NationStates

Geneviev wrote:

The Free Joy State wrote:If they want it? You mean if, if their parents and their pastors and their spiritiaul leaders guilt trip them? If the friends at their church groups tease them?

If someone genuinely, freely wanted it as minors -- and that's a big if; you could see it from space -- they'd still want it at 18 or 21.

And as for "it can be effective". Source, please.

And I mean peer-reviewed research published by a reputable source, such as a recognised journal of psychology or psychiatry, the APA or the NCBI. And I will be looking up the author's other work for obvious bias.

An "ex-gay" blog or equivalent does not count.

If they want to be the way their church or their family wants them to be. If they don't want to be LGBT for whatever reason. They shouldn't be forced to not be the way they want to be.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1025647527010

People are the way their are.

"Being the way your church wants you to be" is alternately known as brainwashing.

And the author of that study recanted and apologised.

This is the end of his apology:

“You know, it’s the only regret I have; the only professional one,” Dr. Spitzer said of the study, near the end of a long interview. “And I think, in the history of psychiatry, I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a scientist write a letter saying that the data were all there but were totally misinterpreted. Who admitted that and who apologized to his readers.”

He looked away and back again, his big eyes blurring with emotion. “That’s something, don’t you think?”

And from his obituary in the Telegraph, it sums up the issue with his study:

The study was seized upon by the so-called “ex-gay” movement who used his argument to push what they called “reparative therapy”.

In his mea culpa, Spitzer admitted that the “fatal flaw” in his study had been the impossibility of telling whether his interviewees had genuinely changed their sexual orientation.

Geneviev wrote:It should be allowed for minors if they want it. And it can be effective.

I've never heard of any postive results of those so-called "therapies". If their social environment would just accept that their children aren't straight, then there is no problem and therefore no reason for any "therapy" or "cure".

Conversion therapy doesn't work so I guess thats ok but if we get a thing that can like make some gay person straight with minimal psychological distress I think we should allow it

The Free Joy State wrote:

Geneviev wrote:If they want to be the way their church or their family wants them to be. If they don't want to be LGBT for whatever reason. They shouldn't be forced to not be the way they want to be.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1025647527010

People are the way their are.

"Being the way your church wants you to be" is alternately known as brainwashing.

And the author of that study recanted and apologised.

This is the end of his apology:

“You know, it’s the only regret I have; the only professional one,” Dr. Spitzer said of the study, near the end of a long interview. “And I think, in the history of psychiatry, I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a scientist write a letter saying that the data were all there but were totally misinterpreted. Who admitted that and who apologized to his readers.”

He looked away and back again, his big eyes blurring with emotion. “That’s something, don’t you think?”

In that case, my parents didn't send me any other studies. So the only evidence is the people who changed.

Misuvelia wrote:

Geneviev wrote:It should be allowed for minors if they want it. And it can be effective.

I've never heard of any postive results of those so-called "therapies". If their social environment would just accept that their children aren't straight, then there is no problem and therefore no reason for any "therapy" or "cure".

That's because there aren't any. And health care professionals warn against them on that account.

Misuvelia wrote:

Geneviev wrote:It should be allowed for minors if they want it. And it can be effective.

I've never heard of any postive results of those so-called "therapies". If their social environment would just accept that their children aren't straight, then there is no problem and therefore no reason for any "therapy" or "cure".

But the thing is, they won't accept it because they think the children will go to hell and they don't want that.

It is disappointing to see geneviev shilling for conversion therapy.

Geneviev wrote:

The Free Joy State wrote:People are the way their are.

"Being the way your church wants you to be" is alternately known as brainwashing.

And the author of that study recanted and apologised.

This is the end of his apology:

“You know, it’s the only regret I have; the only professional one,” Dr. Spitzer said of the study, near the end of a long interview. “And I think, in the history of psychiatry, I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a scientist write a letter saying that the data were all there but were totally misinterpreted. Who admitted that and who apologized to his readers.”

He looked away and back again, his big eyes blurring with emotion. “That’s something, don’t you think?”

In that case, my parents didn't send me any other studies. So the only evidence is the people who changed.

I'm sorry that your parents used this study to try and sway your choices.

In the Spitzer study, it's now believed that there was no evidence that people changed their sexuality. He misinterpreted the data. He later admitted that there was no way of knowing whether the patients actually didn't experience same-sex attraction anymore or only claimed not to.

Here, I can offer you a meta-analysis of studies by Cornell.

Why don't you take a look?

This sums up the sample:

We identified 47 peer-reviewed studies that that met our criteria for adding to knowledge about whether conversion therapy (CT) can alter sexual orientation without causing harm. Thirteen of those studies included primary research. Of those, 12 concluded that CT is ineffective and/or harmful, finding links to depression, suicidality, anxiety, social isolation and decreased capacity for intimacy. Only one study concluded that sexual orientation change efforts could succeed—although only in a minority of its participants, and the study has several limitations: its entire sample self-identified as religious and it is based on self-reports, which can be biased and unreliable. The remaining 34 studies do not make an empirical determination about whether CT can alter sexual orientation but may offer useful observations to help guide practitioners who treat LGB patients.

Geneviev wrote:This person has evidence.

That's from a quack alliance site that is pro-conversion therapy.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:

Geneviev wrote:This person has evidence.

That's from a quack alliance site that is pro-conversion therapy.

Well, that and one of the "evidences" is the already apologised-for Spitzer study, that the author regretted doing, and admitted was based on unreliable self-reports.

The other "evidence" appears to be another study of a small sample of entirely highly-religious people (who may want to pretend to have "conquered" feelings they believe wrong) and relying on self-report.

For this second study, the authors say:

The authors explore methodological limitations circumscribing generalizability of the findings and alternative explanations of the findings, such as sexual identity change or adjustment.

Seriously, Geneviev, look at the meta-analysis in my previous post.
--> 12 studies find serious harm and/or that it's ineffective
--> 34 make no judgement either way (but are mainly aiming to provide actually-qualified people advice when working with LGB persons after they've endured this)
--> 1 found that it could change a person's sexuality (in a small number of its participants, relying entirely on unreliable self-reports, of highly religious individuals who may have claimed to no longer be having feelings they did).

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:

Geneviev wrote:This person has evidence.

That's from a quack alliance site that is pro-conversion therapy.

Mr. Pickup brought a case against the state of California when they banned conversion therapy. He lost.

Ifreann wrote:

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
That's from a quack alliance site that is pro-conversion therapy.

Mr. Pickup brought a case against the state of California when they banned conversion therapy. He lost.

I can see why.

Des-Bal wrote:

San Lumen wrote:And why do you have this holier than thou attitude that it’s something to be corrected? It’s who someone is. Science shouldn’t be seeking to rectify things like that

Because you're imagining things. I already pointed out that something doesn't need to be wrong to be changeable.

I deny that there is knowledge science shouldn't seek.

Estanglia wrote:How is it not an egregious practice when it leads to depression and suicidal thoughts?

When it's insufficiently prevalent. If every single person who went through this came out suicidal that would be egregious, the mere existence of a possible harm is insufficient. This is why sky diving or walking down the street are not egregiously dangerous.

How am I imagining things? Science should not be seeking to alter things such as attraction. That’s a dangerous path. I guess you never read Brave New World

The Free Joy State wrote:

Geneviev wrote:In that case, my parents didn't send me any other studies. So the only evidence is the people who changed.

I'm sorry that your parents used this study to try and sway your choices.

In the Spitzer study, it's now believed that there was no evidence that people changed their sexuality. He misinterpreted the data. He later admitted that there was no way of knowing whether the patients actually didn't experience same-sex attraction anymore or only claimed not to.

Here, I can offer you a meta-analysis of studies by Cornell.

Why don't you take a look?

This sums up the sample:

We identified 47 peer-reviewed studies that that met our criteria for adding to knowledge about whether conversion therapy (CT) can alter sexual orientation without causing harm. Thirteen of those studies included primary research. Of those, 12 concluded that CT is ineffective and/or harmful, finding links to depression, suicidality, anxiety, social isolation and decreased capacity for intimacy. Only one study concluded that sexual orientation change efforts could succeed—although only in a minority of its participants, and the study has several limitations: its entire sample self-identified as religious and it is based on self-reports, which can be biased and unreliable. The remaining 34 studies do not make an empirical determination about whether CT can alter sexual orientation but may offer useful observations to help guide practitioners who treat LGB patients.

I couldn't look at it, but I'll do that now.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:

Geneviev wrote:This person has evidence.

That's from a quack alliance site that is pro-conversion therapy.

And your sources are biased against conversion therapy.

San Lumen wrote:
How am I imagining things? Science should not be seeking to alter things such as attraction. That’s a dangerous path. I guess you never read Brave New World

Because I have no issue with homosexuality and don't feel it needs to be corrected so any sense that my attitude about the subject is holier than thou is flawed.

I did read Brave New World, and yet somehow I've failed to embrace luddism. Science should be unrestrained. Further, I don't think homosexuality is a choice but I don't see why it shouldn't be. There's nothing wrong with having blond hair or dark skin but we have hair dye and we have skin bleaching, now if the government decided everyone had to be white and blonde that would be a problem but it certainly wouldn't be a problem with the fact that the processes existed.

Geneviev wrote:

The Free Joy State wrote:I'm sorry that your parents used this study to try and sway your choices.

In the Spitzer study, it's now believed that there was no evidence that people changed their sexuality. He misinterpreted the data. He later admitted that there was no way of knowing whether the patients actually didn't experience same-sex attraction anymore or only claimed not to.

Here, I can offer you a meta-analysis of studies by Cornell.

Why don't you take a look?

This sums up the sample:

We identified 47 peer-reviewed studies that that met our criteria for adding to knowledge about whether conversion therapy (CT) can alter sexual orientation without causing harm. Thirteen of those studies included primary research. Of those, 12 concluded that CT is ineffective and/or harmful, finding links to depression, suicidality, anxiety, social isolation and decreased capacity for intimacy. Only one study concluded that sexual orientation change efforts could succeed—although only in a minority of its participants, and the study has several limitations: its entire sample self-identified as religious and it is based on self-reports, which can be biased and unreliable. The remaining 34 studies do not make an empirical determination about whether CT can alter sexual orientation but may offer useful observations to help guide practitioners who treat LGB patients.

I couldn't look at it, but I'll do that now.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
That's from a quack alliance site that is pro-conversion therapy.

And your sources are biased against conversion therapy.

My sources are not biased against it. My sources pretty much state, by psychiatrists and other health care professionals, why it doesn't work and why it isn't advisable. Note that I am not the one using a quack source to back my claim.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... herapy-all
https://www.hrc.org/resources/the-lies- ... ve-therapy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:

Geneviev wrote:I couldn't look at it, but I'll do that now.


And your sources are biased against conversion therapy.

My sources are not biased against it. My sources pretty much state, by psychiatrists and other health care professionals, why it doesn't work and why it isn't advisable. Note that I am not the one using a quack source to back my claim.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... herapy-all
https://www.hrc.org/resources/the-lies- ... ve-therapy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy

The first is a blog. And anyone can edit Wikipedia.

Geneviev wrote:

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
My sources are not biased against it. My sources pretty much state, by psychiatrists and other health care professionals, why it doesn't work and why it isn't advisable. Note that I am not the one using a quack source to back my claim.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... herapy-all
https://www.hrc.org/resources/the-lies- ... ve-therapy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy

The first is a blog. And anyone can edit Wikipedia.

Psychology Today is not a blog, and Wiki also provides links to the sources used to make the article.

Geneviev wrote:
The first is a blog. And anyone can edit Wikipedia.

The first is a well sourced blog. Just like you are unable to write off nana's links by saying "you are an internet person" you can't write off a blogger's because they are bloggers.

You ignored the second source which means you're not interested in gaining new information you're interested in defending your preconceptions.

Anyone can edit wikipedia, which is why you're supposed to look at sources.

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:

Geneviev wrote:The first is a blog. And anyone can edit Wikipedia.

Psychology Today is not a blog, and Wiki also provides links to the sources used to make the article.

It kind of is, and the sources aren't reliable.

Geneviev wrote:It kind of is, and the sources aren't reliable.

That's a meaningless statement state specifically how they are not reliable.

Geneviev wrote:

Nanatsu no Tsuki wrote:
Psychology Today is not a blog, and Wiki also provides links to the sources used to make the article.

It kind of is, and the sources aren't reliable.

My days of taking you seriously are over.

Des-Bal wrote:

Geneviev wrote:It kind of is, and the sources aren't reliable.

That's a meaningless statement state specifically how they are not reliable.

Seriously, I doubt she looked at the source list at the bottom of the Wiki article. And ignores Psychology Today is written and consulted by psychologist and other health care professionals.

Des-Bal wrote:

Geneviev wrote:It kind of is, and the sources aren't reliable.

That's a meaningless statement state specifically how they are not reliable.

Sorry, my parents mention why. So I don't know.