Talk:Homosexuality and psychology

Move

This was moved without discussion to Psychological views of homosexuality. The article is more broad than just views on homosexuality. It also includes research in the area. For example "gay men are more likely to be out to friends and siblings than co-workers, parents, and more distant relatives" isn't how psychology views homosexuality, but a result from a study. Also, therapies like gay affirmation therapy isn't a view either. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

We're interested here in views based on research, so the two aren't different in practice - they're the same thing. Your objection is pedantic, and incorrect, too. "Therapies like gay affirmation therapy isn't a view either" is not a coherent objection; the article is concerned with views of and from therapy. BG 20:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between discussion about therapies and views on therapies. Homosexuality and Psychology is more inclusive than Psychological views of homosexuality. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

No there isn't. Discussion involves views and views involve discussion. I didn't move the page to Psychological views of homosexuality because it was more "inclusive"; I moved it because that title is more accurate. BG 20:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Psychology and homosexuality

I tend to agree with BG, but not with the move. The title is Psychology and Homosexuality, so I would expect this to treat what psychology has to say about homosexuality - not what psychologists and psychiatrists have to say about conversion therapy, nor psychoanalytic and psychotherapeutic approaches to sexual orientation/identity dysphoria. This should cover what the discipline says about the phenomenon, theories about etiology, the mechanisms that give rise to dysphoria (ego-dystonic sexual orientation), fluidity and malleability - the stuff psychologists deal with, like what happens when they remove female rats ovaries in-utero and give them androgens, and how those rats mount male rats that had their testes removed in-utero and are injected with oestrogens, how the female rats do masculine behaviour and vice-versa, and how they extrapolate this stuff to humans. Perhaps Psychology of homosexuality would be a more accurate title - but whatever you call it all this stuff about conversion therapy belongs somewhere else - psychologists views of conversion therapy - or psychological views of SOCE? It is off-topic. Mish (talk) 22:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to move the page again in the absence of consensus. Psychological views of homosexuality would be my preferred title, but it doesn't make a massive difference which one is used. Psychology of homosexuality would perhaps be too narrow. BG 23:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients

Psychotherapy aimed at helping lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients who are unhappy with their sexual orientation is now absent from this section. I do not think it is NPOV to talk about therapy aimed at helping lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients who are happy with their sexual orientation, but not therapy to help those who are not. Both points of view should be respected. I suggest we write a section summarizing ego-dystonic sexual orientation, discussing the different approaches and resources available to help those with ego-dystonic sexual orientation. It does not need to be as long as the deleted section, nor does it need to focus solely on SOCE or CT. I think alternative approaches are more valuable. Joshuajohanson (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's absent, and it should stay absent, since we now seem to have the makings of a consensus against your position, especially following the latest revert. I am opposed to a new section "summarizing ego-dystonic sexual orientation" - please try to fit things within the framework set by the lead. Maybe such information could be included in an already existing section. BG talk 23:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The psychotherapy section is already existing. It does fit very nicely into that section. This is a different topic than the SOCE topic. No one has made any comment on whether ego-dystonic sexual orientation should be included yet. Ego-dystonic sexual orientation is more broad, and can include helping people with ego-dystonic sexual orientation learn to accept their sexual orientation identity, as well as to reject it. Doesn't that fall under "What determines successful adaptation to rejecting social climates in gays and lesbians?" I really don't see a difference for psychotherapy that helps people with an ego-syntonic sexual orientation adapt to rejecting social climates and helping people with an ego-dystonic sexual orientation adapt to rejecting social climates. They both fall under the lead. Joshuajohanson (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The psychotherapy section does exist, but that doesn't mean it should. It might be better to relocate its contents in other sections. I'm afraid I really can't make sense of your other comments. BG talk 02:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you don't think the psychotherapy section should exist. Why can't psychological methods to help people with a homosexual orientation be part of an article on Homosexuality and psychology? Joshuajohanson (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the subject of this article is psychological research on homosexuality. You insisted that it instead be defined as "Homosexuality and psychology", without futher explaining what that means. If that is the subject of the article, then I suppose you need sources that define psychotherapy for gay people as "Homosexuality and psychology". If you don't have them, then the section shouldn't be there. BG talk 00:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality and psychology is the overlap between homosexual and psychology, much like Religion and homosexuality or Biology and sexual orientation or Sexual orientation and military service. It isn't exactly defined, but talks about how the two topics relate to each other. Psychotherapy for people with a homosexual orientation isn't a definition of psychology. It falls under the general umbrella of homosexuality and psychology because it deals with homosexuality as it relates to psychology. Joshuajohanson (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be working under the assumption that psychotherapy is the same thing as psychology, or is part of psychology. That's not necessarily the case, and it's a poor justification for adding material to the article. BG talk 02:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Not that it is the same thing as or part of, but related to. I went to the psychotherapy page, and it is part of the psychology project, has the psychology banner and everything. Psychotherapy category is under the psychology category. I don't understand your logic. I think we should stick with the convention set so far in wikipedia, but whatever. You mentioned it possibly going under another category. What category is that? I think therapy is part of "What determines successful adaptation to rejecting social climates." Ego-dystonic sexual orientation is definitely part of psychology. Where do you think it should go if not under psychotherapy? Joshuajohanson (talk) 02:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The material might be placed under social adaptation and identity then, if sources draw the correction directly. BG talk 02:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Reorganization

I have some major problems with the organization. The whole structure relies heavily on Sandfort's listing of the five categories of research. While it was probably a good categorization for his book, it doesn't seem evident that he meant those categorizations to be exclusive, nor that this was the only way to categorize homosexuality and psychology. Having a fixed list seems to make it so that this is the only way to categorize homosexuality. Specifically I think psychotherapy has a lot to do with psychology. I also don't like the bullet structure. I think there should be a category for fluidity of sexual orientation, another for sexual orientation identity development, another one for stress associated with homosexuality. I would also like to see the therapy section expanded to include sexual orientation identity exploration and reconstruction. Joshuajohanson (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality undergoing revision

The article Homosexuality is undergoing revision. The revised version is available in the sandbox and the project documentation and coordination is taking place in the Sandbox's talk page.

I would appreciate if people joined in. I'm currently looking towards forming a team for the revision and future maintenance of this article.

Thank you, Pdorion (talk) 08:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuality as mental illness

Shouldn't there be a section on the question whether homosexuality is a mental illness? I realise mainstream Western psychiatry says it isn't, but that wasn't always the case, and psychiatry in some countries still holds that homosexuality is an illness. As this is therefore a valid debate, shouldn't there be a section on this?JohnC (talk) 09:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The psychiatric classification ended in 1973. We do discuss that. There is no sign of any significant move to change that in relevant WP:RS. If countries classify it as you suggest, there would be sources for that? However, that doesn't warrant a POV section on how it should be dealt with that way, it requires a brief note that some countries still treat it this way (if they do...). - MishMich - Talk - 11:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I will refrain from putting myself in a position to get in trouble with the administrators by attempting to edit this article neutrally myself, but it appears that there is no mention about the circumstances under which homosexuality was removed from the DSM. Many sources indicate that it was only removed after threats of terror from pro-LGBT activists. "The original APA vote was called at a time of significant social change and was taken with unconventional speed that circumvented normal channels for consideration of the issues because of explicit threats from gay rights groups to disrupt APA conventions and research" (Stanton L. Jones, Mark A. Yarhouse. Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate. ISBN: 9780830875542). "The vote may have been a demonstration of support for homosexual civil rights and not the views of psychiatrists about the pathological status of homosexuality" (Jeffrey S Siker. Homosexuality in the Church: Both Sides of the Debate. ISBN: 9780664255459). I'm sure there are plenty of other references for those who have access to more extensive databases. --Dromioofephesus (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, There are socio-political connotations involved with homosexuality. It's not a disease, such as AIDs. At least, I've not been informed of any way homosexuality is passed to offspring, which would be extremely detrimental for the human race were it passed on without notice. As a mental illness, I've personally considered that it's an abnormal psychology that is not in jive with human productive activities. As such, I believe it's fair enough to say that homosexuality is abnormal. However, it may not be fair enough to say that it's a mental illness without qualifiying it in some manner. The only qualifying manner I have found is for an individual to argue that the biological function, or biological imperative, of a DNA-based organism is to reproduce. With that in consideration, it could be argued that the individuals are mentally ill. However, the individuals were biologically developed by DNA and other developmental biology factor to become homosexuals, thus have an biological if not ecological function. --Cyberman (talk) 00:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The declassification of homosexuality as a mental affliction was largely due to pressure from radicalized homosexual groups. If you scream loud enough, you'll get what you want just to make you stop screaming. In essence, the APA was bullied into revising the definitions due to political correctness. Dromioofephesus was spot on. However, I have not edited anything supporting that argument, because I do not have the sources readily available to me to do so, and, like Dromioof, I don't want to cause anhy problems.

Homosexuality is not a "disease" in the physical sense, because you cannot "give someone the gay" like you can give them AIDs or a common cold. It can be seen as a mental affliction/illness/disease because, as Cyberman noted, it's abnormal or differing from neurotypicality. Homosexuality does not line up with reproductive biology. --99.157.108.186 (talk) 20:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

the latest book on the issue

thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.4.98 (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Needs Outside-USA Data And Perspectives

This article, "Homosexuality and psychology", at time of writing (2011-04-05) is currently just about "Homosexuality and American psychology". It's a pretty cut-and-dry case for a "Globalize/USA" box.

Consider the second paragraph:

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder. The American Psychological Association Council of Representatives followed in 1975.

That's it. No mention of whether about the same thing was happening in a dozen different countries, or whether the APAs were a decade ahead, or behind, corresponding groups in other countries. And so on, for the whole rest of the article. Because all organizations discussed are American, the reader will infer (correctly or not) that the studies and numbers are, by default, American.

(For example, and not to be sarcastic, but I have a feeling that when there's the paragraph contrasting caucasian vs black suicide rates, I must not assume that these numbers have been derived from studies in Japan. So,... Wales? South Africa?)

In an attempt to prevent misinterpretation: I do not (at all!) mean that this article's topic, or even the concepts in it, are USA-specific. But instead, note the wording, emphasis mine:

The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page.

Here's hoping that people can add some non-USA data, and label which countries are being talked about and when, so we can see similarities and differences between how homosexuality and psychology relate in many different societies. -- Sean M. Burke (talk) 12:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

New 2012 study by Mark Regnerus, sociology professor at the University of Texas

A new study conducted by Mark Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas has revealed, among other things, that 40% of children (aged 18 to 39) whose parents are homosexual have had an affair while married or cohabiting, compared to only 13% of children from heterosexual families. It also showed that 23% of children whose parents are lesbian or gay have been touched sexually by a parent or an adult, compared to 2% of children from heterosexual families, and that 31% of them have had sex against their will, compared to 8% from heterosexual families. The study stresses, however, that it would be wrong to conclude from its data that the abuser was necessarily one of the parents, or that the abuse had anything to do with the parent's sexual orientation. The study also shows that 12% of those with lesbian parents and 24% of those with homosexual fathers have considered suicide, compared to 5% of those from heterosexual families. Children with homosexual parents are also more than twice as likely to be in therapy "for a problem connected with anxiety, depression or relationships" - 19% of children compared to 8% of children from heterosexual families. Furthermore, 20% of children with lesbian parents and 25% of children with homosexual fathers have had a sexually transmitted disease, compared to 8% of children from heterosexual families. 28% of children with lesbian parents and 20% of children with homosexual fathers are currently unemployed compared to 8% of children from heterosexual families. Adult children with homosexual parents are also more likely to smoke marijuana and to get arrested.

Due to the findings, it is very controversial, and that is why my edit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homosexuality_and_psychology&diff=497579176&oldid=497039907 and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_parenting&diff=497585303&oldid=497583187 has been undone, simply because another user disagreed and claimed the study is: "widely criticized and flawed." Criticized by whom? It is a new study, nobody had yet written an article debunking it. Flawed according to whom? Your personal opinion? That is not a reason to vandalise the article and undo my edit.

The study is published and available here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610

The fact that this is not allowed on the article prior a "discussion" is unfair. What difference does it make? They are findings from a study; how could a "talk" about it make any difference? Do we have to come to an "agreement" to put this information into the article itself? And if we don't, we will just ignore it and purposely leave the study out of the article, because somebody's opinion about it disagrees? This is not objective and completely unprofessional, not to mention biased. This is nothing more than intentionally leaving a study out of the article because somebody disagrees with the findings.

There is no valid, honest, objective reason to remove this information from the article, yet I was forced to open a "talk" about it because of no other reason than somebody not liking the results of the study. This is unacceptable, yet here I am anyway, opening a "talk" about it. So, what is there to discuss? Your opinion disagreeing with the results? That is not a reason and is completely subjective. In other words, it is irrelevant. There is absolutely nothing to talk about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.23.111 (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

NOTE that what is essentially a duplicate of this discussion is currently taking place at: Talk:LGBT_parenting#New_2012_study_by_Mark_Regnerus.2C_sociology_professor_at_the_University_of_Texas. As the study being discussed is more applicable there than here, please look at the discussion there. Zad68 18:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

No theories for the etiology of homosexuality

The most important part of the article is completely neglected. Why has nobody added any theories for the etiology of homosexuality yet? For starters, you could add Daryl Bem's "Exotic Becomes Erotic" theory. I'd do it myself but I'm new and I don't know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeBonolo (talk • contribs) 17:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• The "origin of homosexuality" is that it's a normal expression of human sexuality. We couldn't use a nonproven hypothesis that pretends it's an mental illness, nor should we.

Kairos (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• homosexuality is by no means a "normal expression of human sexuality"...your statement is, not only bias, but ridiculous. Homosexuality is as normal as S&M, and I do believe that most consider S&M to be an abnormal sexual expression. Truthisfreedomandjustice (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

"Homosexuality is as normal as S&M". Wow...just wow. I don't know what you mean by "normal" (normal in a moral sense, normal in the sense of how many are homosexual etc. ((Which wouldn't matter anyway, since the only "real" occation homosexuality would not be normal is when it comes to certain religious morals, but religious "morals" are not because of rational reasons and might even be immoral in many cases, so i take the liberty of ignoring "normal" in that sense)) but that was the most ignorant piece of crap i've read this week. If your reasons claiming that homosexuality is abnormal are actually scientific, i'd be very much interested to see that material, as it is unheard of. If it's on a religious basis though, say so and i'll save us both some time by not starting/countinuing a futile debate. A third possibility is that what you said was just poorly worded, in that case you have my apologies. *Sigh* AIKÄRBÄST (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

can we get this semi-PROTECTED?

GAH! we get an endless supply of anon edits that are crap. No offense to any unregistered peoples who have actually contributed, but your outnumbered by a gazzillion to one. While this article has some problems, it doesn't help to have to keep reverting idiotic crap. How do we request that? Kairos (talk) 08:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

You can request page protection here: WP:RFPP. However, I reviewed the last year's worth of IP edits and disagree that there's enough editing from IPs that would be considered disruptive to warrant page protection. Zad68 13:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Kairos, you seem to be intent on suppressing opinions that do not agree with your views. Why should this page get any more protection than any other pages? The relationship of "psychology" and homosexuality is varied globally, so there will be people who disagree with the views presented on this page, and just like the pro-homosexual views can be passionate, so can the anti-homosexual views. By trying to control what people have to say about this topic, will only support the idea that homosexuality is indeed a mental illness, since the inability to see the other side on an issue is a sign of psychological weakness Truthisfreedomandjustice (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

adding information

I have some proposed changes/ additions to the page. I'm interested in adding a section on the historical evolution of how Psychology as a field has approched homosexuality. Here is an outline of my proposed additions, and I welcome comments or suggestions as a new used and someone hoping to contribute to this page!

The new section would be titled Historical Background and I'd like to discuss some major theorists such as Freud and Psychoanalysts, Havelock Ellis and Alfred Kinsey and what their approaches contributed to psychology and homosexuality. Also, I'd like to talk about some Major studies in history such as Hookers’ 1957 study the history of homosexuality in the DSM and its removal in 1973 Hgodfrey8 (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)