Thursday, November 12, 2015

Homosexuality and Mental Health

Twisting Psychiatrists’ Arms

It was never a medical decision—and that’s why I think the action came so fast…It was a political move…That’s how far we’ve come in ten years. Now we even have the American Psychiatric Association running scared.[1]

-Barbara Gittings, homosexual activist, July 19, 1974

Getting Started 

Is homosexuality an emotional disorder – a pathology – or is it a naturally occurring human characteristic?  What ought to be a clear-cut question has become murky in the public mind, because the psychiatric community knuckled under to gay political pressure and removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in 1973. 
Sexual libertine’s recognized widely in the 1960s that they could never persuade the public to accept homosexual culture as long as homosexuality was considered an illness. Therefore, the movement mounted a concerted attack on the psychiatric profession, with the goal of forcing the psychiatrists to change their position on homosexuality, which the profession considered to be a severe pathology. The libertine’s would achieve their political victory in less than a decade, but the question remains:  what have they really won?
As of 2013, homosexuality is still defined as a diagnosable and treatable mental disorder, but only if the victim is marked by persistent distress about his or her “sexual orientation.” The disorder is listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-V (DSM-V) as a “paraphilia,” euphemistically entitled “Sexual Orientation Not Otherwise Specified.” defines “paraphilia” as “a type of mental disorder characterized by a preference for or obsession with unusual sexual practices, such as pedophilia, sadomasochism, or exhibitionism.”
Psychiatrists began to use the clunky phrase, “Sexual Orientation Not Otherwise Specified,” to refer to homosexuality in 1987, after a series of compromises with radical activists over the course of a decade about what constitutes acceptable politically correct terminology about homosexuality.  The dispute has centered primarily on how to balance the demands of radical political activists to “normalize” homosexuality with the right of the individual patient to self-determination, which requires that psychiatry leave the doors open to treatment and implies that homosexuality is in fact a mental disorder.
The debate about how to label the disorder has been driven exclusively by politics, not by scientific research.
In Homosexuality and American Psychiatry, sexual libertine author Ronald Bayer notes that in the APA’s original DSM-I published in 1951,

…homosexuality and other sexual deviations were included among the sociopathic personality disturbances. These disorders were characterized by the absence of subjectively experienced distress or anxiety despite the presence of profound pathology.

In 1968 the APA published DSM-II. In the new manual homosexuality was removed from the category of sociopathic personality disturbances and placed under the general category of sexual deviations, alongside gender identity disorder, sadism, masochism, voyeurism, exhibitionism, fetishism, incest, transvestitism, necrophilia, rape, pedophilia, zoophilia, and others.
In 1973 came the watershed moment, when the APA declared that homosexuality per se was no longer a pathology.  This decision is often referred to as the “removal” of homosexuality from the DSM.  But removal is not quite accurate; in reality, the APA merely voted to downgrade homosexuality from a pathology to a “Sexual Orientation Disturbance.” The new entry read as follows:

302.0 Sexual Orientation Disturbance [Homosexuality]
This is for individuals whose sexual interests are directed primarily toward people of the same sex and who are either disturbed by, in conflict with, or wish to change their sexual orientation. This diagnostic category is distinguished from homosexuality, which by itself does not constitute a psychiatric disorder. Homosexuality per se is one form of sexual behavior, and with other forms of sexual behavior which are not in themselves psychiatric disorders, are not listed in this nomenclature.[2]

Thus, simply being homosexual was no longer considered to be a pathology as long as victims are comfortable with it. Oddly, it became “disordered” for one to wish to become healthy, to wish that the way one expresses his or her instincts be in accord with the physical organs that do the expressing.  Imagine a fish who thinks itself a bird.  Should we think ill of the fish because it hopes one day to be happy in the water? In the words of Ronald Bayer:

On a conceptual level opponents of the Board’s decision found it utterly astounding that “subjective distress” could provide a standard by which to determine the presence or absence of psychopathology. Indeed it was the absence of such discomfort that revealed the depths of pathology.[3]

The sociopath example led to profound disagreements within the APA about subjective distress as the basis for what constitutes pathology. If a sociopath experiences no distress then can he be considered pathological? A pure political compromise, this peculiar definition adopted in 1973 would last but a few years, before being renegotiated by a more sober APA leadership team in 1976. Prior to discussing the 1976 renegotiation and those that came after, let’s take a deeper look into the context in which the 1973 vote to downgrade homosexuality as a pathology took place, as the 1973 vote was a turning point for the homosexual movement.

Evelyn Hooker

A lifelong hard-left political activist, psychologist and UCLA professor Evelyn Hooker is more than anyone else credited with having provided the pseudo-scientific rationale[4],[5] for the view asserting that homosexuality is not a psychological disorder. In the book A Natural History of Homosexuality, sexual libertine author Francis Mark Mondimore records that,

…after receiving her PhD in psychology, Hooker joined the faculty at the University of California at Los Angeles and taught some courses. Among her students was a gay man, whom she befriended, and in time was introduced to his circle of friends, mostly other gay men.[6] 

Hooker’s students “were acutely aware of what was being written about them in the psychology books, and as the relationship between Dr. Hooker and these men grew closer,  some of them suggested that she study them as research subjects,”[7] not objectively, but with the sole purpose of challenging the APA’s categorization of homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder.  “After some hesitation, Hooker agreed; in fact, she applied for and received a grant from the National Institutes of Mental Health to do so.”[8] Hooker’s study, “The Adjustment of the Male Overt Homosexual,” published in Projective Testing in 1957, was one of two main studies, along with Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior of the Human Male, upon which the American Psychiatric Association decided in 1973 to remove homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel of Mental Disorders II (DSM II).  
Although Hooker’s study of 30 self-described “gay” men purported to show that homosexuality could not be detected by standard psychological tests, and therefore it was possible that homosexuals could be as equally well adjusted as their heterosexual counterparts, her results were multifariously flawed. While Hooker’s study was discredited in April of 1993 by the official journal of the American Psychological Association, American Psychologist,  [9] on a conceptual level the study never even needed to be discredited. Hooker believed that if she could find even a single homosexual who was well adapted it would prove that homosexuality per se is not intrinsically a disorder, but perhaps when coupled with a hostile environment or other abnormalities could become more closely associated with disorders, but on a conceptual level her study asked the wrong question.
Hooker essentially asked a nonsensical question. The very concept of a psychiatric disorder implies that there is a correct psychiatric order, and this order is fully attained when the brain and nervous systems operate in a way that allows each part to accomplish its natural teleological end, or purpose. Thus, when one is disordered it implies a dysfunction in which some part of the brain is not acting in a way that allows it to accomplish its natural teleological purpose. So when Hooker makes the claim that finding one person with same-sex attraction disorder who is reasonably adapted in some ways, she ignores the big picture which is that they are not reasonably adapted in the way that is substantive to the subject in question. It's like saying there is nothing wrong with blindness because I can still get around and work by using a walking stick. One doesn't follow from the other. The notion that blindness is a deficiency is true in and of itself, no matter how well one might adjust to their less than ideal circumstances. By sleight of hand Hooker’s study seems to have taken the psychiatric communities attention off of the common sense question, which is about the subject of teleology, which is necessarily implied in and universal to the notion of all mental disorders, and therefore can't be thrown out by anyone who believes in the existence of disorders of any sort, (you can't just pick and choose which disorders you apply the universal rule to and which you don't). By some fallacy of false comparison Hooker sold a percentage of very influential psychiatrists who were in charge of categorizing all mental disorders on a theory, which if accepted, would have undermined the very basis for the case that mental disorders exist at all.
Not only was Hooker’s study flawed in its very premise, as mentioned it was also so poorly conducted that it was eventually discredited in April of 1993 by the official journal of the American Psychological Association, American Psychologist[10] for more reasons than most even care to read about.

Hooker made several errors in her mathematical calculations, which raise serious questions about her care and competence as a researcher. Hooker’s carelessness in her mathematical calculations call into further question her ability to correctly administer the tests she claimed proved her thesis.

Hooker was a rookie in administering the Rorschach test, the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), and the Make-A-Picture-Story Test (MAPS) which may have led her to make more substantive mistakes in the tests administration. Hooker’s previous research experience was limited to rats. Dr. Thomas Landess, former Academic Dean at the University of Dallas and former Policy Analyst at the U.S. Department of Education, has authored numerous books and articles.

She obviously had logged comparatively little experience in administering the tests, a delicate and highly complicated task in which the clinician gently and obliquely elicits spontaneous responses. A more experienced clinician many argue, may have explored many avenues Hooker failed to note and would have found out many things Hooker missed –including indications of the pathology of the homosexuals. (site source)

This fact calls into further question the believability of her results.

1.      Hooker’s published account of how she recruited heterosexuals is not consistent with a later account, which raises further questions about her trustworthiness as a researcher. Originally Hooker claims that the heterosexuals participants were

2.      Hooker did not use a random sample to test the stability of homosexuals but rather she used gay rights radicals from Harry Hay’s Mattachine Society to recruit those homosexuals most likely to prove her thesis. Individuals who proved unstable were deleted from the final sample.

3.      Even Hooker’s cream of the crop handpicked homosexual participants failed to prove her thesis that homosexuals were as “equally adjusted” as the heterosexual participants in both the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) and the Make-A-Picture-Story Test (MAPS). These tests require participants to make up fictional narratives about depicted scenes. The homosexual participants could not refrain from including homosexual fantasies in their imaginary accounts – a clear case of compulsion and obsession. After learning that the homosexual results would fail to prove her thesis Hooker altered her study and instructed judges to stop using the TAT and MAPS tests when attempting to determine the sexuality of the 60 participants – a clear case of changing the rules to win the game. 

4.      Six test participants, three from each group, had engaged in both homosexual and heterosexual behavior –thus further confusing said results

5.      Despite the aforementioned chicanery, Hooker’s study does not even attempt to prove that homosexuals are normal in every way, nor does her study even support the idea that homosexuals as a group are just as stable as heterosexuals. The studies own conclusion states the following:

at least in one respect the life-history data from the two groups will differ: namely, in the love relationships. Comparisons between the number and duration of love relationships, cruising patterns, and degree of satisfaction with sexual pattern and the love-partner will certainly show clear-cut differences.

In addition, even after obtaining her said results Hooker admits two ways that homosexuality could still be the result of pathology, and if it is, could be limited to the sexual sector alone:

Even if one assumes that homosexuality represents a severe form of maladjustment to society in the sexual sector of behavior, this does not necessarily mean that the homosexual must be severely maladjusted in other sectors of his behavior.

..if one assumes that homosexuality is a form of severe maladjustment internally, it may be that the disturbance is limited to the sexual sector alone.

The fact is that radical Mattachine Society homosexual activists went to Evelyn Hooker, befriended her because they knew she was a political ally and lobbied her to conduct a fraudulent study that they could use to lie to the public about the psychological health of the homosexual.

Shockingly, despite having already been  thoroughly discredited, Hooker’s was the only study discussed in the American Psychiatric Association’s  2003 amicus brief in Lawrence v. Texas, the United State Supreme court case which suspended the power of states to enforce anti-sodomy laws. Even today, almost sixety years after its publication, and twenty-one years after being exposed as contrived, Hooker’s study is the only paper referred to in detail on the main website of the American Psychological Association in its discussion of “Gay” and “Lesbian” issues.  Why?  Because the site is attempting to make the case that there is no evidence for an association between Same-Sex Attraction Disorder (SSAD), Adult Same-Sex Intercourse (ASSI), and psychopathology,[11] and it has no other evidence to adduce.
Hooker’s controversial claims garnered her almost instant recognition within homosexualist circles, and in the wake of the Stonewall riots in 1969, as politics began to trump science, militant activists increasingly relied on Hooker’s study to support their demands that the APA remove homosexuality from the DSM.

National Institute of Mental Health Task Force on Homosexuality

In 1965, eight years after Hooker published her study,  influential USC/UCLA psychiatrist Judd Marmor, hand-picked Hooker to chair the American Psychiatric Association ‘s newly established National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Task Force on Homosexuality.  Marmor’s choice of Hooker is not surprising, as Marmor was a well-known “new left” political activist who had been previously involved with both anti-war and pro-abortion issues.  Unfortunately, it was also later discovered that he was a closeted pedophile. The only other “mental health” representatives listed as serving on the Board of the NIMH Task Force during this time, unfortunately, were two other then closeted pedophiles, Alfred Kinsey’s close colleague Paul Gebhard, who replaced Kinsey as Director of the Institute for Sex Research at Indiana University, and Johns Hopkins University psychologist John Money. Before their careers were over, both men would openly advocate for the social legitimization of sex between adults, children, and even infants. They would engage in despicable, vile, and criminal activities in order to gain the pseudo-scientific evidence they needed to promulgate their ideas about sodomy and pedophilia (For more detail, see footnotes below).[12][13]
The successful creation of the NIMH Task Force on Homosexuality, marked the beginning of a power shift within the American Psychiatric Association. Between 1965 and 1969 as NIMH deliberations were carried out, several clinicians whom had worked for years with persons struggling with SSAD individuals and wanted to be involved in deliberations were intentionally left out of discussions for ideological reasons. In addition, one objective committeeman, a judge from Washington D.C., the Honorable David M. Bazelon, resigned during the Task Force deliberations after becoming aware of the distinctly unscientific direction that Judd Marmor’s handpicked board members were set on taking the NIMH.
In October of 1969, the blatantly biased NIMH issued a report on “Homosexuality.” Unsurprisingly, the report claimed, parroting pedophile Alfred Kinsey almost word for word, that sexuality is a continuum from exclusive homosexuality to exclusive heterosexuality, and that some degree of bisexuality is the human norm. (It avoided mentioning, however, that in Kinsey’s view human sexual taste is almost infinitely malleable and that it logically follows from this view that no sexual behavior can be considered abnormal.) Without any evidence, the report stated that any suffering by men who engage in sodomy is caused by societal prejudice. Thus, according to the Task Force, there is nothing problematic with homosexuality per se. This report, along with the Kinsey Report and Hooker’s study, gave homosexualists the pseudo-scientific rationale that they needed to begin to challenge the APA’s official position on homosexuality.

The American Psychiatric Association: 1970

Within a few years, Judd Marmor became Vice President of the American Psychiatric Association. With Hooker and Marmor in prominent roles, agitators outside the profession could count on their collaboration in organizing protests aimed at the removal of homosexuality from the DSM and radicalizing the APA.
Author Ronald Bayer, who was serving as a fellow at the Hastings Institute in New York at the time, takes note of this in his book, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry. Bayer writes that in 1970 the leadership of a faction of pro-sodomy psychiatrists within the APA planned a “systematic effort to disrupt annual meetings of the American Psychiatric Association.”[14] Although politically motivated protests directed at psychiatrists had taken place prior, one can see the beginnings of a coordinated effort to politicize the APA at its 1970 annual meeting in San Francisco. Here psychiatrists discussing various issues surrounding the subject of the pathology of homosexuality were surprised by activists who had been secretly brought into the meeting to shout them down.[15]The Gay Militants, a book about the era, Donn Teal tells the story:

On May 14, 1970 psychiatrists became the hunted. An invasion by the coalition of gay and women’s liberationists interrupted the national convention of the American Psychiatric Association in San Francisco to protest the reading of a paper by an Australian psychiatrist on the subject of “aversion therapy,” a system of treatment  which attempts to change gay orientation by keying unpleasant sensations (such as electric shocks) to homosexual stimuli. By the time the meeting was over, the feminists and their gay cohorts were in charge…and the doctors were heckling from the audience.[16]

Pro-sodomy activists took over the podium and microphones. Then, Konstantin Berlandt, of the Berkeley chapter of the Gay Liberation Front, “paraded through the hall in a bright red dress. Paper airplanes sailed down from the balcony. With two papers still unread, the chairman announced adjournment.” As the meeting adjourned several arguments broke out between the psychiatrists who were angry about the surprise disruption. One activist shouted to a psychiatrist, “Don’t shake your f***ing finger at me,” to which the psychiatrist replied, “I’ll shake whatever I please.”[17]In another argument, psychiatrist Dr. Irving Bieber stated that he believed persons experiencing Same-Sex Attraction Disorder (SSAD) were the subjects of “misplaced sexual adjustment,” to which a pro-sodomy activist shrieked and called him a “Mother F***er!”[18]
Emboldened by a lack of punishment after having trampled over the medical community’s freedoms of assembly and speech, activists disrupted another meeting of the American Psychiatric Association on June 23, 1970. This time in Chicago, they repeatedly shouted down the main speaker.[19] Then, in October, during a meeting at the University of Southern California, pro-sodomy activists struck again, by shouting down yet another speaker and taking over the stage and microphone.[20]In November of 1970, The Advocate, a pro-gay magazine, reported on these and other disruptions under the headline, “PSYCHOLOGISTS GET GAY LIB THERAPY.”[21]
As the autumn air chilled the nation in 1970 the sexual anarchists became increasingly bitter. Dr. Jeffry Satinover notes in his book, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, that activists began threatening physical attacks and making terrorist threats, over the telephone and through anonymous letters, to psychiatrists who were courageous enough to continue to speak of their scientific findings.[22]


Early in 1971, Dr. Kent Robinson was acting as a kind of ad hoc intermediary between pro-sodomy activists and the APA.  Robinson warned the APA’s national convention program chairman, Dr. John Ewing, that if a panel—not simply about homosexuality, but one consisting of sexual anarchist activists—was not approved, activists would ruin the entire convention. Acceding to intense pressure, Ewing agreed to sponsor a special panel for activists at the May 1971 annual convention in Washington D.C. under only one condition, that a psychiatrist chair the panel, as required by APA rules. Since Dr. Kent Robinson knew of no one else willing to serve, he somewhat reluctantly agreed to do so himself.[23]
Thus, rather than respond appropriately to threats by outside activists by improving security, convention planner John Ewing caved to the demands of the radicals. Not only did Ewing yield to bullies, he went a step further. He ordered his security team to wear plain clothes, which, according to pro-sodomy historian, Ronald Bayer, in his 1981 book Homosexuality and American Psychiatry, “entailed a willingness to ride out rather than to prevent demonstrations.”[24] To those activists who had “challenged the professional authority of psychiatry it was clear that only the threat of disorder and even violence had been able to create the conditions…” out of which change would occur. “That lesson would not be forgotten.”[25]
After this quick capitulation by the APA, activists decided to make more demands. In lieu of the May convention in Washington D.C., in an effort to plan not only more but worse disruptions, a secret group of pro-sodomy psychiatrists and outside agitators sought the services of left-wing radical and pro-bestiality and pro-hard core pornography[26] activist Franklyn Kameny, who had led the Washington D.C. chapter of the Mattachine Society during the 1960s. In the words of pro-sodomy historian Ronald Bayer:

 “Aware of the organizational weakness of his own Mattachine Society…Frank Kameny turned to a Gay Liberation Front collective in Washington to plan the May 1971 demonstrations. Together with the collective, Kameny developed a detailed strategy of disruption, paying attention to the most intricate logistical details, including the floor plan of the hotel in which the convention was to be housed.”[27]Kameny states his objective clearly, “I feel that the entire homophile movement…is going to stand or fall upon the question of whether or not homosexuality is a sickness, and upon our taking a firm stand on it…”[28]

[….]Despite agreeing not to protest in return for a special panel, all hell broke loose at the APA’s 1971 national convention at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington D.C. Kameny’s cadre of anti-Vietnam War protestors, who just finished a massive demonstration of their own, along with members of the Gay Liberation Front, were carrying forged credentials provided by allies on the inside of the APA (some at the very top), broke into a widely attended special lifetime service award meeting entitled the, “Convocation of Fellows.” They grabbed the microphone and Kameny declared psychiatry the “enemy incarnate.”[29]An August 1971 edition of Newsweek explains:

But even more than the government, it is the psychiatrists who have experienced the full rage of the homosexual activists. Over the past two years, [1970-71] gay-lib organizations have repeatedly disrupted medical meetings, and three months ago—in the movement’s most aggressive demonstration so far—a group of 30 militants broke into a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association in Washington, where they turned the staid proceedings into near chaos for twenty minutes.

“We are here to denounce your authority to call us sick or mentally disordered,” shouted the group’s leader, Dr. Franklin Kameny, while the 2,000 shocked psychiatrists looked on in disbelief. ‘For us, as homosexuals, your profession is the enemy incarnate. We demand that psychiatrists treat us as human beings, not as patients to be cured! Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us…We’re rejecting you all as our owners. You may take this as our declaration of war![30]

Disregarding the disruption, the promised panel discussion—presented by the same group of protestors—proceeded without objection by the APA a few hours later. In addition to Kameny the panel included Larry Littlejohn, of the Society for Individual Rights in San Francisco, Del Martin, a founder of the female pro-sodomy activist group Daughters of Bilitis, Lilli Vicenz, a lesbian activist, and Jack Baker” the student body president-elect at the University of Minnesota.”[31]Ironically, at the very moment, in 1971, while the aforementioned activists were making the case that sodomy is healthy, safe, and natural, a deadly virus was silently beginning to race through communities of men all over the nation. Only a decade later, thousands of men would be dead or dying of AIDS.
According to Ronald Bayer, “toward the end of the convention Kameny and Littlejohn informed Kent Robinson that they wanted to present their demands for the deletion of homosexuality from the APA’s official nosology, DSM II, to members of the Associations Committee on Nomenclature.”[32] Again, under intense pressure, a meeting was arranged and although nothing came of it, the process, “of transforming general outrage into a specific political demand had been set in motion.”[33]
Shortly after the May convention, on June 7, 1971, Franklin Kameny wrote a letter to Psychiatric News threatening the APA with not only more, but worse disruptions. In this letter he states:

 “Our presence there was only the beginning of an increasingly intensive campaign by homosexuals to change the approach of psychiatry toward homosexuality or, failing that, to discredit psychiatry.”[34]

Protests continued over the course of the next several years. Kay Tobin Lahausen, co-author of The Gay Crusaders, describes a variety of activism:

We did all sorts of protests…When the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations came out of some meeting and got in his big black limousine, I remember going crazy, rocking and beating on the limousine…He had never been besieged by a bunch of homosexuals before. But he had said something that got us going.[35]

Lahausen’s lover, Barbara Gittings, was also a well-known gay activist. Although Gittings was not a librarian, she was the first head of the American Library Association’s “Gay Task Force.” Her objective was to bring books advocating sodomy to the attention of librarians, in hopes of having them included in their libraries. At one American Library Association meeting Gittings set up a same-gender kissing booth to attract attention to her cause. Gittings tells about her activism against the APA:

Besides the ALA, I was also very involved, along with many other people, in efforts to get the American Psychiatric Association… to drop its listing of homosexuality as a mental illness. Psychiatrists were one of the three major groups that had their hands on us. They had a kind of control over our fate, in the eyes of the public, for a long time. Religion and law were the other two groups that had their hands on us. So, besides being sick, we were sinful and criminal. But the sickness label infected everything that we said and made it difficult for us to gain any credibility for anything we said ourselves. The sickness issue was paramount.[36]


Barbara Gittings worked with Franklyn Kameny to put together a panel at the 1972 APA annual convention in Dallas. The activists understood that by continuing to host panel discussions on the subject of the removal of Homosexuality from the DSM, they could make it appear as though psychiatrists were at least divided on the issue. Activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen explain this point in a later book entitled After the Ball when they assert that, “Constant talk builds the impression that public opinion is at least divided on the subject…”[37]Dr. Kent Robinson again “played a central role, this time making arrangements for a fully institutionalized presence”[38] and “a grant from the Falk Foundation covered the travel expenses of several activists as well as the cost of a booth in the scientific exhibition era.”[39]
 The panel again included Franklyn Kameny, Barbara Gittings, and new-left UCLA psychiatrist and then vice president of the APA, Judd Marmor, as moderator. The panel also included a six foot four, three hundred pound psychiatrist from a secret pro-sodomy faction within the APA called the “Gay-PA,” who wore a disguise which consisted of a rubber mask, a huge wig, and a baggy tuxedo. This disguised psychiatrist also spoke through a microphone which distorted his voice, and was identified at the meeting only as “Dr. H. Anonymous.” This psychiatrist would later be revealed as Dr. John Fryer, who at the time was an untenured professor at Temple University in Philadelphia.
During the panel, amidst a crowd of over 200 psychiatrists, “Dr. Anonymous” announced the existence of the “Gay-PA,” which met socially, admitted to frequenting bathhouses, and hosted a secret dinner each year during APA annual conventions. He also announced that over 100 “Gay-PA” members were present at the convention. For pro-sodomy activists this bold panel discussion was a huge success. Its very presence at the convention prompted the pro-sodomy publication the Advocate to report that “Psychiatry and the gay community may finally have reached a turning point.”[40]
In addition to the panel, author Edward Alwood notes in his book Straight News that Kameny also recognized that, “by participating in the convention he had a rare opportunity to integrate the event. He even attended the annual psychiatrists’ ball.  When the band struck up the music, Kameny grabbed Phil Johnson, a local Dallas[41]”[pro-sodomy activist] and “the two men waltzed out onto the dance floor. The stunned psychiatrists and their spouses watched speechlessly, most of them pretending they were not seeing it.”[42],[43] 
Following the panel at the 1972 convention, an internal APA debate was manufactured by a few activists after pro-sodomy activist Richard Green, then Director of the Gender Identity Research and Treatment Program at the UCLA Medical School, published an essay entitled “Homosexuality as a Mental Illness” in the International Journal of Psychiatry.[44] Ronald Bayer notes in his book, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry, that

Green’s essay was followed by at least six formally invited responses, at least four of which were calculated to sharpen awareness of the profound disagreements that had begun to characterize opinion on homosexuality. Rather than expressions of doubt and uncertainty, they were unmistakably partisan declarations.

Judd Marmor[45] and Martin Hoffman[46] expressed clear and unambiguous support for the position that the classification of homosexuality as a mental illness represented nothing more than the cloaking of moral judgments in the language of science. Charles Socarides[47] and Lawrence Hatterer[48] defended the traditional psychiatric perspective. Especially for Socarides, there was no reason to reopen the issue of the pathologic status of homosexuality. Indeed, he perceived Green’s pseudo-agnostic stance as a rejection of the findings of science—a rejection cloaked in the guise of “scientific posture.”[49] 
By mid-1972 pro-sodomy activists had created the illusion that many psychiatrists were breaking ranks with traditional views about the inclusion of homosexuality within the DSM. As a result, many psychiatrists who may have felt civil rights sentiments related to the movement, yet did not study human sexuality at length and were largely ignorant of many of the most important theories related to the matter, began to break ranks and jump on the newly perceived bandwagon in support of the removal of homosexuality as a category within the DSM.
On October 8, 1972, after the APA’s annual convention, “activists staged what would come to be seen as one of their most important “zap” demonstrations when they targeted a meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy in New York. During the meeting, more than one hundred members of the Gay Activists’ Alliance (GAA)”[50] protested and distributed a flier outside the hotel entitled “Torture Anyone?” –referring to the shock treatment associated with aversion therapy. Meanwhile, inside, several activists were able to penetrate security and infiltrate a session on aversion therapy. “This is it!” shouted Ronald Gold, GAA’s media director. “We’re taking over!” Gold commandeered the microphone and demanded that the sickness label attached to homosexuality be removed from the psychiatrists’ official diagnostic manual.”[51]  The story “was prominently featured in the next morning’s New York Times.”[52]


During this time “a dramatic shift in events was shaping up behind the scenes at the APA.” While militants were zapping psychiatrists at conventions, they were also working behind the scenes to elect psychiatrists sympathetic to their agenda to the APA Board. The timing was perfect, because the APA was extremely divided at the time over the Vietnam War. Homosexualists combined their efforts with the anti-Vietnam sentiments and formed a new Committee, calling itself the “Committee of Concerned Psychiatrists” and began a campaign to elect anti-Vietnam activists and homosexualists to the Board of the APA. According to Medscape Medical News:

From the end of World War II until the 1970’s the APA had been run by a clique; the nominating committee would present a slate with single candidates for each office who would automatically be elected. It was known as an old boys club and there was great resentment. That group resisted change or reform in regards to the Vietnam War, or to sexuality, or to a number of other issues of the day.

            “The Committee of Concerned Psychiatrists” recruited Dr. Alfred Freedman to run for president against the establishment. He accepted their nomination and after a contentious campaign, he won the election, “with a margin of 3 votes out of 20,000.”

Medscape Medical News notes that as soon as Dr. Freedman took office he supported the move to remove homosexuality from the DSM:

By then, the APA Board had many newly elected members who were committed to reform and supportive of Dr. Spitzer’s resolution. “So in 1973 the election was very important because the board of the previous year would never have supported the declassification of homosexuality,” Dr. Freedman noted.

Freedman recounts further:

In the APA elections of 1972 and 1973 concern over social issues brought in a number of individuals as members of the Board of Trustees who were committed to change, including removal of homosexuality per se from the official APA nomenclature.[53]

Ronald Bayer agrees:

…psychiatrists committed to social activism had recently mounted a successful challenge to the Association’s old guard, and those who were threatened by the orientation of the new leadership could be counted upon to react almost viscerally in opposition.[54]

During this time:

…a dramatic shift in events was shaping up behind the scenes at the APA. During the zap of the psychiatrists at the May [1972] annual convention, one member of the audience had recognized Gold from having attended college with him and introduced him to Robert Spitzer, a member of the APA’s Nomenclature Committee, which set the official classifications for illnesses. As a former reporter for the entertainment trade newspaper Variety, Gold instantly recognized the value of his new contact and began to lobby for a meeting of the Nomenclature Committee and representatives of GAA.[55]

The APA’s committee on Nomenclature and Statistics was responsible for publishing the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Loosely coordinated with the international classification of medical diseases, the enormously influential DSM had defined homosexuality medically, on par with many other sexual deviations because persons who had developed Same-Sex Attraction Disorder (SSAD) did not have an adult person of the opposite sex as their primary object of sexual interest. Robert Spitzer, who would eventually become the pre-eminent expert in the classification of mental disorders on a statistical basis and the overall director of psychiatry’s official classification system, was then a consultant to the Nomenclature Committee. Spitzer sympathized with the activists on civil rights grounds.

 [Spitzer]…eventually agreed to set up the meeting, provided it was kept hush-hush. After agreeing to the stipulation Gold went behind Spitzer’s back and notified the press. On February 9, 1973 Boyce Rosenberger, a science writer at the New York Times wrote a story on the issue.  The headline read: PSYCHIATRISTS REVIEW STAND ON HOMOSEXUALS.[56]

Although the article infuriated the APA, it assured the activists that they would be given a hearing. Gold notes that:

The article not only got attention far and wide once it was in the times but it put them on record…Although the Nomenclature Committee stopped short of approving the change, Spitzer, who was the head of the committee invited Gold to make his case before the association’s entire membership at its 1973 annual convention in Hawaii the following May.

“By the time of the May 1973 APA convention in Honolulu, Spitzer’s views had moved quite far.” Contact with pro-sodomy activists who insisted that they were fully satisfied with their lives and who used the Kinsey and Hooker studies to ground their claims persuaded Spitzer to reconsider his views. However, in order to justify reconsidering his views; Spitzer was also forced to reconsider his entire concept of what constitutes a psychiatric disorder.[57]
Eventually, rather than acknowledge that homosexuality did in fact constitute a psychiatric disorder under the APA’s 1973 definition of a disorder, as “that which inhibits the natural functioning of one’s physical design,” Spitzer opted to change the definition of a what the term “disorder” actually means altogether. Spitzer’s new definition of “mental disorder” thus became:

“that which regularly causes subjective distress or is regularly associated with some generalized impairment of social effectiveness or functioning.”

 During the time Spitzer was shifting his position and hubristically formulating his own new definition of  the phrase “mental disorder,” a true case of putting the cart before the horse; he was also planning the panel discussion that he had promised activists would  take place at the May 1973 APA annual convention in Honolulu. As Spitzer altered his views he became increasingly willing to stack the panel discussion in favor of the activists. The end result was the inclusion of only two psychiatrists against the removal of homosexuality, Charles Socarides and Irving Bieber, and four psychiatrists in favor of the removal: Robert Stoller, Richard Green, Ronald Gold, and Judd Marmor, then vice president of the APA.

On the day of the convention Gold stood at the lectern before a crowd of 5000 psychiatrists and urged them to, ‘Stop, calling Homosexuality a sickness.’” “Later that afternoon the associated press carried a story about the session, prompting coverage in newspapers across the nation. DOCTORS URGED NOT TO CALL HOMOSEXUALITY A SICKNESS was the headline on the short AP story in the New York Times on May 10.” Newsweek’s interpretation of the event was more cavalier: “The indications seem to be that the [Nomenclature] Committee will decide to drop homosexuality from its list of mental aberrations.[58]

After the convention Ronald Gold brought Robert Spitzer (who had never met a working psychiatrist who openly admitted to engaging in sodomy) with him to a secret function of the “Gay PA.” Although members of the “Gay PA” were initially angry that Gold had exposed them to an outsider, they eventually settled on the circumstance as an opportunity to offer emotional arguments to Spitzer in their own favor. Indeed, in pro-sodomy author Ronald Bayer’s book Homosexuality and American Psychiatry he notes that Spitzer’s meeting with the “Gay PA” members:

…provided an emotional jolt that moved him to prepare, within a month, a proposal for the deletion of homosexuality from the nomenclature.

Spitzer quickly brought the issue to the attention of Dr. Henry Brill, who was the chair of the Task Force on Nomenclature and Statistics for the APA at the time. Brill then assigned Spitzer to prepare a “scientifically sound” and “persuasive” memo and resolution to be presented to the APA’s Council on Research and Development, to the Reference Committee, and to the Board of Trustees.[59]Dr. Spitzer quickly drafted a three page resolution and solicited Dr. Charles Silverstein and Wardell Pomeroy to help him present the majority of the pro-sodomy case before the APA’s Council on Research and Development and Reference Committee. Crucially:

Since none of the Committee members was an expert on homosexuality, there was considerable interest in the data that had been presented, much of which was new to those who would have to evaluate the issues raised by the call for a revised nomenclature. 

Rarely has such a crucially important decision, affecting many, been made for the APA by so few.  A tiny few who knew so little about the subject, and were in so poor a position to judge the scientific quality of the representation being offered them.
Pedophile Charles Silverstein led off his presentation before the Committee with Hooker’s illegitimate study and also introduced some of Kinsey’s now repudiated work. He emphasized Kinsey’s claims about the frequency of sodomy, but passed over in silence the fact that Kinsey was also a pedophile who considered sexuality to be a changeable preference. The committee was impressed,” writes Ronald Bayer, “by the sober and professional manner” in which Charles Silverstein, Ph.D., (who would later write The Joy of Gay Sex and The New Joy of Gay Sex) presented the pro-sodomy case.
Fellow pedophile Wardell Pomeroy, co-author of the first Kinsey volume and (like all his male colleagues) one of Kinsey’s lovers, also argued before the committee. Pomeroy argued that the Kinsey data found that homosexuality was not associated with psychopathology and that all other studies of homosexuality were intrinsically flawed because they were based on “clinical” samples rather than samples from the regular population—as though this were not what a quantitative comparative pathography would require.  Even so, both statements were flat falsehoods, especially outrageous in that the Kinsey data itself—for which Pomeroy was largely responsible—was fraudulently skewed by blatant population sampling biases, and the badgering and even bribing of its imprisoned and otherwise institutionalized subjects, which were not reported as such. Pomeroy later admitted the shortcomings of the Kinsey Report in his book Dr. Kinsey and the Institute for Sex Research published shortly before this very meeting—which even so, he neglected to mention. [60]
After Silverstein and Pomeroy presented to the Reference Committee, Robert Spitzer presented the “official position” of the Evelyn Hooker-led “NIMH Task Force on Homosexuality” to the APA’s Board of Trustees. According to Psychiatric News, it was “essentially upon the rationale of Dr. Spitzer’s presentation that the Board made its decision.” In short, Spitzer argued that:

1.      “Exclusive Homosexuality” was a normal part of the human condition.  This claim was based on the now-debunked Kinsey data. 
2.      Homosexuality did not meet the requirements of a psychiatric disorder because it “does not either regularly cause subjective distress or is regularly associated with some generalized impairment in social effectiveness or functioning [sic].” This claim which changed the definition of the term “disorder” for all psychiatry and all disorders.
3.      Spitzer argued, based on Marcell T. Saghir and Eli Robin’s “Male and Female Homosexuality,” that homosexuality was normal. (Their research was roundly criticized by colleagues as the time, but no critique was addressed by the presenter or the committee.)[61]

Although Spitzer did not say so then, in later correspondence he has acknowledged that another important component of the case was the work of Evelyn Hooker.[62] The APA committee, however, failed to refer to critical studies such as Saghir and Robin’s suicide studies, which indicated that homosexuality does cause “subjective distress” and that their study had found differences in the behavioral patterns and psychology of homosexuals as compared with all other men. As fraudulent as Hooker’s finding were, these differences would have complicated even her perceived findings.  
Nonetheless, on December 15, 1973, following the advice of the APA’s new advisors, the pedophiles Dr. Charles Silverstein and Wardell Pomeroy, two-thirds of the APA’s Board of Trustees (barely a quorum) capitulated to the demands of the radicals and adopted Spitzer’s resolution by voting to downgrade homosexuality from the status of an illness to the milder category of a “Sexual Orientation Disturbance,” with only two abstentions.
Thus, the seventh printing of the DSM in 1974 placed a special note that announced that the APA had voted to eliminate “Homosexuality” per se as a mental disorder and to substitute it with a new category entitled, “Sexual Orientation Disturbance.”[63]
The downgrading of homosexuality in the DSM was the fruit of a political, not a scientific, process.  In a press release following the decision, APA President Alfred Freedman:

…underscored the limited scientific meaning of the vote to delete homosexuality from DSM-II, while emphasizing its enormous social significance.[64]

Dr. Freedman is right. This change was pure politics.  As shown, the APA Board was stacked in the 1973 election due to sentiments about the Vietnam War, the civil rights movement, and sympathy for homosexuals due to their stigmatized status in society.  The man who was elected president of the APA during this time, President-elect John Spiegel, was a homosexual himself, though he was still closeted at the time of his election. With a Board stacked by homosexual sympathizers, activists were given the tacit authority to terrorize opposing psychiatrists. An article appearing in Psychiatric News about this time recalls that pro-sodomy activists were beginning to speak of unyielding psychiatrists as “war criminals,”[65] with obvious implications. Possibly in fear for their safety, and certainly wearied by constant harassment, two members of the Board simply abstained from voting.
The fact that the Board was influenced and intimidated is no secret. Pro-sodomy journalist Andrew Sullivan has written that in December of 1973 the APA, “…under intense political pressure…removed homosexuality from its official list of psychiatric disorders…”[66]The Advocate, talks of,

…what happened in 1973…referring to the widespread protests by the gay and lesbian community that led to the APA’s dropping homosexuality from the DSM.[67]

Activist Mark Thompson writes,

Just before the first of the year, the American Psychiatric Association’s Board of Trustees declared we were no longer sick.[68]


After the December 15, 1973 APA vote to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM, many members became outraged at how politicized their profession had become. They felt that psychiatry (which was supposed to be a science) had been changed solely as a result of political pressure. For the first time in the “history of health care…a diagnosis or lack of diagnosis was decided by popular vote rather than scientific evidence”[69] and the dissenters feared that science would be defenseless against an endless wave of protests:

 It now seems that if groups of people march and raise enough hell they can change anything in time…Will schizophrenia be next?[70]

In response to the political decision that had been made under the guise of science, a group of opposing psychiatrists led by Dr. Charles Socarides filed a petition for a referendum to reverse the action of the Board the very next day. They called for a full vote by the APA’s 17,905 members.[71]Although the call for a full vote had the potential to further politicize the APA, which these members were opposed to, they felt that the scientific credibility of their discipline hung in the balance and that this was the only way to reverse the unscientific damage done to their profession.
Most homosexualists feared a full vote. The National Gay Task Force (NGTF) was prepared, however. Someone on the inside, most likely Judd Marmor who was running a campaign for APA president at the time, provided them with the entire list of APA member addresses. Without identifying itself as an organization, the NGTF sent a letter to every member on file urging each to vote to remove homosexuality from the DSM. The letter appeared to be from the APA Board of Trustees and had nothing to do with the scientific credibility of the move to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder. Instead, the letter stated the following:

It would be a serious and potentially embarrassing step for our profession to vote down a decision which was taken after serious and extended consideration by the bodies within our organization designated to consider such matters.[72]

On April 9, 1974, the results of the vote were announced. Only 10,555 of the 17,905 APA members voted in the election. The results were as follows:

Total APA members eligible to vote: 17,905
Number of APA members that actually voted: 10,555
Number of members that abstained: 367
Number of “no” votes -votes to keep homosexuality in the DSM as a             mental disorder: 3,810
Number of “yes” votes-votes to remove homosexuality from the DSM as a mental disorder: 5,854

Bruce Voeller, the head of the NGTF, admits, “Our costly letter has perhaps made the difference.”[73] Thus, a critically important letter ostensibly from its signers was actually from radical homosexual activists. In light of the facts how serious can the vote declaring homosexuality no longer a mental disorder be taken? The vote was not the result of any scientific breakthrough. It was the result of a political campaign.
Catholic scholar Enrique Rueda agrees:

This vote was not the result of scientific analysis after years of painstaking research. Neither was it a purely objective choice following the accumulation of incontrovertible data.  The very fact that the vote was taken reveals the nature of the process involved, since the existence of an orthodoxy in itself, contradicts the essence of science.[74]

When activists publicly claim that the vote was a scientific decision they hide years of intimidation, deceit, internal lobbying and election and committee takeovers. In pro-sodomy circles, however, activists are remarkably candid about the reality of the vote. Pro-sodomy author Ronald Bayer remarks that the APA:

…had fallen victim to the disorder of a tumultuous era, when disruptive conflicts threatened to politicize every aspect of American life. A furious egalitarianism…had compelled psychiatrists to negotiate the pathological status of homosexuality with homosexuals themselves. The result was not a conclusion based upon an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times.[75]

Homosexual lovers Kay Lahausen and Barbara Gittings know what really happened. In the book Making History they are quite open about the reality.

Kay: “This was always more of a political decision than a medical decision.”

Barbara: “It never was a medical decision—and that’s why I think the action came so fast. After all, it was only three years from the time that feminists and gays first zapped the APA at a behavior therapy session to the time that the Board of Trustees voted in 1973 to approve removing homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. It was a political move.”[76]

The APA was thoroughly intimidated. In 1974, after the APA’s vote, Gittings was interviewed by pro-sodomy movement historian Jonathan Ned Katz. Gittings brags, “That’s how far we’ve come in ten years. Now we even have the American Psychiatric Association running scared.”[77]


In 1975 The American Psychological Association—which is three times larger than the American Psychiatric Association— also got the message of intimidation when it caved to the demands of the radicals and pressure from the more authoritative psychiatrists. In the book, The Long Road to Freedom, the author explains,

January…The American Psychological Association and American Association for the Advancement of Science echoed the American Psychiatric Association in deeming homosexuality not an illness.[78]

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) publishes the scientific journal Science. Intimidation by homosexualists was over for them too:

“Under pressure from gay scientific groups, Science magazine banned anti-gay bias in its staff hiring and advertisement.”[79]

In 1977, the National Association of Social Workers voted to follow suit, no longer would they recognize homosexuality as a mental disorder.


By 1977 some of the political pressure had subsided surrounding the issue of homosexuality and opinions began to shift once again, this time in a more sober direction. A survey conducted during this time by the journal Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality found that 69 percent of psychiatrists disagreed with the votes to remove homosexuality from the DSM’s list of Mental Disorders.

These new findings suggested that the APA leadership no longer represented the majority opinion. Analysis of the first 2,500 responses to a poll of 10,000 psychiatrists found that 69 percent believed that homosexuality usually represented a pathological adaptation. Only 18 percent disagreed with this proposition. Sixty percent of the respondents asserted that homosexual men were less capable of “mature, loving, relationships” than their heterosexual counterparts. Finally 70 percent supported the view that the problems experienced by homosexuals were more often the result of “personal conflicts” than of stigmatization.[80]

Thus, in 1977, a mere four years after the APA membership had voted to remove homosexuality from the DSM-II as a mental disorder an overwhelming majority of psychiatrists conveyed to surveyors that they still considered homosexuality a mental disorder. Could the 1973 vote have been rigged? Could fraud have been involved? Given the homosexualists’ willingness to do almost anything to get their way, vote fraud cannot be totally ruled out. Harold Leif, the editor of Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, which conducted the study, postulated that the earlier vote may have been affected by socio-political considerations rather than psychiatric theories. 
The study was confusing for the public and embarrassing for the APA leadership. Shortly after its release Time magazine carried the headline: “Sick Again?” This survey provided the context in which the debates surrounding homosexuality would take place for DSM-III, set to be published in 1977.
The survey highlighted the fact that the arguments made by Dr. Charles Satinover and Dr. Irving Bieber in the 1973 debate turned out to have been far and away more persuasive for most psychiatrists. Robert Spitzer himself finally acknowledged the weaknesses of his own arguments. Dissatisfied with his own arguments justifying replacing homosexuality with the politically correct category of “sexual orientation disturbance” in 1973, he began to formulate new reasons for his decision. Thus, instead of correcting himself and restoring the definition of homosexuality as a mental illness within the DSM, he simply exchanged one set of weak arguments for another.
As noted, the weaknesses in Spitzer’s 1973 definition stemmed from the fact that “subjective distress” and the specific and very limited definition of “generalized social impairment of social functioning” were not adequate for including many other very obvious mental disorders. To do so would force psychiatrists to preclude sociopaths, for example, from the DSM III, because by their very definition sociopaths don’t experience “subjective distress.” Not to mention all the other sexual deviations, from necrophilia to zoophilia, which most psychiatrists agreed ought to be included in the DSM III.  Therefore, Spitzer altered his own definition, the definition upon which the 1973 decision had been based, to include the phrase “inherent disadvantage.” This was just a fancy way of saying that homosexuality should not be considered a psychiatric disorder per se, because, “it did not preclude the possibility of an affectionate relationship between adult human partners.” Other sexual deviations, such as fetishism, voyeurism, etc. claimed Spitzer, were “disadvantageous.” Thus Spitzer exchanged one bogus argument for another, in an effort to keep homosexuality out of DSM III
Although he knew that most psychiatrists wanted homosexuality returned to pathology status in the 1977 edition of the DSM, Spitzer used his considerable power within the APA to seek a compromise to fend off full reintegration. He offered to replace his badly defined classification of “sexual orientation disturbance” with “homodysphilia.” He was attempting to placate the will of the majority with semantics, by merely shifting the terminology involved –a mere sleight of hand. Spitzer was surprised, however, to find that it was the homosexualists who reacted negatively to his new classification. Unlike “sexual orientation disturbance,” which was vague about the disorder it was meant to classify, homodysphilia was too obviously associated with homosexuality. Thus, “Spitzer was threatened with another ‘period of militancy’ if he persisted in his course.”[81]Spitzer responded in defense of his position, now called “dyshomophilia”:

The concept of dyshomophilia takes a middle position regarding the pathological status of homosexuality…  I believe our current state of ignorance regarding this is a scientifically defensible position. I believe if we remove dyshomophylia… we could justifiably be accused of responding to political pressure.[82]

Despite Spitzer’s response, pedophiles Richard Green, Paul Gephard, and  John Money were able to successfully organize effective resistance to the term “dyshomophilia.” Spitzer thus acceded to a new and even more clunky term, “homosexual conflict disorder.”
Although the homosexualists were in a conflict over the precise term to introduce neither side wanted the fight to go public. Both sides recognized that public awareness about the infighting might lead the APA to reverse its 1973 decision entirely and reclassify homosexuality per seas a mental disorder in the DSM III. Homosexualist Michael Mavroidis, who was serving as a liaison between psychiatrists and “gay” activists at the time, wrote a letter to Franklyn Kameny and the Mattachine Society to urge them not to become militant again for tactical reasons:

I personally feel that it would be destructive both to the gay rights movement and to psychiatry for this issue to be publicly debated and voted on at this time. I think that the general public views official psychiatry as having decided that homosexuality per se is not a mental illness, and the risks of losing what the press would describe as a debate regarding homosexuality should forestall anyone from carrying this debate beyond the Task Force to the Assembly…or the APA general membership.[83]

After more compromising about terminology the activists and Spitzer agreed the term ““ego-dystonic homosexuality” and defined it thusly:

A desire to acquire or increase heterosexual arousal so that heterosexual relations can be initiated or maintained and a sustained pattern of overt homosexual arousal that the individual explicitly complains is unwanted as a source of distress.[84]

Although Spitzer was able to acquire support for this new terminology and definition from homosexualists,  many remained adamantly opposed to it. They argued correctly that if there is no corresponding mental disorder for those distressed about their heterosexual inclinations then homosexuality was still implicitly disordered as a corollary –as it is today (2012). One psychiatrist explicitly refused to include the corollary, stating that, “he rejected the proposal for heterodysphilia, noting that the only heterosexuals he had met who were distressed by their sexual orientations were schizophrenics attempting to deny all sexuality.”[85] Spitzer and those who voted for this curious new definition of a disorder just ignored the obvious logical corollary. The homosexualists believed it was a way Spitzer could preserve the priority of heterosexuality as preferable. Spitzer was committed to giving men with unwanted same-sex attraction who sought treatment help. He further believed that despite this new definitions obvious corollary that it could nevertheless pass off as a compromise and help to avoid a full replacement of homosexuality in the DSM-III. Thus in 1977, four years after homosexuality had been removed as a pathology, the majority of psychiatrists within the APA still believed homosexuality is a mental disorder. In 1980, when DSM-III was published, same-sex attraction was still classifiable under “ego-dystonic homosexuality” and anyone who sought help was encouraged to undergo treatment.

With homosexuality per se removed from the American Psychiatric Associations catalogue of disorders and deviations activists has the pseudo-scientific justification to forge ahead into the legal realm and argue for the decriminalization of sodomy. Before their movement could take foot however, a deadly pathogen emerged.

[1]Gay American History, by Jonathan Ned Katz, 1992, p.427. This interview was taped July 19, 1974
[2]R. Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnoses. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press (1987), pp 3-4
[3]Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry, 139.
[4]American Psychologist, April 1993 Vol. 48, No. 4, 450-453
[5] Bruce Shenitz, “The Grande Dame of Gay Liberation,” Los Angeles Times Magazine, June 10, 1990, pp.20-34
[6]Francis Mark Mondimore, “A Natural History of Homosexuality,” JohnsHopkinsUniversity Press Baltimore and London, 1996, p. 90
[7]Francis Mark Mondimore, “A Natural History of Homosexuality,” JohnsHopkinsUniversity Press Baltimore and London, 1996, p. 90
[8]Francis Mark Mondimore, “A Natural History of Homosexuality,” JohnsHopkinsUniversity Press Baltimore and London, 1996, p. 90
[9]American Psychologist, April 1993 Vol. 48, No. 4, 450-453
[10]American Psychologist, April 1993 Vol. 48, No. 4, 450-453
[12]In a 1992 interview with Task Force member Paul Gebhard, who would also become the co-founder of the Sexual Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), he was questioned about data obtained by the Kinsey Institute related to the sexuality of children as young as six years old. The Kinsey Institute had worked with pedophiles in order to gather information and had instructed the criminals to keep careful records of their “activities” for scientific purposes. The transcript of this interview reveals the ethical standards of Paul Gebhard.
Interviewer: “So, do pedophiles normally go around with stopwatches?”
Gebhard: “Ah, they do if we tell them we are interested in it!”
Interviewer: “And clearly, [the orgasms of] at least 188 children were timed with a stopwatch, according to…”
Gebhard: “So, second hand or stopwatch. O.k., well, that’s, ah, you refreshed my memory. I had no idea that there were that many.”
Interviewer: “These experiments by pedophiles were presumably illegal?”
Gebhard: “Oh yes.”
[13] John Money, who served on the board of NIMH along with Hooker and Gebhard, was a psychologist from Johns Hopkins and an early (but later discredited and fired) proponent of transsexual surgery. John Money would ultimately come to be known for fully destroying a male infant’s penis after a botched circumcision. After which, Money put the boy, David Reimer, on female hormones, told his parents to raise him as a female, and purported to have “reassigned” his gender. Money did this in a grotesque and hideous attempt to prove his “theory” that gender is socially constructed at an early age, and usually fixed in later life. John Money was wrong. While being “treated” in his early years David Reimer told his parents that Money had been abusing him and refused to see Money after the age of fourteen. David then immediately re-transitioned into a male gender role and later underwent reconstructive surgery. David did his best to live a normal adult male life. David Reimer married a woman with two of her own children, but eventually the psychological scars, left by John Money and his abuse would prove to be more than Reimer could bear. On May 4, 2004, David Reimer committed suicide at the age of 38. Despite Money’s horrific acts, he received the Magnus Hirschfield Medal in 2002 from the German Society for Social Scientific Sexuality Research, for whom he worked. Money used his “authoritative” title as a “psychologist” to get away with his hideous crimes, and the public, it seems, placed blind trust in him for his title.
[14]R. Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnoses. (New York: Basic Books, 1981), p.102.
[15] R. Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnoses. Princeton: Princeton University Press (1987), p.104.
[16]The Gay Militants, by Donn Teal, p.272-273
[17]Ibid., p.274
[18]ibid p.275
[19]Ibid., 275
[20]Ibid., pp.276-280
[21] Advocate; 11/11/70, Vol. 4 Issue 19, p1, 3p
[23] R. Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnoses. Princeton: Princeton University Press (1987), p.104.
[24]R. Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnoses. Princeton: Princeton University Press (1987), p.104.
[25]R. Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnoses. Princeton: Princeton University Press (1987), p.104.
[26] Letter from Franklyn Kameny to Peter LeBarbara, May 31, 2008,’t-mind.html
[27]R. Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnoses. Princeton: Princeton University Press (1987), p.104.
[28]The Gay Crusaders, by Kay Tobin and Randy Wicker, p. 98
[29]Newsweek, 8-23-71, p.47
[30]Newsweek, 8-23-71, p.47
[31]R. Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnoses. Princeton: Princeton University Press (1987), p.106.
[32]R. Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnoses. Princeton: Princeton University Press (1987), p.104.
[33]R. Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnoses. Princeton: Princeton University Press (1987), p.107.
[34]The Gay Crusaders, p. 130-131
[35] Making History: The Struggle for Gay and Lesbian Equal Rights, 1945-1990: an Oral History by Eric Marcus p.216-217 (–Author Marcus has worked as an associate producer for “CBS This Morning” and “Good Morning America.”)
[36] Making History: The Struggle for Gay and Lesbian Equal Rights, 1945-1990: an Oral History by Eric Marcus p.221
[37] ibid, p.8
[38]R. Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnoses. Princeton: Princeton University Press (1987), p.107. 
[39]R. Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnoses. Princeton: Princeton University Press (1987), p.108. 
[40] The Advocate ------------------------------From book Straight News: GET QUOTE
[41]Edward Alwood, Straight News: Gays, Lesbians, and the News Media
ColumbiaUniversity Press, (1998), p. 127
[42]Edward Alwood, Straight News: Gays, Lesbians, and the News Media
ColumbiaUniversity Press, (1998), p. 127
[43] This is Alwoods footnote from Straight News page 127 number 22
[44]R. Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnoses. Princeton: Princeton University Press (1987), p.113.
[45] --------
[47] -------
[48] -------
[49]R. Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnoses. Princeton: Princeton University Press (1987), p.113.
[50]Edward Alwood, Straight News: Gays, Lesbians, and the News Media
ColumbiaUniversity Press, (1998), p. 127
[51]Edward Alwood, Straight News: Gays, Lesbians, and the News Media
ColumbiaUniversity Press, (1998), p. 127
[52]Edward Alwood, Straight News: Gays, Lesbians, and the News Media
ColumbiaUniversity Press, (1998), p. 127

[53]Alfred M. Freedman M.D. Psychiatric News, September 2001, Recalling APA’s Historic Step,
[54]R. Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnoses. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press (1987), pg. 150
[58]Newsweek, 21 May 1973
[60] Wardell. B. Pomeroy, Dr. Kinsey and the Institute for Sex Research., New York: Harper and Row (1972)
[61] Robins, E. and Saghir, M.T. Male and female homosexuality: natural history. Comprehensive psychiatry [0010-440x] 6,12:503 (1971)
[62] E.g., Personal E-mail to Kathleen Melonakos, M.A., R.N., dated February 5, 2002.
[63]R. Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnoses. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press (1987), pp 3-4
[64]Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry, 138.

[66]Love Undetectable, Andrew Sullivan, 1998, p. 107
[67]The Advocate, 12-28-93, p.40
[68]The Long Road to Freedom, ed. by Mark Thompsan 1994, p.97
[69]A. Dean Byrd, http: // accessed August 6, 2010, summarizing material from Rogers H. Wright and Nicholas A. Cummings, eds.. DESTRUCTIVE Trends in Mental Health: The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm (New York: Routledge, 2005), 9. 
[70] Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry, 145.
[71]The Long Road to Freedom, ed. by Mark Thompsan 1994, p.104
[72] Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry, 145.
[73]The Long Road to Freedom, ed. by Mark Thompsan1994, p. 105-106
[75] R. Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnoses. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity Press (1987), pp 3-4
[76]Making History, p.224
[77]Gay American History, by Jonathan Ned Katz, 1992, p.427. This interview was taped July 19, 1974
[78]The Long Road to Freedom, pp.115
[79]The Long Road to Freedom, pp.214
[80]R. Bayer, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnoses. Princeton: Princeton University Press (1987), pg 167
[81]Bayer, op. cit., p.171
[82]Bayer, op. cit., p.174
[83]Bayer, op. cit., p.175-176
[84]Bayer, op. cit., p.176
[85]Bayer, op. cit., p.172
Blogger Widgets