The part that bothers me is that coercive ex-gay therapy gets so much attention, while equally coercive therapies that don't focus on sexual orientation get zero attention. Maybe we should be paying attention to the broader phenomenon of parents forcing their kids into brainwashing "therapies" that disregard the patient's rights and end up doing net harm.
I think this sort of thing (not specific to gay rights or progressive policies, you see it on the opposite side too) wrecks havoc on the ability to have a rational discussion, because on one side naive people end up appealing to this review as showing what the consensus is and argue it should be followed, and on the other side if one actually digs into the argument it doesn't hold water, but engaging with the argument is a waste of effort because it is not the true reason people forward the conclusion.
>Behaviorist therapy techniques that no one uses anymore harm patients and show very low success rates.
>There are almost no studies of modern reparative therapy techniques, and the studies that exist are bad.
Can you elaborate on this distinction a bit? Does "nobody uses those old therapies" include the ex-gay movement itself? Did the ex-gay movement invent new therapies when behaviorist therapies didn't work, or do these divisions come from somewhere else?
The part that bothers me is that coercive ex-gay therapy gets so much attention, while equally coercive therapies that don't focus on sexual orientation get zero attention. Maybe we should be paying attention to the broader phenomenon of parents forcing their kids into brainwashing "therapies" that disregard the patient's rights and end up doing net harm.
I think this sort of thing (not specific to gay rights or progressive policies, you see it on the opposite side too) wrecks havoc on the ability to have a rational discussion, because on one side naive people end up appealing to this review as showing what the consensus is and argue it should be followed, and on the other side if one actually digs into the argument it doesn't hold water, but engaging with the argument is a waste of effort because it is not the true reason people forward the conclusion.
>Behaviorist therapy techniques that no one uses anymore harm patients and show very low success rates.
>There are almost no studies of modern reparative therapy techniques, and the studies that exist are bad.
Can you elaborate on this distinction a bit? Does "nobody uses those old therapies" include the ex-gay movement itself? Did the ex-gay movement invent new therapies when behaviorist therapies didn't work, or do these divisions come from somewhere else?
Thanks for making this post