Category talk:Ex-gay movement

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconLGBT studies Category‑class
WikiProject iconThis category is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
CategoryThis category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Older comments[edit]

I'm not sure if "Ex-gay movement" is an entirely appropriate title for this category. I think something like "Ex-gay" would be better: after all, we don't have a "Gay rights movement" cateogory. Also movement itself seems a little POV, given that it's position as as grass-roots movement is itself controversial. --Axon 16:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree, though I had a lot of trouble coming up with something appropriate. What about "Gay-to-straight behavior modification"? -- Beland 03:45, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, what we're really talking about is "modification of sexual orientation", as opposed to behavior. I think. Maybe that's a better phrase? Hmm. -- Beland 08:48, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think simply "Ex-gay" is the most succinct and appropriate. Few would dispute the category for the topics at hand. --Axon 11:02, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


What exactly does it mean to be an ex-gay movement. It's not like Elizabeth Moberly, Park Street Church, and Wayne Bessen are ex-gay movements. Should they go under sub-categories like Reparative therapy researchers, Ex-gay supporters, and Ex-gay opponents? I think that would be more reflective of what they really are. Putting them in an ex-gay movement category seems to imply that they are the movement.Joshuajohanson 22:52, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This question arose with respect to the church, which hosts an Exodus Int'l-affiliated support group. This doesn't seem to me to be a strong enough connection to warrant the present category without giving undue weight to what is a minor involvement on the part of the church. The alternatives seems to be to leave it as is and add a whole bunch of other supporters (many/most constituents of evangelicalism, fundamentalism, and perhaps Catholicism, etc.), create a lesser category like "Ex-gay supporters", which I daresay wouldn't survive a CfD, or remove the lesser supporters. --Flex (talk|contribs) 02:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tentatively agree with Flex, per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Opinion_about_a_question_or_issue. Fireplace 12:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The question arose after placing Park Street Church in this category, but I still would like to discuss this issue beyond that one church. I certainly don't want to include everyone that has expressed an opinion on the ex-gay movement in this category, but I think people like Wayne Bessen and Chris Kempling are well placed because they are activists in the movement. I just don't like calling Wayne Bessen an ex-gay movement, and think he would be better placed in Ex-gay opponents category (maybe merge with ex-ex-gay). The same thing should happen with some of the researchers involved. I understand that simply expressing an opinion isn't enough to be placed in this category, but the people and organizations in this category are actively participating in the movement. They just aren't the movement.Joshuajohanson 01:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Expressing an opinion and minor support are not enough, but when someone's research is in the field, they should certainly be listed. Perhaps we should set up a better subcategory hierarchy something like:
  • Ex-gay movement (contains reparative therapy, etc. + subcats)
    • Ex-gay people (contains only subcats)
      • Ex-gay proponents
      • Ex-gay opponents
      • Ex-ex-gay people
      • etc.
    • Ex-gay organizations (Exodus Int'l, etc. + perhaps some subcats akin to those under Ex-gay people?)
    • etc.
What do you think? --Flex (talk/contribs) 12:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A couple comments... "Ex-gay activists" and, I dunno, "Ex-gay opposition activists" seems less problematic than "Ex-gay opponents/supporters", for the reasons I gave above. (Cf. deletion of Category:Pro-Life vs Category:Pro-life activists.) But stepping back, I don't think that there's a mistake in putting people into a "movement" category: categories are just groups of related articles. Including John Paulk doesn't mean that Paulk is a movement, but that he is part of the movement. This is common across wikipedia (quick examples Category:Movement against intellectual property, Category:New religious movements. Fireplace 13:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine by me if we don't add any more subcats, but there are some already in existence that I think should be used (whether reorganized or not), deleted, or clarified. For instance, should the existing Category:Ex-gay people include only those who have undergone therapy to change their sexual orientation or should it also include proponents/opponents of such therapy (e.g., Spitzer)? If the former, perhaps it should be renamed to make its purpose clearer. --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right now the structure is:
  • Ex-gay movement
    • Ex-ex-gay people
    • Ex-gay organizations
    • Ex-gay people
How about instead:
  • Ex-gay movement
    • People who identify as ex-gay
    • Ex-gay organizations
There are sufficiently few notable "Ex-gay [opposition] activists" that it's not clear anything is gained by adding a category for them -- same with "Ex-ex-gay people." Because of the POV problems with objectively labeling someone as "Ex-gay", "People who identify as ex-gay" seems more neutral -- this also resolves Flex's issue with "Ex-gay people". Fireplace 15:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine to me. (Query: what about someone like Ted Haggard who is currently in "Ex-gay people" but may not [yet] identify as ex-gay? I don't know what he says about himself now, but he seemed not to admit being gay when the scandal broke. He may now admit that, but if he doesn't, he certainly wouldn't self-identify as ex-gay.) --Flex (talk/contribs) 15:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think people who have contributed to research on reparative therapy should go in the ex-gay people category. By placing them in that category people may think they were ex-gay. I think there should be a separate category for these researchers. For example, although Elizabeth Moberly contributed to fundamental research for reparative therapy, I don't know if she was involved in the ex-gay movement itself. I also don't understand why labeling someone as ex-gay is POV. There are lists that label people as LGBT.Joshuajohanson 18:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Fireplace is suggesting "People who identify as ex-gay" as a replacement category, and I think it's the best option raised so far. --Flex (talk/contribs) 19:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can will still have a separate category for people who have contributed to research on reparative therapy, like Elizabeth Moberly, who are not necessarily involved in the ex-gay movement?Joshuajohanson 20:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there enough people to populate such a subcat, sure. Otherwise, just leave her in the main cat. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Park Street Church[edit]

Flex, herewith what I left on your own discussion page: please define the / your criteria on what constitutes affiliation or association. I suspect if I were weekly to host an Evangelical group in my home, my family, neighbors, and friends would concieve there to be an assocition between me, as host and participant, in the Evangelical movement. Park Street hosts the Ex-gay ministries group meetings on a regular basis, church staff and church members attend. The event is in their Sunday bulletin. Dr Hugenberger's absence at meetings doesn't negate this. Here is a difference I see between my church's providing meeting space to the Boy Scouts of America (BSA), Big Sisters and Big Brothers, and Alcoholics Anonymous (AA): while we would not host an organization we found to be immoral or unjust, we will provide space, but we do not promote their meetings or agenda either from the pulpit or in our weekly bulletin. While our work with homeless shelters is promoted from the pulpit and in our bulletin, AA and the BSA are not. I have attended Park Street Church, thee is a clear message that they do not approve of homosexuality, and do support the affiliate of Ex-gay ministries they regularly host. CApitol3 13:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point, at the risk of redundancy with some of the above discussion, is that a church which hosts and provides public notices of an ex-gay support group doesn't seem to me to have a strong enough connection to warrant the present category without giving undue weight to what is a relatively minor involvement on the part of the church. Again, the alternatives seem to be to leave it as is and add a whole bunch of other minor supporters (many/most constituents of evangelicalism, fundamentalism, and perhaps Catholicism, etc.), create a lesser category like "Ex-gay supporters", which I daresay wouldn't survive a CfD under WP:OC, or remove the lesser supporters like Park Street Church. My understanding was that three of us agreed above that the last option was the best. --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Flex -- Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Opinion_about_a_question_or_issue applies to organizations just as much as individuals. Fireplace 15:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]