Talk:Conversion therapy

Why isn't ABA conversion therapy here?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

What's wrong with the word "often"?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Netherlands

In June 2026, the Netherlands forbid conversion therapy by law.

• https://www.jurist.org/news/2026/06/netherlands-passes-law-banning-conversion-therapy/

United Kingdom

In June 2026, the government in United Kingdom published a draft bill, to forbid conversion therapy in England and Wales.~2026-48368-82 (talk) https://www.courthousenews.com/uk-proposes-conversion-therapy-ban-with-five-year-prison-term/

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2026

Please link new article Media portrayals of conversion therapy from the Media section, ideally as {{main|Media portrayals of conversion therapy}}, thanks. Borgermeister (talk) 07:21, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

 Done meamemg (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2026 (UTC)