Calling all mental health professionals

[Emproph]

Ok, this is where I eventually want to go with this...

Originally Posted by inca nitta

Also,

I thought that in this thread we could talk about all kinds of phobias and prejudices, including homophobia. I didn't realize that homophobia being a mental disorder was exclusive.

Sorry for misunderstanding.

But there's some thing I've got to get out of the way first (I've been dying to do Mary Stachowicz), you'll have to forgive me.

I regret nothing.........

Originally Posted by inca nitta

Mary Stachowicz

Mary Stachowicz.

Mary Stachowicz = Mary Stachowicz VS. Matthew Shepard.

Sought out, raped and killed, simply because she was Christian? Is this what you contend? An example of Christianophobia?

And while we’re at it, let’s not forget little Jesse Dirkhising. Are you also contending that he was sought out, raped and killed, simply because he was 13? Thirteenophobia?

~In Addition~

The question was, “When was the last time someone was beaten within inches of their lives for being Christian in America?” Your answer was Mary Stachowicz.

According to that criteria, 1 person, Five years ago, almost to the day, November 13, 2002, was “the last time” that a hate crime was committed against a Christian in America -- Simply because they were a Christian.

P.S. Does this mean you support hate crimes legislation?

[inca nitta]

Hi folks,

I think this thread is about homophobia coming from psychological perspective, or about any other phobias also known from the fields of mental health.

I only mentioned Mary Stachowicz once, as to answer Alecto (Tim's) question. I also think that we should talk about hate crimes in a different thread.

I believe that any hate crimes are triggered by phobia, which is an irrational fear. Whether or not it is committed against GLBT, Christians, Blacks, women, I find that such attackers fear those people they attack, just because these people are different. Wouldn't anybody agree?

Maybe this is why people also refuse to communicate with somebody who is different? Out of phobia.

Christians are definitely a majority in the US, but are the minority in the world. I didn't claim that Christians are a persecuted minority, but I do claim that there are some people who are not Christians who fear Christians. Just like there are people who fear GLBT people, for no valid reason, other than those are different.

[ladyinred]

There is only one problem I have with your line of reason, Inca, you post Christians as opposed to GLBT . Many here consider themselves Christian, it seems to me that you separate Christianity from LGBT people as in they can't possibly be Christians.

[inca nitta]

Originally Posted by ladyinred

There is only one problem I have with your line of reason, Inca, you post Christians as opposed to GLBT . Many here consider themselves Christian, it seems to me that you separate Christianity from LGBT people as in they can't possibly be Christians.

With all due respect, Layinred, this is not what I was reasoning. Like I said before, there are LGBT Christians, but definitely not all LGBT people are Christians, just like not all straight people are Christians. Stemming from this argument, I was reasoning that people who are not Christians could have a phobia about Christians, simply because they don't really know them, and this is not something they identify themselves with. Likewise, hetero people (both Christians and non-Christians) could have a phobia about GLBT people, simply because they don't really know them and this is not something they identify themselves with. Am I making any sense?

Also, I am not so sure, how does what you just said is related to the subject of this thread? If you have any personal concerns, please send me a PM. I think it would be better to settle any possible misunderstandings in private, rather than bring it up to the public.

Thank you very much,

Inca Nitta

[ladyinred]

Yes you make sense.

[ladyinred]

I'm sure that there are also those who have felt rejected or ostracized by the church who have shunned Christianity altogther and may have hard feelings about it. I don't know about phobia, but perhaps mistrust of Christians and their intentions.People who have had generally positive experiences with a church probably wouldn't feel this way.Gay affirming churches for example. Sorry if I jumped to conclusions about your statements, but I guess that was a misunderstanding on my part. But since you have clarified what you are trying to say. I can "get" your point now. But there are GLBT people who identify as being agnostic, atheist and perhaps another religion because they may be turned off to Christianity for whatever reason or it just isn't their cup of tea.


I'd also say that LGBT people who have had traumatic experiences with the church in terms of being told they are sinners, going to hell and brow beaten with the bible, may turn from Christianity based on the negative messages they receive from a church .Of course this is just my perspective.

It may be true that many are homophobic based on their religious training or upbringing and don't know any other way to respond and have been bombarded with so many negative messages about LGBT people , religious and otherwise, that they are very fearful as a result and see us as a threat and may believe that gay people are really all those awful things they have heard about. If you hear it often enough , the ol' saying goes , you tend to believe it. And that creates a big obstacle not only for LGBT people but heterosexuals to overcome as well.

Again I do apologize for jumping all over you. As you have responded graciously to my posts, I do feel I owe you that apology for jumping to conclusions .

[inca nitta]

It's all right, Lady (I hope you don't mind calling you me that and I'm a Gentleman, btw.

We already cleared it up in PMs. It was very nice.

Like wise, I also find what you said to make a lot of sense. To me, at least.

I observed that this forum has people with very open feelings and there is a lot of emotional emphasis, so I can understand why you responded the way you did.

Your friend,

Inca.

[ladyinred]

Whoops, sorry about the name. I guess I just assumed you were a woman.(Thinking your last name in terms of Nita I guess) Perhaps you could explain your name or it's orgins, it is unusual. But again oops I jumped to conclusions again.(Of course I used to be called Andy by some of my friends in the past)

[inca nitta]

Originally Posted by ladyinred

Whoops, sorry about the name. I guess I just assumed you were a woman.(Thinking your last name in terms of Nita I guess) Perhaps you could explain your name or it's orgins, it is unusual. But again oops I jumped to conclusions again.(Of course I used to be called Andy by some of my friends in the past)

I didn't bother me, at all. Truthfully, it takes a long time for me to get offended. I definitely do not get offended at people who disagree with me. There are many reasons why they think what they think. It definitely helps to see people better once you realize what motivates them to believe, feel, and think such a way. For example, the information you provided helped me understand better why some LGBT people might feel scornful and resentful of Christianity.

As far as my screenname, it is my pseudonym, not my real name. I made it up myself, out of the blue, and this is how I preferred to be called, which I hope you wouldn't mind

Inca

[Emproph]

That's the explanation I was looking for, transference, the defense mechanism!

For context, from opening post:

Originally Posted by andrewlittle

But where are the studies about the root causes and (possible) links to early childhood trauma, abuse or other critical events that lead up to homophobia? I have no doubt whatsoever - which is why I couldn't participate - that homophobia, or even bias against LGBT, is a mental or emotional disorder. Where are the studies (if they exist) into the causes of this most diabolical dysfunction?

If there aren't any, shouldn't there be?

Definition of Transference, the defense mechanism:

Transference is a phenomenon in psychology characterized by unconscious redirection of feelings for one person to another. One definition of transference is "the inappropriate repetition in the present of a relationship that was important in a person's childhood."[1] Another definition is "the redirection of feelings and desires and especially of those unconsciously retained from childhood toward a new object."[2]

More context:

Originally Posted by Alecto

Does the preocupation with homosexuality fall under another already-existing diagnosis, perhaps? It sometimes seems a bit obsessive (literally, medically speaking) to me (see the Phelps clan). And sometimes the ranting could probably fall under paranoid schizophrenia (again...Phelps clan :-/). That said, I would be really interested to see some connections made, or even just read some case studies etc.

So, to what extent are the experts of hatred just experts of transference?

They would certainly be the most passionate of the lot.

Those with an extremely personal negative experience with any given demographic or characteristic, such as someone who was gay, would be the most likely to “transfer” their hatred for that extremely negative experience, and the person who caused it, onto the entire demographic.

Take molestation especially. How else to express enough righful hatred for what happened than a lifetime of exacting revenge in every way possible?

In addition, the trauma of such abuse would cloud their ability to recognize their current behavior as being in response to the past. Nor would they want to recognize it, they would have decided that a lifetime of revenge is what’s needed.

Who would be more anti-gay motivated than someone who’s an expert at transference, who’s also been personally affected, severely negatively, by a gay person?

A straight guy might turn into a Peter LaBarbera or a Don Wildmon (or a Phelps).

That’s easy enough to understand, but the gay guy who was abused, transfers not just his molestation onto the GLBT community, but also the very REASON for his gayness.

Enter Ex-Gay Ministries’ claim that all gays have been abused. That might help to explain why so many ex-gays are so decidedly anti-gay.

Not just transference in those cases necessarily, but also the manipulation of it.

P.S. To complicate things further regarding the matter, now that I think about it, I tend to do my own share of transferring. It seems to me, however, that transference is basically a specified form of psychological projection, a defense mechanism I am also quite personally familiar with...

[Megandy]

I have done my best to read all the responses to the original thread. Although there was a tangent, I think I have come to understand the original purpose of this thread... which is to discuss the idea of homophobia as a mental disorder, in the same way that some claim that homosexuality is a mental disorder.

First, let me say that I personally have experienced the negative effects of homophobia, both towards me by others and by internalized homophobia. So I agree that it is a problem that needs to be addressed!

With that said, I must also caution those who are reading this to differentiate between GOOD research and SLOPPY research. Take this word of caution with a grain of salt, because its coming from a social work graduate student, and I am enmeshed in research classes at the moment. HOWEVER, I do know that we in the GLBT community have a responsibility to use discretion when quoting research. The anti-gay movement has so many things they hold against us, I'd hate for them to also claim that we use "sloppy" research to back up our points (which is ironic, because I'd claim that THEY use sloppy research for their points). So, let me very briefly share some key components of "good research" with you all, before going on to my 2 cents about homophobia as a mental disorder.

1. The research that we quote should be posted in scholarly journals, not pop magazines. If a pop magazine quotes a scholarly journal, there is likely to be some bias from the person quoting it. Research studies, unfortunately, can be interpreted many ways, and the best way to interpret it is through the research author's eyes. However, I know that most of us don't have access to scholarly journals, so its difficult to find any of that kind of research. If you truly want answers to your questions, however, go to your local library or local university library (or community college library), and ask the reference desk worker to help you search scholarly journals for the topic you are researching.

2. Often, research studies can be biased because of the lack of some key components to research. Now this is where things can get a little wordy, but stick with me, and hopefully you can learn something new about research!! First, when you are reading about a research study, you should note how they got the participants in the first place. This is referred to as the "sample"... you are sampling a portion of the greater population. Now, the sample should accurately be representative of its population. If it is not, then the results of the research will be skewed. Take this example for instance: if someone is studying the correlation between childhood abuse and GLBT lifestyle, and their sample is only from a mental health center, then what is the likelihood that their population is going to have experienced some sort of trauma? I'd say that the likelihood is extremely high, and I would also say that it is not representative of the general population of GLBT people. This error in sampling occurred in the earlier research (1950's-60's) that was conducted to understand where homosexuality came from, and this is the research that people like James Dobson are quoting (its sad that they can't keep up to date on research, but rather they rely on outdated research that has been proved to be bad research, and they deny the fact that it is bad research). This is why so many of the early studies claimed that childhood trauma caused homosexuality. But the problem came when better research was attempted and wanted to get a more representative sample of the population. At the time (1960's-70's), gays were more often than not living closeted lives. So how does one get a representative sample from a hidden or silenced population? Therein lies the problem when trying to research GLBT issues. Even though today there is a much greater degree of visibility with GLBT people, many people still live in the closet due to fear, hate crimes, or other issues. So, although the amount of GOOD research being conducted about GLBT issues is increasing, it is still a difficult task to complete due to the social dangers to this population.

3. In addition to the sample needing to be represenative, there needs to be an understanding of what the research study has set out to complete. There are several styles of research studies, and only very few have the capability to PROVE something. And even in the midst of that "proof", all science is under continual scrutiny (thats the nature of science!). So, a research study that is trying to find out the CORRELATION between two things cannot PROVE anything. It can shed light on the likelihood of two things occurring together in nature, but it does not have provability. The only type of research that can "prove" anything is experimental research. This is research that has controlled variables, is often set in a controlled environment (a lab or an office, although it can be set elsewhere), takes a high degree of statistical analysis, and takes a lot of other measures of research that I will not go into detail here to avoid boring you all to death (I like you, I don't want to kill you with research definitions!! ) So, although correlation studies do tell us a lot about the variables being studied, they cannot be relied on for proof of anything.

Okay, that's about all the rambling I will do on "good" research today. Class dismissed

If you all want to know more about components of "good" research, let me know and I'd be happy to share more in detail.

So anyway, on to the real topic: homophobia as a mental disorder. Homophobia is usually defined as: the irrational fear of being gay or coming into contact with people who are gay. Although many people do not fit into this category any more, most of America falls into the social prejudice of HETEROSEXISM, or heteronormativity. This is usually defined as: the inclination that heterosexuality is the only accepted form of sexuality, and gives preference to those who are heterosexual. This is a much broader term than homophobia, and I would say it encompasses more of the social problem than just homophobia. Although there are many people who still have irrational fears about being gay or coming into contact with gays, most people are heterosexist because they give preference to heterosexuals (by denying gay rights), they claim that heterosexuality is the best form of sexual expression (by claiming that homosexuality is a mental disorder), and they come down on all other expressions of sexuality (by saying it is immoral to be anything but heterosexual).

In a recent study (from a scholarly journal!) of social workers, it was found that although only 10% of them were "homophobic", almost 90% of them were heterosexist!! Meaning, most of the social workers in this sample thought that heterosexism was the best expression of sexuality, and should be given preference over all other expressions. And it is my opinion that the findings of that study are most likely representative of the general American public, whether Christian or not! Another finding from the study quoted above is that the correlation between homophobia and religiosity was very high. That would explain why the most religious people are often the most homophobic. I am glad that there was a low degree of homophobia found in this study, however, again it is my personal opinion that the true problem is heterosexism. Yes, homophobia can lead to hate crimes, but heterosexism keeps gays from the legal protection they need!

So here's my "argument" (if you can call it that)... homophobia, while it may meet the diagnostic conditions as a mental disorder, is more than just a mental disorder. It is a social problem, along with the greater social problem of heterosexism. And to best address the issue of homophobia and heterosexism, we need to approach is as a social problem. Martin Luther King Jr. did not fuel the civil rights movement by labeling racism as a mental disorder. He labeled it as a social problem, and that is more powerful than any other label we can put on our current issues. Keep that statement in mind with the fact that I myself am a mental health professional, so I don't have any problem with mental disorder labels... its what organizes and drives my profession. I just don't think it's the best way to address this problem.

[andrewlittle]

Originally Posted by inca nitta

Christians are definitely a majority in the US, but are the minority in the world.

Small point, and not to split hairs, but Christians of all ilks combined make up the largest religious group in the world by most estimates.

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

[ladyinred]

I don't know if this has any bearing, but are those that are the most homophobic frightened about suppressed homosexual tendacies?

[andrewlittle]

Originally Posted by ladyinred

I don't know if this has any bearing, but are those that are the most homophobic frightened about suppressed homosexual tendacies?

While it is only based on limited anecdotal evidence, my opinion is, "Yes, indeed!"

[Megandy]

Originally Posted by andrewlittle

While it is only based on limited anecdotal evidence, my opinion is, "Yes, indeed!"

Well, my experience says yes! I was extremely homophobic b/c of my own tendencies!!

[Alecto]

I'm just curious, Megandy, if the definition provided for heterosexism is indeed the operational definition used in the study you quote (and if not, if you know what it was?)

I think it's worth noting that while homophobia is often active (and overt), heterosexism is more likely to be neglectful and oftentimes more subconscious. Homophobia is fear and hatred. Heterosexism is a form of oppression, and like all forms of oppression, part of the privilege of the oppressors is to not have to think about the oppression. When someone asks a male "so do you have a girlfriend?", it's heterosexist to automatically assume everyone as heterosexual, but the person asking almost definitely didn't mean to be offensive. What I'm getting at is that, yes, 90% of therapists might be heterosexist, and that's not so great, but I also (personally) find it not so surprising. Most of them probably don't need any attitude change, or professionalism, or exposure to different views or any of that: they just need to be introduced to some things that might help them be more inclusive in their language and actions and assumptions. Many would probably welcome such an opportunity.

[Megandy]

Indeed no, that was not the operational definition used in the study. It is a pretty rough definition of heterosexism as I have come to understand it so far in my learning. You did a much better job of explaining the difference between homophobia & heterosexism!

[Daniel]

Just getting to this thread- and welcome. I enjoyed your inside view on research. Very informative. And interesting. I agree: if you want to really know something, you have to get to the original research, and even then, you have to 'use your eyes'.

My own hubby is in this second year at Hunter College as an LMSW student here in NYC. Of course, I have the idea that you two should meet (he not a member of the forum, but I'd be happy to get you in touch with each other). He's interning at SAGE (Senior Action in a Gay Environment) right now, and is seeing up close the effect that heterorsexism has on older gay adults. For one thing, they are fearful of entering nursing home/ adult care facilities, where, more often than not, they experience discrimination and abuse. And with good reason. In many places (especially urban areas), the staff is made up of folks of color, who, unfortunately, because of the intersecton of religion and their own normative cultural experience, are in the closet about gay folks. The caregivers becomes the victimizers! And for older gay folks, who have suffered so much during their lives, this is more than they can cope with.

Happily- this is changing in some area's of the country, but my own observation is that these 'gay' facilites cater to those with significant wealth- and that's another problem. Not everyone can afford to retire to Palm Springs.

And not to beat a dead horse, but this is why we need GAY MARRIAGE. I believe being in a facility with one's legal spouse would change the tone of things real fast, both with caregivers and health professionals. Because, as will all legal matters, there are 'consequences'.

It's great to have you here!

[ladyinred]

I'm a Christian and the notion that Christians are some kind of persecuted minority is about the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard

At least in this country I don't know about others though from what I've read.

[tymejumper]

Originally Posted by Alecto

Does the preocupation with homosexuality fall under another already-existing diagnosis, perhaps? It sometimes seems a bit obsessive (literally, medically speaking) to me (see the Phelps clan). And sometimes the ranting could probably fall under paranoid schizophrenia (again...Phelps clan :-/). That said, I would be really interested to see some connections made, or even just read some case studies etc.

My actual background, which is strange for an Occuapional Therapist, is Psych. Its funny you mention if other things can fall under differing diagnosis. They actually have a NOS catagory, it stands for Not otherwise Specified. I means you ALMOST, but not QUITE fit a diagnosis. Like for ADD there are several symptoms, if you only have say 6 of 8, you dont qualify for an ADD diagnosis, but you DO quailify for an ADD NOS diagnosis. It is generally used for insurance purporses, but it is my professional opinion, that it is used for more than that to label people etc.

Did you know that any of us at any time could be placed neatly into a diagnosis? The only reason many of us don't have one is becuase to have a true diagnosis, your mental status must infringe on 2 areas of your life, work/school, social or family. If you have anxiety for example, but you are not affected enough that it causes problems in your life then you don't qualify for a diagnosis.

Unfortunately, there are less than professional people out there that are willling to make any and all diagnosises to make themselves look powerful or look good.