For some reason reading this article made me wonder: how would you determine whether or not something is extravolitional, in the sense of something you're compe

For some reason reading this article made me wonder: how would you determine whether or not something is extravolitional, in the sense of something you're compelled to rather than decide? I'm not questioning the conclusion in the title. However, the article raises at least one argument (therapy intending to change something has failed, therefore it is unchangeable) that is compelling but not entirely convincing on the face of it. Genetic studies are another, but those aren't entirely right either maybe? Maybe you can only bring various sorts of evidence to bear? I think it's an interesting and important philosophical or psychological question in general. Usually people frame arguments about free will in terms of "do you have free will or not", but we also generally have this sense that certain things are outside our control, and it's interesting to think about how you define that difference and whether or not it's actually definable.