Talk:Conversion therapy

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

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

It was just added to the article that "In March of 2026, laws prohibiting conversion therapy were struck down by the US Supreme Court."

Except that's not what happened (it's been sadly misreported by some reliable sources.) What happened was that the Court ruled that laws restricting speech-based conversion therapy (which is not all conversion therapy) were ruled as requiring "strict scrutiny" analysis rather than "rational basis" analysis. The actual case was sent back to the lower court with that instruction. More on this from Scotusblog. This is a case where we may need to lean on legal-specific sources rather than general newspapers. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

ABA conversion therapy and ableist conversion therapies are a thing, so why are they not mentioned here? Brynn Who Likes Editing (talk) 09:40, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I know they're in other parts of the encyclopedia, but why not even a paragraph of it in the conversion therapy page? I'm neurotypical, so sorry if this is like something I shouldn't be speaking for, but it should at least be mentioned, right?

Take Intention. It has a section for intention in criminal law, even though the article is about intention in psychology. Brynn Who Likes Editing (talk) 09:44, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Can you point us to reliable sources that discuss that sort of conversion therapy alongside the gender&sexuality therapies discussed here? Because if not, then its really a separate topic, despite its similar name. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:57, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

This source claims that there are historical connections that ABA and anti-LGBTQ+ conversion therapy share, and this source says ABA was designed as a conversion therapy, whose creators went on to create gay conversion therapy. Brynn Who Likes Editing (talk) 13:12, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

That makes at least a reasonable case. I'm concerned about the use of that second source; an advocacy page from an group of unnamed "neurodivergent experts with varied skills in research, writing, social media, organizing, education, medicine and policy", but it does point toward at least some bulking up on the history. I am concerned that trying to put more in this article fully (as opposed to pointing most of it to the ABA page) would just create a mishmosh, as the gender&sexuality material has things like efforts around the legal status that this does not appear at first glance to share. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:39, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

We only really need to make one section here about ABA, and as you said we can point most of it to the ABA page with a Template:Main Brynn Who Likes Editing (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I recently tweaked the phrase "Conversion therapy is ineffective" to include the word "often", i.e. "Conversion therapy is often ineffective". Plenty of people swear by "conversion therapy" in which they have participated, especially those that chose to have therapy (as opposed to those who were "voluntold" by others). Even if the majority receive little to no benefit—even if they are literally harmed—it remains academically dishonest to imply that it is always ineffective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOtter (talk • contribs) 20:04, 2 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Because the research shows that it is ineffective as a whole. People have some fluidity of sexuality, and there may be some folks whose sexuality shifts while they are doing conversion therapy, but that does not mean that it was the cause. Correlation does not imply causation. (Also, there's a track record of people who state that they were changed by such therapy, only check on them a few years later, and well, not so much.) We're going off of what the science says. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Okay, but "the science says" that we use the scientific method. If an experiment fails, say, 95% of the time, the proper response is not to say "It doesn’t work"; it’s to say "Why did it work the other 5% of the time? What made the difference?"

Unless you can show that every single form of conversion therapy has been ineffective for exactly 100% of patients, the statement is less correct without the word "often". TheOtter (talk) 03:27, 13 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Conversion is often "effective" because young people who could get disowned lie that they have become straight due to therapy. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:49, 13 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yes, this is baked into the scam at a fundamental level. The objective isn't really to "convert". It is to shove people back into the closet, nail the door shut and to get paid for it. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2026 (UTC) Reply

I am not aware of a single independently proven case of it being demonstrated to be effective. Sure, there are claims, but these come from the same people who make money from these practices. Some of those claims might even have been sincere in the past, although I have my doubts whether any of the current practitioners are so self-deluding. The current state of "conversion therapy" is that it is a fraudulent as well as an abusive practice, carried out for money, power or clout, in bad faith. If we had even a small minority of good MEDRS sources saying that it ever worked then there would be a discussion to be had. I don't think that there is. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:55, 13 August 2026 (UTC) Reply