Talk:Conversion therapy

Proposed note

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

It could be worth including, although I'm somewhat confused in what context you meant. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:58, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

Supposed Supreme Court decision

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)

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)