coleman et al., 2022). Indeed, the denial of gender- affirming treatment under the guise of “exploratory therapy” has caused enormous harm to the transgender and gender diverse community and is tantamount to “conversion” or “reparative” therapy under another name.[1] Obviously highly reliable MEDRS source, though I think it's saying something stronger than you seem to think it's saying.
    • Bharat: Sexual orientation and Gender Identity and Expression Change Efforts (SOGIECE) are harmful practices that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation [...] and/or gender identity and expression [...] to heterosexual, cisgender behaviors and identities [...]. SOGIECE are commonly known as “conversion therapies,” [...] In fact, given the increased visibility of different sexual orientations and gender identities and expressions, efforts nowadays include clinicians gatekeeping life-saving hormonal interventions by encouraging clients to not commit to their transgender identity or initiate gender-affirming care until they are absolutely sure (sometimes euphemistically called “gender exploratory therapy”), or even ascribing transgender identity or asexuality to trauma (Ashley, 2023). It should also be noted that sometimes the precise nature of these practices and how they have evolved is relatively unknown, in part because SOGIECE practitioners are not transparent about the kinds of techniques they use.[2] Note that our citation is to a preprint but the article has since been published with the statement in question stated clearly, in a medical (psychotherapy) journal, by a bunch of academics. This is clearly a MEDRS source and we should update our citation.
    • Lawson: A common misconception is that affirmative care requires professionals to adopt a collective blindness towards the broader context of TGE lives, and a neglectful aversion to providing space to explore one’s identity within this context. Indeed, critics have described affirmative care as ‘gender identity conversion efforts’ (D’Angelo et al., 2021). This has led to the emergence of non-affirmative approaches, or so-called ‘gender exploratory therapy’ (Gender Exploratory Therapy Association, 2023), with its founders implicating social contagion, homophobia, sexual trauma, and autism as causal factors for a TGE identity (D’Angelo et al., 2021; Marchiano, 2017). In our corroborated view (Ashley, 2022; 2023), the coercive requirement to ‘complete’ exploration before accessing additional care represents conversion therapy in all but name and violates the principles of the Memorandum on Conversion Therapy (BPS, 2022). [3] This is published in Clinical Psychology Forum, an official publication of the British Psychological Society, and seems to be clearly a MEDRS.
    • Amery: These trends are international: multiple groups exist worldwide promoting ‘gender exploratory therapy’, a label for a form of conversion therapy targeting trans adolescents and young adults, with some success in influencing legal discussions and clinical guidance across multiple regions (Leveille, 2022b)[4] This one is in DiGeSt - Journal of Diversity and Gender Studies, which is in fact not a biomedical journal so this wouldn't be a MEDRS source.
    • Caraballo: However, much of his work around “gender exploratory therapy” is considered by some to be conversion therapy since it presumes that patients suffering gender dysphoria have underlying causes other than being transgender. [5] This one is in the Journal of Law, Medicine, & Ethics, which as a bioethics journal would indeed be a MEDRS-quality journal. It's the weakest statement here though, since it's just "considered by some" to be conversion therapy.
    I was confused why you think there are so few MEDRS here, since by my count 4/5 of these are MEDRS, until I noticed this line in your original comment:

    Other sources are narrative reviews, commentaries or primary studies, so they don’t meet MEDRS

    Not to put too fine of a point on it, but this statement is clearly false and IMO indicates you haven't read the WP:MEDRS guideline closely. MEDRS directly talks about narrative reviews as not just MEDRS sources but specifically as especially useful MEDRS sources. Loki (talk) 22:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    MjolnirPants also acknowledges that we have MEDRS sources referring to "therapeutic methods involving the exploration of gender ... as non-CT methods".
    If you are incapable of semantically distinguishing "gender exploration therapy" and "therapeutic methods involving the exploration of gender" then you have absolutely no business here. This is basic reading comprehension. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:26, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Albeit controversial, the Cass Review (2024) and the HHS report (2025) are high-level MEDRS sources-- absolutely not. I know other people have pointed this out already, but the last RSN discussion on the subject clearly reached no consensus; a source like that cannot be used for MEDRS purposes, fullstop. I know that bringing it up and having a bunch of people object is frustrating, but the entire reason we have centralized discussions like that is to avoid constantly reiterating the same disputes and having to repeat the same points; if you feel that the fact that that discussion was never closed means that there might be a consensus to be found that the Cass Review is reliable, by all means start another WP:RSN discussion and perhaps a more formal RFC, but I'm not seeing it. My position is the same as it was back then: It us usable only as attributed opinion for the position of the British government, and nothing else, fullstop. This is no different from most government-commissioned reports - it is not WP:INDEPENDENT of the government that commissioned it, which makes it useless for anything except their official position. Rare exceptions exist when there's a strong, well-established reputation for independence, but this is clearly not one of them. --Aquillion (talk) 03:10, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reading this section, it seems to me that the word "exploration" (in its various forms) appears in genuinely therapeutic contexts that are not conversion therapy. The article has a terminology section that addresses the use of the term "therapy" and why its proper medical meaning makes "conversion therapy" problematic as a name. Couldn't something be added to note that exploration is similarly misappropriated in the descriptor "gender exploratory therapy"? This would provide a basis early in the article for the later statement that GET is a form of CT (and harmful), even though both "exploration" and "therapy" are appropriate medical supports in some individual cases involving non-cisgendered people. 1.141.198.161 (talk) 01:33, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Whilst this is a great point and one I agree with, without WP:RS making these points it would be original research to put it into the article. LunaHasArrived (talk) 08:24, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That was my own analysis. I don't have any RSes at hand saying that. They might exist out there, but they might not.
    In any event, it has been my experience that 'gender exploration therapy' exists in the same category as 'national socialism' and 'democratic people's republic', in that the former involves no more exploration than the latter two involve socialism or democracy. In short, the names are bald-faced lies. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:19, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Loki, thank you for commenting on sources. Re WPATH statement, I don't understand why you think it's saying something stronger than you seem to think: WPATH is not explicitly saying "GET is CT". My proposal, "when used to deny or delay indicated care, GET can be tantamount to CT", is simply closer to the source, isn't it? And the same applies to Caraballo ("considered by some" CT), as you acknowledge.
    You're absolutely right that narrative reviews can be MEDRS sources. However, WP:MEDPRI generally disqualifies primary sources, which document the author's findings, research, experiences, views, etc., rather than providing an overview of current understanding of the topic. I think this is why LunaHasArrived commented on the paragraphs in the Cass review about explanatory therapy: In my mind the above use is Primary as no sources are being cited; and this is why YFNS says Cass's opinion is just that, the opinion of one person. But then the same applies to Lawson: clinical psychologists who don't provide a narrative review of literature, but rather argue that in their view (and that of Ashley) GET is CT. And (as you acknowledge) the same applies to Amery. IMHO these are primary, not-MEDRS-level sources. However, if you insist that Lawson, Bharat, etc., are MEDRS-level sources, then also Jauregui, Spiliadis, D'Angelo, Sinai, and all the other sources I reviewed in my "Source Analysis" under the heading "Non-MEDRS sources rejecting the claim that GET is CT" are also MEDRS-level sources. Could you please tell me which of the listed sources (those explicitly stating that GET is not CT) you do not consider to be at MEDRS level?
    Finally, I agree that Bharat is clearly a MEDRS source since its publication. However, Bharat doesn't say "GAT is CT". Rather, as the WPATH statement and Caraballo do, Bharat says that GET is CT when used to prevent treatment: "sometimes euphemistically called [GET]" does not imply that all GET is CT.
    • Aquillion, as you can see, my proposed text cites the Cass review with attribution. It states that, according to some, GET is CT, especially when performed in certain ways and, according to others, it is not CT, at least when performed in different ways. This may reflect some disagreement within RS about what GET actually is and what it should be. Stating this is more informative and NPOV-compliant than stating in wikivoice "GET is CT". However, if you disagree, could you please tell me which MEDRS sources justify the wikivoice claim that "GET is CT"? Currently, I can only find Lawson (an article titled "A Human Rights Based Approach to Transgender and Gender Expansive Health", written by a group of clinical psychologists from "TransPlus") and Amery (an essay in the "Journal of Diversity and Gender Studies", which Loki themselves acknowledges is not MEDRS-level). Do you think these are sufficient?
    • MjolnirPants re If you are incapable of semantically distinguishing "gender exploration therapy" and "therapeutic methods involving the exploration of gender" then you have absolutely no business here: do you have a source that distinguishes between GET and "therapeutic methods involving the exploration of gender"? Ah no, you just said that that was [your] own analysis. I don't have any RSes at hand saying that: it is your own original research, which editors would lack WP:COMPETENCE and deserve ban if they don't agree with.
    Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please tell me which of the listed sources (those explicitly stating that GET is not CT) you do not consider to be at MEDRS level?
    • Jauregui doesn't even use the term "gender exploratory therapy"
    • Spiliadis, SEGM Member, primary paper introducing GET as a model
    • D'Angelo, president of the Gender Exploratory Therapy Association, commentary
    • Sinai, SEGM member, commentary where they say the real MEDRS/MEDORGS in the country are wrong
    • Jenkins, members of GETA, primary research
    • McDeavitt, a letter to the editor about why a MEDORG is wrong
    Your list of sources is almost entirely:
    • members of SEGM/Genspect/GETA
    • commentary pieces
    • governmental reports criticized by MEDORGS
    No source you have presented is a MEDRS. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no requirement to use reliable sources when trying to explain a relatively simple concept to an editor who consistently refuses to get it. Your remarks about my apparent lack of sources are entirely pointless. In any event, I will not be addressing your arguments any further, as there's no point to us repeating ourselves ad-nauseam. I will, instead, offer you some valuable advice.
    Considerer the following facts:
    1. Your arguments have been rejected by eleven editors thus far.
    2. This section has grown long enough to dominate this talk page.
    3. This discussion is five days old.
    From these, we can see that this is a classic one-against-many situation. That means that if it doesn't end very soon, you will quickly find yourself staring down the barrel of administrative sanctions intended to stop the disruption that this has become.
    My advice is thus for you to drop the stick and back slowly away from the dead horse. If an admin becomes involved in their official capacity, their choice will be to either block or page ban eleven editors (plus any addition editors who agree with us who object to this), or to block or page ban just you. I think you can easily see which will be the better choice. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you so hung up on this? You seem to have net zero consensus or policy based support and all your complex answers seem to be moving no needles or changing precedent. I might suggest you find other articles to focus on building out and stop policing for fringe/religious/ultra minority viewpoints that devolve from authority-less religious/social conservative and homophobic norms. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I should have started this discussion on NPOVN, as Springee suggested, to get more input from uninvolved editors. I have no strong views on transgender healthcare and am not particularly interested in the topic, having rarely (if ever) edited it before, but I'm not willing to be pushed out of the discussion or discouraged by behaviour that falls well below CTOP standards. I've made my arguments in good faith, and based purely on policies and sources, and am confident that experienced uninvolved editors would realise that my point is purely editorial in nature: a controversial claim in wikivoice is currently supported by two weak/non-MEDRS sources and three stronger, yet misrepresented, sources, while multiple sources of comparable quality caution against that formulation. This is not in line with NPOV and could also be harmful in real life: if a transgender minor is referred for psychoanalytic or exploratory care, it's not OK for them to read on Wikipedia that the underlying intention is to persuade them to accept their birth-assigned sex. So, unless I am persuaded by Loki's, Aquillion's and others' arguments, I intend to seek broader input through an RfC in the coming days (I'm busy at the moment). I know that numerous discussions about transgender healthcare have taken place on talk pages, FTN and elsewhere, but no RfC has been held regarding the use of wikivoice for "GET equal CT". So far, several editors here have disagreed with me, but in the absence of an RfC I don't think anyone can claim that there's a clear consensus. If you feel that my approach is disruptive per WP:DROPTHESTICK, you are of course free to take it to WP:AE. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:29, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have skimmed through the arguments here, and I have a few thoughts.
    multiple sources of comparable quality caution against that formulation
    Countless editors have already explaind to you how the majority of your sources are either contrarian publications from fringe experts participating in organiztions that actively spread trans healthcare misinformation (e.g. SEGM), or or are non-peer reviewed government reports that have undergone intense criticism for their bad methodologies and obtuse analysis. If you are unconvinced that what I just said is true, simply take a look at the amount of reputable health bodies and experts emphasising the crucial nature of GAC and rebuking the above reports. (Indicatively: a list of critiques of the Cass Review, a list of health bodies in support of GAC, a study on the opinion of health bodies on GAC, and all the statements you can find about the Cass and HHS reports on their article pages).
    if a transgender minor is referred for psychoanalytic or exploratory care, it's not OK for them to read on Wikipedia that the underlying intention is to persuade them to accept their birth-assigned sex.
    But that's what the purpose of those practices is, objectively. Proponents of GET are consistently opposed to GAC for minors. Cass, the authors of the HHS report, and D'Angelo are a few good examples, all of whom you cited. SEGM's entire purpose is also to stand opposed to GAC. This is not debatable.
    So far, several editors here have disagreed with me, but in the absence of an RfC I don't think anyone can claim that there's a clear consensus.
    You probably know Wikipedia better than me, but how is this a reasonable rationale? You're basically disqualifying the purpose of the talk page because it disagreed with your argument. Regarding the RfC thing, while allowed via Wikipedia's rules, I think it's ill-advised and disingenuous to pretend that editors who are not familiar with the research surrounding such contentious topics have an equally strong say as ones that are actively engaged with the literature, such as the ones editting this article. Amateur Truther (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "WPATH, ASIAPATH, EPATH, PATHA, and USPATH Response to NHS England in the United Kingdom (UK)" (PDF). WPATH. November 25, 2022. Archived from the original (PDF) on 30 November 2022. Retrieved 2 January 2024.
    2. ^ Bharat, Bharat; Dopp, Alex; Last, Briana; Howell, Gary; Nadeem, Erum; Johnson, Clara; Stirman, Shannon Wiltsey (October 2023). "OSF". The Behavior Therapist. 46 (7). Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies. doi:10.31234/osf.io/gz5mk. PMC 11661860. Archived from the original on 24 September 2024. Retrieved 1 January 2024.
    3. ^ Lawson, Zazie; Davies, Skye; Harmon, Shae; Williams, Matthew; Billawa, Shradha; Holmes, Ryan; Huckridge, Jaymie; Kelly, Phillip; MacIntyre-Harrison, Jess; Neill, Stewart; Song-Chase, Angela; Ward, Hannah; Yates, Michael (October 2023). "A human rights based approach to transgender and gender expansive health". Clinical Psychology Forum. 1 (369): 91–106. doi:10.53841/bpscpf.2023.1.369.91. ISSN 1747-5732. S2CID 265086908. Archived from the original on 24 September 2024. Retrieved 1 January 2024.
    4. ^ Amery, Fran (2023-12-11). "Protecting Children in 'Gender Critical' Rhetoric and Strategy: Regulating Childhood for Cisgender Outcomes". DiGeSt - Journal of Diversity and Gender Studies. 10 (2). doi:10.21825/digest.85309. ISSN 2593-0281. Archived from the original on 24 September 2024. Retrieved 1 January 2024.
    5. ^ Caraballo, Alejandra (December 2022). "The Anti-Transgender Medical Expert Industry". Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. 50 (4): 687–692. doi:10.1017/jme.2023.9. ISSN 1073-1105. PMID 36883410. Archived from the original on 1 March 2024. Retrieved 1 January 2024.

    Gitz' edit

    [edit]
    • [5] seems biased to present the fringe/minority POV first. Also, my understanding is that most proponents of GET support it as an alternative to gender-affirming care, not in addition to it. (t · c) buidhe 14:19, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Is this not just a repeat of the kind of behaviour that got Gitz TBAN'd in August? cc @SarekOfVulcan REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 14:23, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      If I understand the TBan's rationale well, the answer is "No". But let's hear from SarekOfVulcan.
      @Buidhe, actually GET proponents say they oppose (what they call) the gender-affirming "model" or "approach" (D'Angelo 2025: the only available alternatives to the gender-affirming approach; Evans 2020: the affirmative approach; Spiliadis 2019: gender affirmative model of care), but they don't rule out gender-affirming treatment when psychotherapy proves to be ineffective. They say that psychotherapy should be a first-line treatment for gender dysphoria (D'Angelo 2025), that exploratory psychotherapy that is neither “affirmation” nor “conversion” should be the first-line treatment for all young people with GD (D'Angelo 2021), that therapeutic exploration should be taking place before as well as through ... and potentially after any relevant medical decision-making (Spiliadis 2019), and that psychotherapeutic/psychiatric assessment is essential whatever decisions are made regarding medical treatment (Evans 2020). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:16, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah so like I said it's being offered instead of gender affirming care or to delay such care, which is why many RS consider it a form of conversion therapy.
      I'm not sure if "what is conversion therapy" is a question for MEDRS because by definition conversion therapy isn't a medically accepted practice. (t · c) buidhe 20:00, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      We need to distinguish between what MEDRS is for and whether a topic is "real" medicine. WP:MEDRS applies to biomedical claims - anything about health, mental health, treatments, harms, diagnostics, etc., regardless of whether it is accepted, fringe or outright fraud. So the sentence "homeopaty/Reiki/crystal healing are not effective" falls under WP:MEDRS, and even if conversion therapy is not part of accepted medicine, it still belongs to the biomedical domain. I think some issues may arise for medical practices that are so marginal and obscure that no medical journal has ever taken them into consideration. But this is certainly not the case for conversion therapy and GET, where (if I'm not mistaken) we have at least the following high- to mid-tier MEDRS sources: WPATH 2022, RAND 2024, Cass Review 2024, UKCP 2024, Ashley 2023. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:02, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      For the umpteenth time, the Cass review is not a MEDRS source. Absolutely nobody but you here believes that it is.
      In addition to that: In the inclusion/exclusion criteria for the RAND source, GET is described as conversion therapy. The WPATH source describes GET as denying affirming treatment and calls it harmful, the UKCP source doesn't mention GET (nor does the Memorandum it is about) and Ashley is arguing that GET is a rebranded form CT. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:14, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with buidhe and think that while it's not exactly why Gitz was topic-banned (the point there was to prevent big disputes while an ArbCom case was ongoing) it's not exactly unrelated either. Loki (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes. We were supposedly close enough to the proposed decision at that point that I was concerned that something which would moot the RfC make the RfC moot (huh, I could have sworn "moot" could mean "make moot", but no, it means to suggest a discussion) and disrupt the heck out of everything would show up in the proposed/final decision. I placed the topic ban, assuming it would be for only a week or two, and lifted it as soon as I saw the PD would not have any direct impact on the discussion. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      To be fair, that sense is now well established enough in US usage that it has been added to a decent number of dictionaries, there's wikt:moot#Verb sense 3, (added 2004) of course, but also less user generated ones such as AHD 5th ed. (though I believe only in the 2016 reprinting and not the 2012 ones), Random House, via Dictionary.com, apparently as far back as the 1966 edition, etc. Webster's New World Dictionary seemed to have introduced it in the 3rd ed. in 1989. Merriam-Webster seems to have added it in W3 but maybe removed it again at some point since it's not in the web version? Not sure which other AmE dictionaries people normally use. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:11, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Conversion therapy/Lead

    [edit]

    A new draft version of the new lead version is open to all to edit at Talk:Conversion therapy/Lead for improvement before implementation in the article. Justthefacts (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I read it.
    I want to preface by saying that I've publicly referred to CT as "evil", "bullshit", "sick" and "fundamentally stupid", and I still stand by every single one of those statements.
    In that light, please understand that I'm speaking purely from a WP:PAG standpoint when I say that it reads as wildly non-neutral. Especially that first sentence. While I don't find your version to be without merits (I think the "unanimous global consensus of..." language might be useful), if asked purely to choose between the existing version and yours, I would chose the existing one without hesitation. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:12, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed this discussion and while I basically agree with MjolnirPants, I did think there were some easy improvements that could be made to the current lead.
    I've tightened up some of the wording and rearranged it to go in a more clear order. Loki (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @LokiTheLiar: @MjolnirPants: This is precisely why the new draft version of the new lead version is open to all to edit at Talk:Conversion therapy/Lead for improvement before implementation in the article. --Justthefacts (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am seeing broad statements relying on sources that are not sufficient to support the statement.
    • The statement "Conversion therapy perpetrated on children constitutes child abuse" relies on a source that is primarily discussing whether the stricture of the law in a handful of states is sufficient to override specific US national law concerns when they effectively label CT as child abuse. Even accepting that it makes a broader statement to the end, I'm uncertain that we are concerned with child abuse as a matter of crime versus as a matter of health.
    • The statement "It is the unanimous global consensus of the scientific, medical, psychological, psychiatric, and pediatric communities around the world that conversion therapy is both ineffective and harmful," seems to be still sourced to the sources I raised concern about in the section above this one.
    I appreciate the desire to paint an appropriately dark picture of the practice, but when we can be seen as overstating our sources, it can be hard to not lost reader trust. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @NatGertler: Again, this is precisely why the new draft version of the new lead version is open to all to edit at Talk:Conversion therapy/Lead for improvement before implementation in the article. --Justthefacts (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not working on the assumption that it will be implemented. There's not been an articulation of what, if anything, is wrong with the extant version, nor of why we should start with your version rather than that one if changes need to be made. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:27, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @NatGertler: The new lead version is much more reflective of the strong scientific consensus that conversion therapy is both ineffective and harmful and also the strong scientific consensus that being lesbian, gay, and bisexual are all positive and normal variations of human sexual orientation and that being transgender is a positive and normal variation of human gender identity. --Justthefacts (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Buidhe: @McSly: @NatGertler: @LokiTheLiar: @MjolnirPants: @Raladic: The draft of the lead at Talk:Conversion therapy/Lead has been edited in order to address the concerns of other editors and any and all further input is very welcome. --Justthefacts (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I strongly believe that the word "harmful" should be moved out of the first sentence (though kept in the lead), and that "discredited" and "pseudoscience" are conveying the same exact information, so joining them with an "and" reads very non-neutrally.
    I've made an edit which shows what I believe to be a better structure for the lead. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:56, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did some edits, but at this point, I am going to encourage instead working with the existing page as a base rather than this version. What was brought to use was literally saying "Conversion therapy [...] consists of [...] harmful [...] practices [...] There is an overwhelmingly global consensus [...] that conversion therapy is [...] harmful, and also causes (list of harms)....Conversion therapy can constitute cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment in violation of the civil rights and the human rights of persons. Conversion therapy [...] can constitute child abuse." While conversion therapy is harmful and that should be reflected in the introduction, making almost the entire introduction a repeated hammer of that statement makes it look less like an encyclopedia article and more like a screed. I am not of the belief that we should start with this version as a base for change. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:24, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I second this. We can make mention of the harm in the existing lead, and that would make it better than even the current, edited version of this proposal. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:38, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @NatGertler: @MjolnirPants: See WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. Articles are to clearly expose anti-scientific theories and pseudoscientific practices as contrary to science by stating scientific facts found in WP:RELIABLESOURCES. --Justthefacts (talk) 01:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither of us are asking for false balance. Neither of us is asking for its harmfulness not to be mentioned in the lead. We can be clear on this without the "its harmful and it also causes harm. Plus, there are harms" construction. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @NatGertler: All WP:RELIABLESOURCES, consistently and constantly, hammer the scientific facts that conversion therapy is discredited, harmful, pseudoscientific, and so on and so forth, repeatedly and regularly, and as such so should the article, per WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. --Justthefacts (talk) 02:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The reliable sources also tells us things about the history, the legal status, many other things. The introduction is meant to be a summary of the article. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:58, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @NatGertler: In all search results for "conversion therapy", all reliable sources, consistently and constantly, hammer the scientific facts that conversion therapy is discredited, harmful, pseudoscientific, and so on and so forth, repeatedly and regularly, and as such so should the article, per WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. --Justthefacts (talk) 06:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you might need to read those articles yourself, because your version goes so far beyond anything they proscribe. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:05, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    @Buidhe: You correctly observed in this edit, which you for some reason reverted in this edit, that "so much of the sources focus on harms" and that therefore "it should be emphasized in the lead". You are correct in that observation and the lead should state the same as the sources, per WP:RELIABLE and WP:WEIGHT. --Justthefacts (talk) 01:55, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    If the intention is to make it more clear that CT is pseudoscientific, I think the change from "Conversion therapy is the pseudoscientific practice ..." to "Conversion therapy ... consists of pseudoscientific practices" is counterproductive. If the intention is to make it more clear that CT is ineffective and harmful, I think changing from stating so plainly to describing it as a global consensus is counterproductive. Overall, I'm in agreement with a few others here that the status quo is a better starting point for improvement. I think we could stand to add a couple sentences, but I'd rather not bulk up on alternative terms, which I think are best covered in the body. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:03, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason I self rv is because it's covered in the second sentence already in more detail. (t · c) buidhe 03:48, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Firefangledfeathers: Is the wording in this revision better? --Justthefacts (talk) 06:15, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you consider revising: "Historically, conversion therapy was the treatment of choice for individuals who disclosed same-sex attractions or exhibited gender nonconformity, which were formerly assumed to be pathologies by the medical establishment".?
    I previously noted (here) that conversion therapy is a relatively recent phenomena of the 19th and 20th century. Conversion therapy also wasn't ubiquitous in all cultures (e.g. some cultures accepted transgendered male androphilia for hundreds of years). Zenomonoz (talk) 06:21, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zenomonoz: See the draft at Talk:Conversion therapy/Lead, which you are also very welcome to edit yourself! :) --Justthefacts (talk) 01:35, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you need to break this down into smaller proposals; a sweeping rewrite of the entire lead of a controversial topic is always going to be a hard sell, and I agree with the comments above that there's a lot of issues here:
    • Opening with a massive list of alternative terms for it makes it harder to read; and most of these aren't particularly common terms, so there's no reason to do so.
    • consists of pseudoscientific practices is just weird wording.
    • Generally the old first sentence feels like it's both more readable and more professionally-worded. The parenthetical asides in particular make it choppy and hard to read, and are, again, not really necessary because the jargon isn't important enough for the first sentence.
    • Changing Conversion therapy is ineffective at... to There is a global consensus among the scientific, medical, psychological, psychiatric, and pediatric communities that conversion therapy is both... is adding unnecessarily attribution; if there's a global consensus among every respectable authority (and I agree there is!), we can just... state it as fact. We don't attribute things to the entire scientific establishment.
    • The entire second paragraph also seems to repeat itself twice in an unnecessary manner?
    • The religion sentence is awkward because it goes beyond what the sources say, especially the particularly Abrahamic religions - the sources just note that that is sometimes a cause. I think that we could possibly mention religion in the lead as a factor in conversion therapy, but it would be, like, one word in a more neutral sentence summarizing the "motivations" section.
    The rest is, as far as I can tell, better-handled in the old version. If you disagree you need to break down point-by-point the sentences you want to replace and why. --Aquillion (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aquillion: You are very welcome to edit the draft at Talk:Conversion therapy/Lead yourself! :) --Justthefacts (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, I'm going to be a bit more blunt, because it's starting to feel like WP:IDIDNTHERETHAT applies and I want to be sure there's no confusion here. The draft has clearly been rejected as a framework for how to write the lead going forwards - as far as I can tell, not a single person other than you has expressed support for it. Trying to act like it will one day be moved to article space isn't helpful. I feel the changes in it make things worse, and I'm opposed to using it or anything derived from it for the lead going forwards. Why would I want to edit it? I like the current lead just fine. If I had any changes I wanted to make I'd apply them to the current version of the lead directly, since that's a better starting place. I'm not totally averse to the possibility that you might be able to salvage some small improvements to the current lead, but if you want that to happen then you first need to recognize that the draft as a whole has been rejected, pay attention to why, figure out what's most important (and which doesn't fall under those problems people have with the larger rewrite) and make an argument for those as a series of smaller edits. But my advice would be to just WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on. Going off on your own to write a draft that completely rewrites the lead of a controversial article and then inviting other people to edit it as though you can just assume your massive bold rewrite is going to somehow be the starting point going forwards is usually a terrible idea because, as you've found out, there's a very high chance that your draft will just be rejected out of hand - the current lead is the work of extensive compromise and polish and consideration by huge numbers of editors; it's very hard for one person to produce a total rewrite like this that could obtain consensus. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and that means that, especially for articles on controversial subjects, it is better to make small incremental changes than bold sweeping rewrites - but if you are going to propose a bold sweeping rewrite, you need to understand the high chance that it will just get rejected, and be willing to accept that reality when it happens. --Aquillion (talk) 04:54, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I second the WP:IDHT point and that nobody has expressed support for it. I would note that I've been pinged by Justthefacts at least 3 times unnecessarily throughout this discussion.
    I do disagree that nothing coming from it is useful. I think the lead should express that the practice is widely seen as harmful, and I'm not entirely convinced that the 'global consensus' language isn't useful, though that should probably go in the body, not the lead.
    All in all, it's not an entirely useless proposal, but it's an extremely biased proposal. So biased, in fact, that even though my own biases run in the same general direction, this proposal leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
    @Justthefacts:, I would advise you to edit in other areas until you've gained enough experience to account for your own biases. I would add that a bias against something which is demonstrably false or bad is still a bias, and that all biases need to be accounted for when engaged in academic writing. I understand -and even agree with- your motivations here, but I can clearly see you going much too far. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:26, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    "Historically, conversion therapy was the treatment of choice"

    [edit]

    Since the above discussion is going nowhere, I'd like some input on a longstanding issue in the second paragraph:

    "Historically, conversion therapy was the treatment of choice for individuals who disclosed same-sex attractions or exhibited gender nonconformity, which were formerly assumed to be pathologies by the medical establishment"

    This doesn't seem accurate. Conversion therapy only became an offering in the mid 20th century. And the sentence implies conversion therapy was ubiquitous in all cultures and potentially all times? Homosexuality (especially in a third gendered form) certainly wasn't seen as a pathology in several cultures.

    I might just try and come up with a replacement but any input would be helpful. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:54, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that the sentence originally did not mention gender identity. I agree that we could narrow down the dates and culture where it's applicable. Probably mid 20th century western countries. (t · c) buidhe 11:13, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2025

    [edit]

    Reference number 2 (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00918369.2020.1840213) says: "can be ineffective and severely harmful" I think the first paragraph should be edited to include the "can be" ineffective/harmful. 2601:600:9C80:A580:1ABD:EBDD:734E:C2F7 (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Slomo666 (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Conversion therapy

    [edit]

    conversion therapy is banned in Denmark and Sweden. Jollie jumper (talk) 08:56, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Penile plethysmography

    [edit]

    I saw that @Zenomonoz reverted my WP:BOLD edit to remove inaccurate information from the page Conversion therapy. WP:AVOIDEDITWAR states to avoid edit wars, "avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the associated talk page". In addition to disputes over the accuracy of penile plethysmography, I believe that the sentences as they are currently worded either constitute WP:SYNTH as the source cited for the claim does not support the claim except in juxtaposition with other research, OR fails WP:V. The relevant section of the cited academic source is:

    I do not believe this material supports the contention that "According to Bailey et al. the effectiveness of conversion therapy could be objectively tested in men using penile plethysmography". The most germane section of the article states "Measures of men’s genital arousal patterns to a variety of male and female erotic stimuli, both before and after conversion therapy, would provide highly relevant evidence. Control groups of heterosexual and homosexual men not receiving conversion therapy would clarify the interpretation of results" and "Data that might speak to this issue are meager. Freund (1960) found that clients’ claims of sexual reorientation were not supported by phallometric assessments. Conrad and Wincze (1976) found that physiological arousal measurements did not support the positive reports of those who had participated in sexual-reorientation therapy."

    I do not believe an overall reading of the text would support the claim that "the effectiveness of conversion therapy could be objectively tested in men using penile plethysmography". I think a more accurate summation of the source provided here is that:

    According to Bailey et. al, measures of men's genital arousal patterns could provide relevant evidence to the efficacy of conversion therapy. They state that "data that might speak to this issue are meager", and list two studies that found that claimed changes in sexual orientation were not supported by these measures of sexual arousal.

    I removed the content as I did not believe it added sufficient encyclopedic value to the reader as the relevant studies describing are already described in the next sentence: "Sexologist Kurt Freund found that client's claims of sexual re-orientation were not supported by penile phallometric tests; and Conrad and Wincze (1976) found that arousal measurements also failed to support successful claims of sexual re-orientation". Katzrockso (talk) 11:04, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    As a sidenote, this is another example of improperly paraphrased material that needs to be reworded. The two sentences here are almost exact duplications of the material produced in the original text.
    Wikipedia text:

    Sexologist Kurt Freund found that client's claims of sexual re-orientation were not supported by penile phallometric tests; and Conrad and Wincze (1976) found that arousal measurements also failed to support successful claims of sexual re-orientation

    Bailey et. al:

    Freund (1960) found that clients’ claims of sexual reorientation were not supported by phallometric assessments. Conrad and Wincze (1976) found that physiological arousal measurements did not support the positive reports of those who had participated in sexual-reorientation therapy.

    I have bolded the duplicated content, which shows that the first sentence is nearly identical. Additionally, the second sentence is not sufficiently transformative because it merely changes words to synonyms without substantially changing the meaning; "failed to" to "did not", "successful" to "positive", "claims" to "reports". Katzrockso (talk) 11:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tweaked it slightly. As for your first comment, it's best to shorten a WP:WALLOFTEXT where possible to make it easy for editors to read. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I added a collapse template to make reading easier for editors, but still allows for the full relevant content of the article to be included in the discussion. Katzrockso (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for editing the offending sentences. I will see if I can tweak them a little more because I do not believe they are sufficiently transformative.
    Do you have any opinion on the issue of verifiability of the statement "According to Bailey et al. the effectiveness of conversion therapy could be objectively tested in men using penile plethysmography"? As elaborated above, I do not believe that the source text supports this statement. To avoid warring over removing the content until we can either rework or edit to a satisfactory resolution, I have added the template "failed verification" to the specific statement that does not appear to be supported by the text to ensure that readers will not be misled by the statement. Katzrockso (talk) 00:20, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What is with the failed verification tag? You've been coming into GenSex articles, citing sources that say abuse causes homosexuality and that it's a social construct, and now you're over here disputing the accuracy of the Bailey review to suggest what? That conversion therapy has not been given a fair shot? Zenomonoz (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I strenuously reject conversion therapy as a queer person and reject any WP:ASPERSIONS that I am seeking to reject the scientific consensus that conversion therapy is an abuse psuedoscientific practice.
    I do not reject any accuracy of the Bailey review, I take issue with how one statement is reflected in the text. I urge you to please WP:AGF. Katzrockso (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, so why tag something as "failed verification" because you have minor disagreements on phrasing? Why not just fix it, instead of tagging – which is generally reserved for things totally absent in the source. The Bailey et al. review supports the sentence overall. Zenomonoz (talk) 00:54, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to remove the sentence (which I believe is not supported by the source) and you reverted it, which is why this discussing is happening. I am trying to avoid any possible edit wars by seeking consensus on possible changes, as my good-faith edits to improve accuracy have already been legitimately reverted on the basis of disagreement. I proposed a possible summation in my initial post on the subject here [6], do you have any objection to implementing my proposed change or any suggestions for improvement?
    Thanks, Katzrockso (talk) 01:07, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, you tried to remove the entire sentence entirely – which is what I reverted – because it was totally unjustified?
    How is "According to Bailey et. al, measures of men's genital arousal patterns could provide relevant evidence to the efficacy of conversion therapy" so significantly different from what I have written: "According to Bailey et al. the effectiveness of conversion therapy could be objectively tested in men using penile plethysmography" that it justifies tagging it with failed verification? You are starting to become frustrating and exhausting to deal with. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:16, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't see the difference between "relevant evidence" and "objectively tested"? I think there is a world of difference there. Katzrockso (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You could actually read the paragraphs in the Bailey review, which clearly mention the word "objective" with respect to arousal studies and conversion therapy: "an objective measure of male sexual orientation exists that is not easily manipulated, a study of sexual orientation in men need not rely on self-report: Measures of men’s genital arousal patterns to a variety of male and female erotic stimuli, both before and after conversion therapy, would provide highly relevant evidence".
    As an editor, I am required to rewrite what the sources say in my own words. I did that. After removing my sentence entirely, you then write walls of text (which wear down editors), and nitpick while refusing to WP:DROPTHESTICK (on multiple articles, I might add). Tagging Firefangledfeathers if they are around for some independent admin input. Also tagging Aquillion, Justthefacts and NatGertler for their input. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:26, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the word "objective" appears in the paragraph there, but I do not believe that this expresses the same meaning as the proposed wording in the article. The adjective "objective" is used in reference to male sexual orientation there, not the evaluation of the efficacy of conversion therapy.
    I apologize if my comments were verbose, I will work on reducing the size of my responses.
    I welcome the involvement of administrator input, I will note that I did just ask for a 3O on the 3O page. Katzrockso (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have tweaked the sentence in question for the sake of closing this back and forth. I'm going to suggest you avoid tagging things with 'failed verification' next time you have a minor disagreement with phrasing – because that might start to look like disruptive editing. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:04, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate that we were able to come to a consensus in this discussion. I have removed the notice from WP:3O page. Katzrockso (talk) 08:18, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Lead (again)

    [edit]

    Justthefacts, thanks for your edit but I had to revert your rewrite of the lead. You used several primary source studies, which are not in line with WP:MEDRS requirements for secondary sources.

    Second, you make citation to a number of sources that are not included or discussed in the body. The lead is a summary of the body, WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, so it needs to reflect what is included in the body of the article. Zenomonoz (talk) 07:54, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Justthefacts was told on October 3 that their version of the lead does not have consensus, yet they have made sweeping changes to the lead 3 times since then. [7] [8] [9] REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 08:20, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zenomonoz: Could you please point out what exactly are areas with issues? The "rewrite" of the last paragraph, for example, only rearranged the text into a more flowing format, added citations to sources supporting the existing text, and replaced reference to "experts", which is vague, with references to the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims and the United Nations, with additional citations to sources supporting the references. --Justthefacts (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To start: Citations are not standard practice in lead sections per MOS:LEADCITE, they should be avoided if possible and minimized to avoid cluttering up the lead. The current version of the article balances the issues with controversiality of the topic with readability and adds citations only at the end of paragraphs. Katzrockso (talk) 07:41, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To add, please check the WP links I added in the original comment. But to clarify, sources such as this and this are primary sources –which violate WP:MEDRS requirements for medical topics (take the time to read MEDRS, it will help).
    Secondary sources (e.g. position statements from psychological associations, peer reviewed academic reviews, or books by topic expert academics) are suitable. Wikipedia aims to "accurately reflect current knowledge", so primary source studies should be avoided. These might not replicate, or have issues in their methodology, so we wait for experts to evaluate them and discuss them in secondary sources. Zenomonoz (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Without commenting on the merits, since no one followed up on this assertion, I will just set the record straight regarding citations in the lead: the claim that "they should be avoided if possible and minimized to avoid cluttering up the lead" is not supported by any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Read what it says again. Mathglot (talk) 20:57, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Mathglot, I don't think this is a lead cite dispute. The main issue is citing primary sources and sources that aren't in the body, therefore running an increased risk of introducing new ideas instead of summarizing the body per mos:lead. (t · c) buidhe 21:35, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, but I think you meant to post this in reply to Katzrockso. And yes, Buidhe, that was my point. They need to be introduced in the body first. Zenomonoz (talk) 06:32, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite right. Mathglot (talk) 06:50, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Irrelveant

    [edit]

    Recovering from Religion (listed in the see also section) is not a relevant organisation to this topic. That's an organisation about de-converting from religion.2001:BB6:7A9A:9458:F906:2724:71B1:4610 (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    While you have a point, it isn't entirely irrelevant. Recovery From Religions podcast is hosted by a pair of "conversion therapy survivors" and has addressed the topic of conversion therapy more than once ( episode 87, episode 137 as examples.). -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Notice of RfC: Gender exploratory therapy and conversion therapy

    [edit]

    There is an ongoing RfC at NPOVN on whether gender exploratory therapy should be described as a form of conversion therapy. Editors interested in the issue are welcome to comment. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:23, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed note

    [edit]

    @LokiTheLiar @Springee @BetsyRogers @Katzrockso @WhatamIdoing since the GET/CT RfC has closed, I thought we might as well move to implement a point we all seemingly agreed on during the discussion - that being adding a note above the GET section as a means of clarification and reduction of future conflict, akin to what is proposed in this comment. This many people agreeing should make the decision uncontroversial, so should one of us go ahead? Amateur Truther (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    We would first need a section of another article that describes the exploratory aspect of psychological treatment in standard medical care, which would need to be written. Katzrockso (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh, I could have sworn something akin to this already existed in trans health care. I imagine the insertion of such a section could be contentious without proper handling, so if anyone does this, it should probably be quite carefully written to make sure it is not just GET all over again. I may do some research on this in due time. Amateur Truther (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    PS This is still very early in the research process, but supportive gender exploration through counselling (as opposed to GET) appears to be a recommendation in WPATH's guidelines. Amateur Truther (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For some reason the article on trans health care doesn't go into any significant detail about types of trans health care at all. Just expanding that aspect of the article generally would naturally lead to the addition of a psychotherapy section we could link to. Loki (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I am actually surprised there are no mentions of counselling in that article, not even as a single paragraph talking about this very topic. I will be working on an expansion, though anyone here willing to do the same, feel free to make your edits. I may add to them later. Amateur Truther (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Interestingly (or confusingly) I found another article simply called Transgender where there's a whole section specific to Transgender#Healthcare, and the longest subsection in that is "mental healthcare". There's a much shorter subsection on medical/physical healthcare, although it does link to the Transgender health care article using a "main article" hatnote.
    It seems pretty neutral, fact-based. But I don't know enough on the topic to say whether it's missing any key information. If it looks okay, maybe the disambiguation could link to that (linking to Transgender#Mental healthcare )? Or at least for now. It could always be changed if the healthcare article ends up with its own section on mental health care. BetsyRogers (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Would it be possible to add that HHS posted a Gender Dysphoria Report that was condemned by the APA?

    [edit]

    The HSS posted a Gender Dysphoria Report titled "Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria: Review of Evidence and Best Practices" where they argue that gender exploratory therapy should not be considered conversion therapy. Stating "Equating “exploratory therapy” with “conversion therapy” is misguided."

    https://opa.hhs.gov/gender-dysphoria-report

    https://opa.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2025-11/gender-dysphoria-report.pdf

    In its own peer reviews, the APA called its failure to address the risk of confirmation bias in the report a "critical oversight", highlighted its selective presentation of evidence from the Cass Review, mentioned that there is no indication that "stakeholders" (transgender individuals, their families, or clinicians) were consulted or that their perspectives were considered, that the report did not apply any kind of rational scrutiny to potential harms that have been associated with withholding intervention, and that the Cass Review, which the report relied heavily on, has been criticized by experts for its methodological flaws and biases.



    https://opa.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2025-11/gender-dysphoria-report-supplement.pdf

    I was curious if it would be inappropriate to suggest it be mentioned in the "Gender exploratory therapy" section of this page, or if it doesn't really make sense to add. Cyrus Maws (talk) 06:35, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It could be worth including, although I'm somewhat confused in what context you meant. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:58, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad you think so.
    I guess the context would be that the section "Gender exploratory therapy" of this Wikipedia article states "Gender exploratory therapy (GET) is a form of conversion therapy".
    And that a recent Health and Human Services report has been cited recently across the internet (including by the new Grokipedia, an AI-powered conservative-leaning Wikipedia alternative where users can suggest edits to reviewed and fact-checked by AI), often to dispute the claim that GET is a form of conversion therapy, to show insufficient evidence that gender-affirming care works, and to defend conversion therapy practices.
    The study is peer-reviewed by the American Psychiatric Association, which brings up many flaws and oversights with the paper.
    I feel like it would be helpful to mention this, since it's a timely topic currently being used to condemn bans on conversion therapy, and defend conversion therapy practices like gender exploratory therapy. Cyrus Maws (talk) 10:27, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no point in watering down the language in the section by citing 'he-said, she-said' style claims directly after it. Especially not so soon after we had such a well-attended and decisive RfC as this one was about this exact issue. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely understand what you mean, and I understand. I did not realize there was already an RfC about this.
    I want to clarify that I only wanted to suggest the report be mentioned as a flawed paper, and not as a counterargument to the sentiment that Gender Exploratory Therapy, which requires people to complete mandatory "extended" psychotherapy aimed at identifying possible causes of gender identity or trans identity before any transition process, is a form of conversion therapy.
    Given that the American Medical Association, which opposes the use of “conversion therapy” for sexual orientation or gender identity, seems to define conversion therapy as including discriminatory hurdles in accessing medically necessary health care services that affirm gender or treat gender dysphoria, gender exploratory therapy would absolutely be considered a form of conversion therapy.
    

Thanks for taking the time to share the RfC and clarify things to me. Cyrus Maws (talk) 13:44, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We do already have an article on the Trump administration HHS gender dysphoria report which could probably have a look over given the recent information. In terms of this article with the reliable sources we have at the moment, most that mention GET don't mention the HHS report so it would feel like we're putting undue weight on this report by mentioning it here. LunaHasArrived (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for sharing that already existing article!
    Given that an article about it already exists, I no longer see much benefit to adding it here. Cyrus Maws (talk) 14:41, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to clarify that I only wanted to suggest the report be mentioned as a flawed paper, and not as a counterargument to the sentiment that Gender Exploratory Therapy
    I understand that. I essentially share Luna's concerns here. I don't think it's WP:DUE here, and the APA response is already mentioned at the HHS report article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:43, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    McFadyen J, Jones TW, Koek R, Harte F, Jansen B, Galbally M, Kealy-Bateman W, Wall C, McLamore Q, Ravine A. An autoethnographic critique of a past report of inpatient psychiatric treatment for gender diverse children. Med J Aust. 2025 Oct 6;223(7):359-364. doi: 10.5694/mja2.70037. PMID: 41055357; PMCID: PMC12502885.

    [edit]

    Please include this reference, and consider including a brief discussion of this important peer-reviewed original research article.

    The article Kosky (1987), a case series, has been cited recently by people who promote "conversion" practices. It described extended (months) inpatient psychiatric hospital treatment of gender-nonconforming children. It claimed that the young people involved all identified with their birth sex at the end of the "therapy".

    McFadyen, the lead author, is a transgender woman who reasonably believes herself to be Case 5 in the Kosky case series. She is still transgender. The childhood gender identity conversion abusive practices did not change her sense of female identity, but caused her to feel great shame and secrecy, delayed her coming-out and gender affirmation by decades, and may have contributed to psychiatric distress.

    There are very few verified, scholarly accounts of survivors of childhood gender identity "conversion" practices. This is one. It is presented in scholarly autoethnographic format by an authorship team with a broad skill base and academic standing, and is published in the same journal as the original Kosky (1987), with an editorial acknowledging the Medical Journal of Australia's obligation to set the record straight and address harms associated with the original article.

    It received media attention in Australia from the ABC, who interviewed the authors: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-10-06/decades-old-study-influences-modern-trans-youth/105859724

    We can't emphasise enough the importance of this McFadyen et al (2025) study, as the old Kosky (1987) paper is still being cited in US litigation regarding the health care of transgender young people, to support repressive and abusive practices.

    Thank you. ~2025-43221-81 (talk) 04:22, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting, but neither of these are WP:MEDRS compliant sources. the article already states truthfully that there is no evidence that conversion practices can change a person's gender identity. (t · c) buIdhe 04:53, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The McFayden et al. article could be a MEDRS for very certain claims (largely the ones in the Conclusion section), but those claims have better sources anyways and the information about McFayden isn't DUE here. Katzrockso (talk) 05:30, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]