From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject iconThis article 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.

Other areas[edit]

This article seems to focus only on sex oriented discrimination, but what about atheism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agameofchess (talkcontribs) 23:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure[edit]


I'm not sure - as I'm not natively english speaking - but in Norway, we also refer to "skapet" (the closet), I _think_ the original here was "Å ha et skjellett gjemt i skapet", that is "Having a skeleton hidden in the closet". It referrs to anything you want to _hide_, that you do not want everybody to know.

I'm not sure how parallell languages develop, but I would think that 'The Closet' is NOT, as the article makes you think, mainly meant towards sexual behaviour, but _ANY_ behaviour you want to hide. I looked it up in WordNet, which says: indulging only covertly; "a closet alcoholic"; "closet liberals" [syn: {closet(a)}, {secret}].

So, _IF_ i'm right, I think a rewrite is in order, and that 'hidden sexuality' should be focused on as the main meaning of the word. Not _THE_ meaning of the word.

It sure seems likely on its face that The Closet came from skeleton-in-the-closet, but it entered use as "The Closet" as a reference to closet homosexuality. --Dmerrill
I'm a little unsure of the way this article is currently worded, but not sure how to best fix it. The terms coming out of the closet (or coming out) and in the closet and so on are strongly associated with homosexuality, but the general term The Closet at which this article is located is not. I don't think closet homosexuality is a more common phrase than, say, closet socialist (an accusation often heard leveled against Democrats in the US political debate). --Delirium 11:39, Feb 23, 2004 (UTC)

capital "C"?[edit]

Does this really deserve a capital "C"? RickK 04:21, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Being a "closet something-or-other" is one use. Being "in the closet" is another. "In the closet," "the closet" and "coming out of the closet" are nearly exclusively used in relation to homosexuality. Closet doesn't need capitalizing. Exploding Boy 08:56, Mar 10, 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Exploding Boy. Having "a skeleton in the closet" and being "a closet X" can be used for other things than homosexuality, but "the closet" and "coming out" are nearly exclusive to homosexuality (compare the broom closet (dang, that should also be uncapitalized)).
I think coming out/being out/outing could be moved to a separate page. There is already enough material for that, and it is a really important concept in gay culture.
In Dutch, kast (closet) is used much like it is in English and Norwegian (even though the original phrase had a lijk ((dead) body) in it instead of a skelet (skeleton)), but for "coming out" the English phrase is used (as a noun) as it stands for much more than the original phrase. -- Kimiko 14:16, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

move to "coming out"[edit]

We should move this page to "coming out". That would be a lot more positive and empowering than naming the article about the oppressive "closet"! --Sonjaaa 11:09, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

No, we should not. For one thing, that would be POV. For another, coming out already has its own article, and "the closet" is a seperate concept, despite the direct relation between the two terms/concepts. It is not really Wikipedia's job to be "a lot more positive and empowering"; Wikipedia is not here to empower gays, bisexuals or transgendereds any more than it is to empower Republicans or Democrats or women or men or any other group. The only thing Wikipedia is here for is to be a neutral source for information. Also, the concept of "the closet" is not in and of itself usually seen as "oppressive", but rather, most that support LGBT rights and issues seem to feel that the social forces that make people stay in "the closet" are oppressive. Hence, your suggestion - unless in pure jest - would represent a minority-within-a-minority view, be POV, AND be inaccurate, in that it would redefine a specific concept ("the closet") as another related-but-distinct concept("coming out"). Additionally, suggesting a "move" instead of a merge actually suggests changing "coming out" to the page that "the closet" is, and that would be even worse! ;) Runa27 05:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

already a closet article[edit]

There's already a closet article which covers much of the same ground, though it could stand to be expanded, and some of its current language is (IMO) problematic. There is also a coming out article. Time to let this one go? --Hob 17:42, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Never mind - I see lots of stuff links to the closet and it makes sense to have a separate article for this usage. I got rid of the redundant (and poorly written) text in closet and added a link from there to here. However, I do think this article could use a slight rewrite to clarify that it's a specialization of a pre-existing metaphor, and I agree that Closet doesn't need to be capitalized in the title. --Hob 18:14, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Closet -> The closet[edit]

I really think it ought to be de-capitalized. If anyone strongly disagrees, please explain. I almost went ahead and did the move, but I can't anyway because "The closet" already exists (as a redirect) so an admin will have to get involved. --Hob 18:21, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It looks like there's some conversation above about this. I can't tell what decision they came to, though - it looks to me like 'the closet' (no caps)... Anyhow, in usage, I've never seen it capitalized unless its part of a title to a book or something. -Seth Mahoney 19:16, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
Now moved, to minimise redirects. Ph34r my non-admin ingenuity! Spudtater 19:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A clarification[edit]

Added a minor clarification to the part about violent hate crime, highlighting the controversy about the frequency of hate crime.

Reverted your "clarification" as it was certainly not npov, and revealed a very strong bias. If you want to say that there is controversy about whether coming out might entail risking a hate crime, then do so without labeling it as a liberal or left wing idea. On the other hand, before you do, please check the hate crime statistics. For example, the FBI reports ( indicate that in 2003 there were just under 1500 victims of homophobic hate crimes. And please sign your entries if you are tackling a contoversial topic like this Jliberty 15:20, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

revert war[edit]

rather than start a revert war and have this discussion in 2 places, see talk:metrosexual

Usage question[edit]

A usage question from a guy who is straight, socially inept, and GLBT-friendly: I have recently seen comments from several celebrities Tim Curry, Sean Hayes stating that they "don't publically discuss their private lives". Is this the same as being in the closet or isn't it? -- 25 November 2005

The term may be used that way (I'd guess usually not, what would be in the closet would be details not identification), see The closet#Other uses. Hyacinth 11:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
I think Curry and Hayes were referring not to "the closet" but to the phenomenon of "the open secret." "The closet" implies the keeping of an absolute secret. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

use of term "openly gay"[edit]

I had originally posted this under the article B.D. Wong, but realize that this may be a better page to discuss this topic.

Is the term "openly" superfluous in this (and other) articles? I would assume that if someone is identified publicly, such as in Wikipedia, as "gay", it's assumed that the person identifies as such, and is therefore "openly" gay. Perhaps this should be a case in which we simply use the word "gay", and if someone is not "out of the closet", terminology should simply indicate that there is speculation that someone is gay, with citations, of course.

The use of "openly gay" does indicate, to me, that there is some shame in being gay, and therefore someone who is "openly gay" has chosen to escape this shame. --Redheaded dude 02:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Depending on the assumed meaning of the terms gay and openly the statement ("openly gay") can mean at least a few things.
Unfortunately "the" closet isn't like a real closet which you can actually step out of and be done with it. "The" closet is something one must always come out of. I would say some who is "openly" gay in the sense of being out has escaped something, but that isn't necessarily or only shame, it's the closet.
Thus, it is all relative, and I would suggest "openly" be qualified when used (this implies the use of citations), and I would suggest "gay" be qualified also (and by more than "openly").
Hyacinth 19:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, this is all a bit of a confusing discussion of what should be a very simple concept. One can be gay without being "open" (forthcoming, honest, public) about it, or one can be "openly gay." Exploding Boy 19:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

No um. "Openly" doesn't impart much if any information. Hyacinth
You don't? You honestly don't understand the distinction between "gay" and "openly gay"? I don't believe you. Exploding Boy 18:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the term is used when people have "outed" themselves. If a person's outing is notable it should be discussed (like a homophobic politician being outed by the media). If they are in the closet, we do not out them at Wikipedia. So it seems similar to saying that someone is "proudly black", which without explanation or discussion would be an odd thing to say. -- Samuel Wantman 10:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I have ALWAYS seen the term "openly gay" used in the context of people who have stated that they are gay and do not waffle on the issue of their sexuality; they are "out", and they are fine with it, and if you don't like that, well, tough. More than "making no secret of" the fact that they're gay, they've explicitly stated it at one point and are comfortable with it. In other words, these are not simply homosexual people, but rather people who are publicly comfortable with both being and stating that they are homosexual. That is always how I have seen the term used, at least in America. Runa27 05:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
An example of the difference: kd lang was known to be a lesbian within the Queer communities for many years before she 'came-out'. After she 'officially' told the straight community through an interview she has been referred to as 'openly gay'.
There are a number of celebrities who are known to be lesbian/gay/bisexual within the Queer community who don't seem to be officially recognized as such. I have noticed that Wikipedia in general does not refer to rumoured same-sex relationship the same way that it will refer to opposite-sex relationships.

David Cheater 17:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I guess my point was very similar to what SanuelWantman said above. If a Wikipedia article says someone is gay, we should assume that the person is gay. It does seem redundant to say "openly" gay. If it's a significant enough to mention in a Wikipedia article, I'd assume that it's either common knowledge or the person is, indeed, "open" about their gayness.--Redheaded dude 01:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

A very interesting discussion and clarifies some of my doubts. I came to this because of the Craig Revel Horwood article: which has been stating him to be 'openly bisexual'. Then this got edited out by an experienced editor so I wondered if there was some policy or guidance. (kw: search on 'openly gay' produces lots of hits). Also in the article are quotations about CRH's concerns re his mother's attitude: is it proper to include these?--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 02:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Is the closet harmful?[edit]

In the article:

... he explored in depth the harm caused both to the closeted individual and to society in general by being in the closet.

This sentence assumes the truth of the point of view that being in the clost harms both society and the individual. Is this POV universally held?

If not, what's the best way to mention opposing points of view? posted by --Uncle Ed 19:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, are there people who think remaining in the closet about one's sexuality isn't harmful? I mean, certainly there are people who believe that one can and should change their sexuality, but that's a different matter entirely, and to change requires that one acknowledge openly that their sexuality is what it is (for now). Alternately, "he explored in depth" seems to indicate that the rest of the sentence is exploring a particular individual's POV, which seems to fall acceptably within NPOV territory. -Seth Mahoney 20:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the two issues are:

  1. Remaining in denial about one's sexuality
  2. Keeping one's sexuality private or making it a public matter

Does Wikipedia have any information on the benefit or harm of any of these options? --Uncle Ed 22:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that it should have any info on the benefit or harm of these options, though it would be acceptable, I think, to have info on whether or not such-and-such a (well-known, influential, etc.) group says this or that about these options (for example, I believe the APA has made statements to the effect that it is not psychologically healthy to remain in denial about one's sexuality - this would be appropriate material). Regarding the second option, homosexuality is problematic in that the line between accepting and being open regarding one's sexuality and handing out flyers about exactly what you do in bed is surprisingly thin and difficult to find. The very fact that it is generally assumed by default that everyone is heterosexual tends to make coming out, even among close family and friends, a continual process, and regular things that everyone does, such as mentioning a girlfriend or boyfriend, can in the case of a gay person invoke in others' minds pleasant or unpleasant images of sex that wouldn't necessarily happen with a straight person. Anyway, I'm not at all arguing against changing this article - it needs work. But I'd recommend being careful about which direction to take it, since it could too easily stray into polemic either way. -Seth Mahoney 03:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I also think this article is strongly bais. While the term 'the closet' is most commonly associated with sexuality, the term is much broader then the article lends you to beleive. I changed the article a few months ago to add that the term the closet is a reference to the unconscious mind, but this addition was immediatly deleted by another user. I also think we need to make distinctions between the term "the closet" and the "the (homosexual) closet" to help resolve this rift in thinking. Note that the homosexual closet is only one of many uses for the term the closet.


"In Beyoncé's 2006 single "Irreplaceable" 'the closet' is referred to as a place where unwanted memories of past relationships can be suppressed." Is there any citation for this comment? I am no Beyonce scholar but after hearing that song ad-nauseam I am relatively certain the closet in that song refers to nothing metaphorically. Joeytsai 06:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Lead In and Premise of the article[edit]

I really disagree with the two premises of this article: 1) that the closet is mainly a psychoanalytic term, and 2) that it has anything particular to do with the unconscious or subconscious.

1) A lot of discussions of the closet (including my book, "Epistemology of the Closet") use psychoanalytic tools or vocabulary to discuss closetedness and its effects. That's because psychoanalysis was the main discourse available in the 20th century for discussing psychological processes with any degree of complexity. For the same reason, many terms that spring from the 20th century, like this usage of "the closet," are marked in various ways by psychoanalytic assumptions. But the closet is not a term that originated within psychoanalysis and it is not particularly used there. Psychoanalysis seems like an unhelpful way of framing this entry.

2) The unconscious (or subconscious) in particular is minimally relevant to the closet. *By definition*, someone who is deliberately in the closet is conscious of, and trying to conceal, same-sex attractions or activities. (This is true whether or not the person would actually define themselves as homosexual.) By contrast to the closet, the category of "latent homosexual," which had a lot of currency in the 1950s and 60s (e.g. Deborah Kerr's husband in "Tea and Sympathy") really WAS about people who repressed their same-sex desires (i.e. relegated them to an unconscious status)--and it really WAS a psychoanalytic category. One of the dangers of this entry, as it stands, is that it invites a confusion between in the closet and being a latent homosexual. --Eve Sedgwick

I agree.
Good point.EyePhoenix (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Actual Closet[edit]

There doesn't seem to be any mention of the fact that, perhaps unknown to younger editors, that it was actually the practice to use real closets as a place where (perhaps only adolescents) performed taboo sex acts. Thus, "in the closet" was, I can tell you from experience, at least at one time, more than just a metaphor. (talk) 11:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Use of term for invisible disabilities[edit]

I've often heard of the term "in the closet" for people with invisible disabilities (i.e., a disability such as a chronic illness or a mental or neurological condition, one which is not immediately apparent) who hide their diagnosis to avoid discrimination, especially employment-related, for being "defective" or "crazy". Unfortunately, I don't have any references for this other than multiple uses of the term, along with "coming out of the closet" and "passing" on disability-related forums. If anyone has any better references for this usage of "the closet", please add information.

"Closeted" sexual behavior[edit]

Usage of the term "closeted" commonly applies to LGBT people but not those "who engage in kinky sexual behaviors such as BDSM or fetishes." Yet this phrase has been erroneously tacked on to the article's introduction without adequate sources.

Most people's intimate sexual behaviors are "closeted" or undisclosed whether what they do in private is "kinky" or not. Paraphiles do not endure a "life-shaping pattern of concealment" as typically they don't need to reveal their fetishes to anyone but their partners. This reference validates my point. Its an advice column in which a reader feels that she has to "come out" as a masochist only because her mother is asking about her noticeable bruises.

Sexual orientation and gender identity encompass much more than sex, but lumping in paraphilia promotes the canard that homosexuality and transsexualism are "alternative lifestyle" choices rather than innate conditions. Use of "the closet" in reference to paraphiles is not common at all. In fact I found far more references to closet drinkers than to closet fetishists. I will move the phrase to a more suitable place. Am86 (talk) 05:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Your concerns are valid but mistaken. BDSM, leather, kink and polysexual issues are indeed the same as LGBT people. I'm re-adding this but I'm open to clarifying it if we can do so NPOV. Many issues regarding LGBT people, in fact, have been aided by "strait" allies who were aware that their own closet sexual behaviours were demonized in much the same ways. Our job is to report what is applicable to this subject not filter away content we think taints it in some way. -- Banjeboi 09:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


This article makes it seem as if it is a bad thing to reject a gay identity. I put in a quote from the APA which indicated that there is no harm in rejecting a gay identity and talked about therapy that helps people to change their sexual orientation identity. I felt this provided balance. This the text that was rejected: "Little research has been done on the long-term effects of rejecting a gay identity, but according Dr. Glassgold of the APA, there is "no clear evidence of harm" and "some people seem to be content with that path." LGB people have been able to change their sexual orientation identity, but not their sexual orientation to heterosexual, ex-gay, or no sexual identity through psychotherapy, support groups and life exerience."

Here are the text from which I extracted this information:

  • Dr. Glassgold, of the APA, said there has been little research about the long-term effects of rejecting a gay identity, but there is "no clear evidence of harm" and "some people seem to be content with that path."[1]
  • sexual orientation identity—not sexual orientation—appears to change via psychotherapy, support groups, and life events [2]
  • The existing research indicates that possible outcomes of sexual orientation identity exploration for those distressed by their sexual orientation may be:
  • LGB identities (Glassgold, 2008; Haldeman, 2004; Mahaffy, 1996; Yarhouse, 2008)
  • Heterosexual sexual orientation identity (Beckstead & Morrow, 2004)
  • Disidentifying from LGB identities (e.g., ex-gay) (Yarhouse, 2008; Yarhouse & Tan, 2004; Yarhouse et al., 2005)
  • Not specifying an identity (Beckstead & Morrow, 2004; Haldeman, 2004; Tan, 2008)

The edit summary said that "this seems an awfully POV interpretation of those sources which advise against reparative therapy". The edits did not mention reparative therapy. I don't see what reparative therapy has to do with anything. Omitting these sources amounts to POV pushing. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that there is any agreement here that the article is unbalanced, and adding a tag to the article saying it is is not going to be much use if there is no agreement that the article should be changed. Please consider a different approach. Born Gay (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I've done some clean-up to the article itself and added In 2009 the American Psychological Association affirmed that even though there is no evidence therapy can change sexual orientation, some clients' religious identity may transcend affirming an LGB identity and coming out.[7][8] to try to incorporate the concept presented into this article. This isn't an article about LGBT identity so I see no need to delve into the subject of rejecting said identities. The main thrust of the Wall Street Journal article focussed on why LGB people might need to be allowed to stay closeted so to speak and not try to embrace an identity that conflicts with their religious identity that may be more important. Hope this sits well with all. -- Banjeboi 01:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
This isn't about coming out either. It is about people who are closeted. Rejecting a gay identity is very intricately related to being closeted, or at least just as much as coming out is. A huge portion of people who are closeted have ego-dystonic sexual orientation, so I would think that therapy aimed at treating ego-dystonic sexual orientation would be perfectly acceptable and needed in this section. There is a whole section on the Connection between the closet and neurosis. It needs to be clear that simply rejecting a gay identity does not cause the neurosis. It is the conflict between the religious identity and the sexual identity that causes neurosis. If you are going to talk about the neurosis, it would be perfectly acceptable to talk about therapy to cure the neurosis. Your edit simply says that some people reject a gay identity because of religious reasons. That much is obvious. I want it to include that there is no known harm in rejecting the gay identity, especially to counterbalance the section on neurosis. There are several possible outcomes for the therapy - "coming out" as a LGB person, rejecting the gay identity, or some synthesis of the two. All possible outcomes must be given equal weight as viable alternatives. If this article is going to talk about coming out as a possible outcome, it needs to talk about rejecting the gay identity as a possible outcome in order to be NPOV. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
The current text is:
Well ego-dystonic sexual orientation (World Health Organization in the ICD-10 (1992)) seems to be a holdover term from 1992, given the profound culture shifts and 2009 research summarized by the APA folks I'm loathe to advertise something with undue weight. At best we have that people with psychological and behavioural disorders can also be closeted, which is rather meaningless, like saying Asians can also be closeted - this is not very surprising. Do we have a strong source that supports LGBTI peoples' religious identity causes then neurosis? It wouldn't surprise me but let's avoid any synthesis or original research - or even the appearance. What do quality sources state? -- Banjeboi 01:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The problem is the statement "Only by going through this process, these models purport, can one become well adjusted", when the APA makes perfectly clear that there is no harm in rejecting the gay identity. It is POV to assume that closeted LGB people only have one option to be well adjusted. The purpose of this article is to talk about the concept of being closeted, not as advocacy for one particular view point. The APA paper gives 4 possible outcomes - 1) Embracing a LGB identity, 2) Developing a heterosexual sexual orientation identity, 3) Rejecting a LGB identity (ex-gay) or 4) having no identity. This article gives unequal weight to coming out as a LGB person. Guess what? Closeted people don't want to be identified as a LGB person. That is why we are in the closet. We should be treated with respect. The article should talk about the various people who are in the closet and what all the different options are. Only discussing one option (coming out) as opposed to therapy to change sexual orientation identity is POV. The APA made clear that self-determination is important for the client, yet this article acts as if they only have option. I really don't care whether you accept the classification of the World Health Organization, or you accept the APA's classification of "persistent and marked distress about one’s sexual orientation”. My point was not that religious people have a neurosis. What I said was "If you are going to talk about the neurosis, it would be perfectly acceptable to talk about therapy to cure the neurosis." The article currently states there is only one cure for this neurosis. That is false. All possible cures should be discussed. Joshuajohanson (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Types of closeted people[edit]

I think it would be helpful to have a section on the different types of closets, rather than try to discuss them all in the intro. This would allow us to go into further detail into the different cultures associated with each type. To discuss the broom closet in the introduction, and then have the article talk about people who are closeted about their sexual orientation only serves to confuse the reader. The intro should be a summary of the article. The broom closet idea can then be further developed in the main article, but the intro is not the place to do it. Joshuajohanson (talk) 17:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What a coincidence: Just before, I re-organized the article to free up the lead for further development elsewhere. --CJ Withers (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
The culture of closeted people on the down-low is completely different than those who consciously reject a gay identity without having gay sex. I think it would be worthwhile to explore the different cultures and attitudes of the different types. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Your deep interest and self-assurance on how "completely different" things ostensibly are make you the perfect candidate to write up a typology. --CJ Withers (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on it. The categories I have right now are Closeted sexual and gender identity, Closeted sexual behavior, and Closeted sexual orientation. Joshuajohanson (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds perfect! :-) The article will definitely benefit from the distinction. --CJ Withers (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

1st Paragraph[edit]

The First Paragraph reads:

"A survey by The Social Organization of Sexuality in which 150 women and 143 men reported any same-sex sexuality (desire, sex, identity) found that among men who reported any same-sex-oriented sexuality, 22% had same-sex activity while 44% felt desire but had never acted upon it. The corresponding numbers for women who reported any same-sex-oriented sexuality were 13% and 59%. Only 24% and 15%, respectively, identified as LGB in addition to feeling desire and having same-sex activity.[1]"

While interesting, this does not necessary pertain to the closet metaphor. Just because one has same sex attractions does not make them a closeted homosexual. In a sense I think that this is further reason for more clarity on what the closet really is.

JB2007 23:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burr0108 (talkcontribs)

Latent homosexuality versus the closet[edit]

I would just like to reitterate a point made by Dr. Eve Sedgwick earlier in this discussion section. This article seems to confound the categories of "the closet" and "latent homosexual". Would we say that Ted Haggard was in the closet or was a latent homosexual? This distinction should be made clear. (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

In popular culture[edit]

I think the term/concept is prevalent enough in pop culture that there could be a section in the article about its usage. (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Reparative therapy is not about the closet[edit]

While the below statement may very well be true. It does not pertain to the closet. Therefore I am taking it out of the article.

In 2009 the American Psychological Association affirmed that even though there is no evidence therapy can change sexual orientation, some clients' religious identity may transcend affirming an LGB identity and coming out.[3][4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burr0108 (talkcontribs) 02:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)