Homosexuality and the A.P.A.

[gman620]

OK everyone, I have a question for all of you. I had a really conservative teacher who once told our class (it was a health education class) that the only reason the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Associations removed homosexuality from their list of mental illnesses in the 1970's was due to pressure from gay activists. He pointed to the fact that gays were rioting right outside of the APA buildings while they were deliberating on whether to keep homosexuality listed as an illness. After researching this, I found that this is a very common right-wing allegation, but my question is if it's true. Any thoughts?

[Daniel]

Here's what one source to say about the matter.

http://www.answers.com/topic/american-psychiatric-association

From the late 1960s, gay rights activists campaigned against the DSM classification of homosexuality as a mental illness, protesting at APA offices or meetings. At the 1971 APA convention in Washington, gay activist Franklin E. Kameny seized the microphone. In a climate of controversy and social unrest, in 1973/1974, the American Psychiatric Association decided by a small majority (58%) to remove homosexuality as an illness category, although "ego-dystonic homosexuality" remained until 1987 and may still remain indirectly in a category of identify confusion disorder.

The man who seized the microphone is a hero in the gay community. He is credited with originating the phrase "Gay is Good." Your teacher was flat out wrong. The use of exaggeration to damn what they (conservatives) don't like is typical. (Kameny's 'papers' are now with the Library of Congress, which is nothing to sniff at btw. http://www.kamenypapers.org/)

More about Kameny here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_E._Kameny

Here's what he had to say about the getting the American Pyschiatric Association to change it's policy.

http://www.gaypeopleschronicle.com/stories07/april/0427073.htm

Kameny said the most important one was getting homosexuality removed from the list of mental disorders, for which he is also the most famous.

“No one was going to give rights to loonies,” said Kameny. “So we had to find out if it was true.”

“If it turned out to be justified, we would have to make the best of it, but if it was not justified, it had to be found out and gotten rid of.”

“I am a scientist,” said Kameny, “and I know good the difference between good science and bad science.”

“What I found [examining the science used to justify the mental disorder claim] was the most sloppy, slipshod, pseudo-science imagineable,” Kameny said.

“They were just making assumptions, but they never looked at the assumptions” to see if they were accurate, Kameny said.

Kameny, with the help of Barbara Gittings and others, showed up at American Psychiatric Association conferences every year starting in 1963 with acts of disobedience, theatrics like kissing booths, and as vendors, to get the association’s attention.

Finally, in 1973, Kameny and Gittings appeared on a panel with gay psychiartist John E. Fryer--disguised as Dr. H. Anonymous. They pointed out the errors in the science.

“That shifted the burden of proof,” said Kameny.

Six months later, on December 15, 1973, the APA changed its position.

“We were all cured, en masse,” Kameny said.

Notice the time line: Kameny started showing up a conventions in '63, seized the microphone in '71' and then was an invited panelist in '73. He did his homework. Your teacher could have done his. ;)

History is cool.

On a side note, China has recently removed homosexuality from it's list of disorders.

http://www.nycny.com/columns/nichols/nichols03-09-01.html

The Chinese Psychiatric Association, in a decision of monumental importance to gay men and lesbians in China, has voted to declassify same-sex lovemaking as an illness. In a nation whose population is estimated at some 1.3 billion people, this reversal of a medieval anti-gay medical stance has removed a principal barrier to equal treatment of gay Chinese citizens under the law. It also serves mightily to buttress self-esteem among those same citizens.

The decision was reached as a result of a five-year study conducted by a task force of the Chinese Psychiatric Association that aimed to revise outdated theoretical definitions of mental health. The new guidelines will be released in April.

A person at ease with his or her homosexual orientation, according to the guidelines, has no need of psychiatric assistance. Same-sex desire only becomes problematic if an individual is distressed because he or she has accepted anti-gay culturally-induced prejudices.

~

The American Psychiatric Assocation has postion papers on reparative therapy and same-sex marriage.

http://www.psych.org/psych_pract/copptherapyaddendum83100.cfm

In December of 1998, the Board of Trustees issued a position statement that the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as "reparative" or conversion therapy, which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that a patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation (Appendix 1). In doing so, the APA joined many other professional organizations that either oppose or are critical of "reparative" therapies, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, The American Counseling Association, and the National Association of Social Workers (1).


http://www.apa.org/releases/gaymarriage.html

APA SUPPORTS LEGALIZATION OF SAME-SEX CIVIL MARRIAGES AND OPPOSES DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LESBIAN AND GAY PARENTS

Denying Same-Sex Couples Legal Access to Civil Marriage is Discriminatory and Can Adversely Affect the Psychological, Physical, Social and Economic Well-Being of Gay and Lesbian Individuals"The APA recognizes the importance of the institution of civil marriage which confers a social status with important legal benefits, rights and privileges," said psychologist Armand R. Cerbone, who is a private practitioner in Chicago and chair of the working group. "Discrimination of all kinds takes a toll on people's health and psychological well being. In the context of the huge social and political debate that is currently going on, APA and psychologists had to grapple with the issue of what psychology believes is in the public interest in this controversy.”

[Zerbie]

Hi Gman, how ya doin'?

I'm not a history expert (far from it!!) but your question makes me want to be more informed. I've heard that story also. I do know that activists, especially back in the day, had to be far more "in your face" than we do now in order to even be heard for 10 seconds. So it seems quite likely to me that activist groups were probably present to make the request. That wouldn't necessarily invalidate the APA's position, even so.

I just did a quick google on "Evelyn Hooker" because I recall the name associated with early studies from the 1950s indicating no measurable psychological difference between gay and straight men. The search brings up MANY hits, so rather than sift through them all, I make the suggestion to you. Glancing at the search results page, I will say it appears quite difficult to find an assessment of Eveyln Hooker's study that isn't being described either by a gay activist organization OR by someone "debunking" gay rights altogether along the pathology model.

I suggest you go ahead and read through as much of it as strikes your interest and determine for yourself what makes the most sense and seems most reliable. Remember to consider sources - look for peer-reviews, reliable journals (if someone is basing their claims on the debunked junk science of Paul Cameron, it's got a tremendous anti-gay slant, and Cameron's stuff is garbage so you can ignore that).

For the rest of it, study for yourself. It's a complicated mess and for you to have to figure all this crap out in terms of where you yourself fit in the world, well, frankly, it pisses me off that you have to go through this. You are a worthwhile person whatever someone says, got that?

Hope you are doing okay.

[kara speltz]

OK everyone, I have a question for all of you. I had a really conservative teacher who once told our class (it was a health education class) that the only reason the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Associations removed homosexuality from their list of mental illnesses in the 1970's was due to pressure from gay activists. He pointed to the fact that gays were rioting right outside of the APA buildings while they were deliberating on whether to keep homosexuality listed as an illness. After researching this, I found that this is a very common right-wing allegation, but my question is if it's true. Any thoughts?

This story is so absurd. To think that highly educated adults would make such a change simply because there was a riot going on outside of the doors, makes absolutely no sense. If that were true, then the democratic and republican parties would have spoken out against the immoral wars we've waged starting back in the 60s.

BTW, I'm hardly comparing psychologists and psychiatrists with politicians. Lord know most psychologists and psychiatrists have a great deal more integrity than the vast majority of politicians.:eek:

kara

[Alecto]

The "change" was made because activists forced the professionals to actually examine what they were classifying as pathology. They were forced to examine a lot of the assumptions that were just accepted before. the results of that examination led to them removing the "disorder" from the DSM.

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

Our adversaries on the right seem to have a chronic problem with science--from evolution to global warming to sexual orientation they want to force our view of the world to fit their doctrinal hang-ups rather than fit the evidence.

Steven Webster

[sjbouza]

If it was just the APA that no longer classified homosexuality as a "disorder" is could see the point. However, a whole slew of medical and scientific organizations no longer classify it as any sort of disorder. I dont know the entire list, I do know it is lengthy.

It is just the big "conspiracy theory" that the Conservitives and the Fundamentalists want the public to believe. They want to try to tie it into the whole "gay agenda" that they are trying to make the public believe. As, Aletco stated, it most likely wasnt pressure to make the change as it was to make them re-evaluate the science behind the thought to begin with. Once they re-evaluated everything it was decided that it wasnt a mental disorder. So it wasnt like, "take it off the DSM as a disorder or else," it was more like, "lets look at what the science behind it is and see if they are right." I mean when you have hundreds of thousands of people telling you that this is the way they were born. It wasnt a choice or some mental problem that they are suffering from, I think that it would make one rethink the issue. At least take a look at what they are saying.

Psychology in itself is no exact science to begin with. I have been to a few shrinks in my lifetime. I think they are all crack pots to begin with, so I am sort of bias on that standpoint. I mean no offense to any Psychs here. I am speaking of the ones I have had the "pleasure" of paying $100+ an hour to just to sit there and ask my how I feel and in the end I came out with the same problems, if not more, than when I started.

Yes, the right loves to use their "conspiracy theories". It must have been because of the pressure that a few people put on an entire group. So if all of the Skizophranics got together and picketed and threatened to riot, do you think the APA would change the DSM to reflect that Skitzophrania was no longer a mental disorder? NO, I dont think so. But that is what the right wants everyone to believe. Whatever, get over yourselves.

[BrentRichards]

Here's a thumbnail history: http://www.psych.org/pnews/98-07-17/dsm.html

[Alecto]

The main protest was that there were all these ivory tower folks talking about us, but none of them were talking to us. There was no research, and there were just broad statements made and accepted without batting an eyelid that, quite frankly, hold no water. I won't get into the fact that I'm starting to see some of the same theories popping up again. ::angry face::

[HarmlessEccentric]

By the way, a few weeks ago, "This American Life" dedicated an hour-long episode to this event, with lots of interviews with people who were involved. Fascinating listen.

[Daniel]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070710/gays-psychologists/


Psychologists to Review Stance on Gays

DAVID CRARY | July 10, 2007 05:33 PM EST |

NEW YORK — The American Psychological Association is embarking on the first review of its 10-year-old policy on counseling gays and lesbians, a step that gay-rights activists hope will end with a denunciation of any attempt by therapists to change sexual orientation.

Such efforts _ often called reparative therapy or conversion therapy _ are considered futile and harmful by many gay-rights activists. Conservative groups defend the right to offer such treatment, and say people with their viewpoint have been excluded from the review panel.

A six-member task force set up by the APA has its first meeting beginning next Tuesday.

Already, scores of conservative religious leaders and counselors, representing such groups as the Southern Baptist Convention and Focus on the Family, have written a joint letter to the APA, expressing concern that the task force's proposals would not properly accommodate gays and lesbians whose religious beliefs condemn gay sex.

"We believe that psychologists should assist clients to develop lives that they value, even if that means they decline to identify as homosexual," said the letter, which requested a meeting between APA leaders and some of the signatories.

APA spokeswoman Rhea Farberman said a decision on when and how to reply to the letter had not yet been made.

The current APA policy, adopted in 1997, opposes any counseling that treats homosexuality as a mental illness, but does not explicitly denounce reparative therapy. The APA has decided to review the policy at a time when gay-rights groups are increasingly critical of such treatment and groups that support it.

Conservatives contend that the review's outcome is preordained because the task force is dominated by gay-rights supporters.

"We're concerned," said Carrie Gordon Earll of Focus on the Family. "The APA does not have a good track record of listening to other views."

Joseph Nicolosi, a leading proponent of reparative therapy, predicted the task force would propose a ban of the practice _ and he vowed to resist such a move. Nicolosi, who was rejected as a task force nominee, is president of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality.

Clinton Anderson, director of the APA's Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Concerns Office, insisted the panel would base its findings on scientific research, not ideology. He defended the decision to reject certain conservative applicants to the task force.

"We cannot take into account what are fundamentally negative religious perceptions of homosexuality _ they don't fit into our world view," Anderson said.

One of the counselors denied a seat on the task force was Warren Throckmorton, a psychology professor at Grove City College near Pittsburgh. Though Throckmorton doesn't advocate a specific form of reparative therapy, he argues that psychologists should respect gay clients' religious beliefs in cases where the faith teaches that homosexual behavior is wrong.

"We work with clients to pursue their chosen values," he said. "If they are core, unwavering commitments to their religious belief, therapists should not try to persuade them differently under the guise of science."

However, one of the task force members, New York City psychiatrist Jack Drescher, said the conservatives don't acknowledge the harm that might be caused when a gay patient _ even voluntarily _ undergoes therapy to suppress or change sexual orientation.

"They want a rubber stamp of approval for a form of therapy that's questionable in its efficacy and they don't want to deal with the issue of harmful side effects," said Drescher, who is editor of the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy.

As the APA planned the policy review, it received input from gay-rights groups, including Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays.

PFLAG's executive director, Jody Huckaby, said reparative therapy had been particularly harmful for young gays whose parents insisted on trying to change their sexual orientation. His group contends these efforts can cause depression and suicidal behavior.

Current APA policy stipulates that no therapy should occur without "informed consent" of a gay or lesbian client. Jason Cianciotto of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force said he hoped the APA would declare that no young person could ever be deemed to have given informed consent, and thus no reparative therapy would be approved for minors.

The largest ministry that does counsel gays to change their sexual orientation is Exodus International. Its president, Alan Chambers _ who says prayer and therapy enabled him to move away from homosexuality _ is among those apprehensive of the APA review.

"I had hoped for more diversity on that panel," Chambers said. "I see a lot of people who represent the other side _ who don't believe that people like me have a right to self-determination."

The task force may submit a preliminary report to the APA's directors in December. Anderson said a final report might be completed by next March.

___

On the Net:

American Psychological Association: http://www.apa.org/

[Emproph]

Already, scores of conservative religious leaders and counselors, representing such groups as the Southern Baptist Convention and Focus on the Family, have written a joint letter to the APA, expressing concern that the task force's proposals would not properly accommodate gays and lesbians whose religious beliefs condemn gay sex.

Here's a link to that the letter (http://www.citizenlink.org/pdfs/apa_letter.pdf), courtesy Citizenlink (http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000005032.cfm)

The letter is tepid enough, but considering that it is supported by a slew of people and organizations who have made it their life's goal to see us all imprisoned or put to death -- in the name of Jesus -- to call it disingenuous would be an understatement.
___
"Based on the charge to the task force," she said, "one possible outcome is that the APA will declare any therapy that does not affirm homosexuality as unethical — regardless of the client's goal. This would be a slap in the face to millions of Americans who hold religious and moral views on homosexuality.

Of course "affirm homosexuality" to Focus means "affirm the humanity of homosexuals." Just their "Christian" way of attempting to frame human beings as a "moral" issue.

"This resolution challenges the APA to be tolerant and open-minded in its views. The APA's track record on this is not good, but this is an opportunity for the APA to put the clinical goals of clients ahead of the political demands of homosexual activists."

Translation: "This an opportunity for the APA to put the political demands of religious supremacists ahead of the clinical goals of clients."

-Which is why they were left out of the discussion.

[ladyinred]

Curious that the founders ( Hope that is correct) Of Exodus fell in love and left Exodus..http://www.beyondexgay.com/article/busseeapology

[ladyinred]

I've read the HRC article on free at last, it takes an in depth look at exgay ministries, these are stories from real life people who said they were being dishonest with themselves and others when they said they were exgays and that they had changed, the thing is they had suffered from remorse for being so dishonest with themselves and others and lying to people saying they had changed and others could ,they admitted to being manipulative and dishonest. They were saying that people were actually being paid(bribed) to promote ex gay therapies to say they had worked and they had changed. The stories told by the people in finally free were not paid to tell their stories. They did not get any financial rewards for doing so. to me the book is closed on exgay therapies.

I actually joined an ex ex gay therapy to get an in depth look at what people were saying about it and did a google search and found many groups that were ex exgay. I posted them earlier,several months ago on soul force's forum. Why did I join an exe xgay group ?To get a sense of what others were going through and to understand what had they experienced going through these so-called reparative therapies. Let's just say being the curious soul I am and the fact that I tend to want to know more about things,I wanted to see what these people were saying and actually experiencing. It's pretty conclusive to me. Reparative therapies are a hoax and do not work for the most part. Their claims that they help people change are largely bogus and they do more damage than good, many of these people who went through reparative therapy, described it as abusive and disheartening , many expressed feelings of despair and failure when going through it and were looking for a way to heal from the aftermath of these therapies.

Do they do more harm than good, after reading what alot of these people said, I would say yes. I guess I had to find out for myself. Why I wanted to find out more about this is because I had read about the claims that gays could change and I wanted to see if this was actually true. I'm no psychologist, though I've studied psychology as a pass-time. But what concerns me is these therapies are still being considered as the cure, and people are misled into thinking they will work and end up spending years in these therapies and spend often times huge amounts of money, only to come away from them emotionally harmed and devastated. I definitely would say that after the havoc this type of therapy wreaked on peoples lives, people need to stay away from them.

Many of the people coming out of these therapies are severely depressed ,disillusioned and confused and are looking for a way to pick up the pieces of their lives. They deserve our compassion for what they went through. I personally don't give a damn what reparative therapies claim, if people are becoming despondent or suicidal as a result (and there are stories of people committing suicide being in reparative therapy) something is wrong here. I don't like the lies and deceit and phony promises of such therapies, the people who walk away are often trying to recover after being in these therapies. I was also reading that some of the people who claimed success may be bisexual in reality and can easily adapt to marriage with someone of the opposite sex.

I'm tired of lies being perpetrated in the name of "therapy" and saying it can cure people when it often does the opposite. Any good psychologist would do the research on such therapies to see if they actually did what they claimed to do. If I could do it so they could they. I know this may not stop some people from seeking reparative therapy, but I wanted to present the real picture here of what many people have gone through as the result of such therapy.

[u-dog]

Psychology in itself is no exact science to begin with. I have been to a few shrinks in my lifetime. I think they are all crack pots to begin with, so I am sort of bias on that standpoint. I mean no offense to any Psychs here. I am speaking of the ones I have had the "pleasure" of paying $100+ an hour to just to sit there and ask my how I feel and in the end I came out with the same problems, if not more, than when I started.

Hi Scot,

I was just re-reading this thread and came across this post of yours. to preface... I'm not offended or mad or anything, but I need to comment on this paragraph.

I also have been "on the couch" more than once in the last quarter century and now I am married to a mental health professional. So in a sense I have been on both sides of the equation. I can say with certainty that while psychology is NOT an exact science, if the client "shows up" willing to do the hard work that real growth requires then the skilled therapist is a powerful change agent and the $100/hour is a true bargain. On the other hand, if the client sits on the couch and waits for the therapist to fix him/her then he/she might as well use a $100 bill to light other peoples cigarettes. I know... I have done both. :(

[nmwolfboy]

i second U-dog's points. i've spent some time 'on the couch' myself. Alot depends on the individual's motivation, and also on the therapist. And not every therapist/patient arrangement works. When it does, it's a bargain compared to some of the alternatives.

In the past, when i was in crisis, i saw a behaviorist - she was awesome and helped keep me from offing myself. Then, due to a funding restriction in the service model i was is, she had to refer me elsewhere.

Unfortunately, that was to someone who was more of an analyst. That was a crappy situation. I used to make things up just to see if the guy was listening. The guy also insisted on videotaping the sessions, which just creeped me out, though talking to the camera was essentially indistinguishable from talking to him. I found out later that another friend of mine was seeing this therapist - he described the experience as "He encourages me to open up my cans of worms, then tells me 'Time's up', leaving me with all this crap to deal with on my own."

Skip forward twenty years and (again in crisis - sheesh!) i was referred to a therapist who employed Cognitive Therapy. Working with her was fabulous, and i had tons of A-HA! moments.

The first two therapists cost me nothing. The last one was $75 an hour, which was grudgingly covered by my health insurance, at least until they were sure i wasn't going to kill myself. Then i had to pay out of pocket, which i did for a while because what i was learning about myself was so useful. Still, i thought the insurance rules were rude - "We'll pay for your therapy as long as we think you might kill yourself. If you want to really deal with your sh*t and get healthy, well, that you'll have to pay for all by yourself." Still, my sessions with her were so enlightening and worthwhile that i paid the weekly fee for a couple of months. Then we both agreed the therapy had run its course.

If i 'm ever in trouble again, she'll be the first one i'll ask to be referred to.

My general rule now: if you're able, check out what kind of therapy a professional employs before accepting them. And also, there's no shame in seeking help when it's needed.

Pax,
scott

[ladyinred]

There is nothing wrong with psychotherapy. I feel like most Americans could stand to spend some dollars to get some. Being involved with therapists and psychiatrists myself. I've learned alot. There is nothing wrong with needing and getting help if you need it. But I have had both positive and negative experiences with therapists, but for the most part positive.What I object to is when I hear stories about people who need it and their church discourages it or tells the person they are possessed of demons that need casted out.

One such story was a woman who was going through severe post partum and her church discouraged her from getting help for those very reasons. She ended up murdering her baby. Brooke Shields was criticized for getting help for her post partum depression. I salute her, she did what she needed to do. My psychiatrist was talking about the shooting at Virginia Tech and the mother of the guy who did it, she kept taking him to church to get his demons exorcised.She was appalled at such ignorance and said perhaps that tragedy could have been averted if he had gotten help.